Preparing Special Education Higher Education Faculty

Abstract

There is a well-documented need for leadership personnel who are prepared at the doctoral level to fill special education faculty positions at institutions of higher education (IHEs) and train the next generation of teachers. The intersection of continued retirements of special education faculty, shortage of well-prepared special education faculty to fill those positions, and changing preK-12 student demographics provides unique challenges to special education doctoral leadership preparation programs. Although a variety of variables influence special educator preparation in 21st-century schools, five contemporary issues (i.e., changing roles, evolving diversity, need for funding support, situating doctoral trainees in teacher training, and training delivery models) rise to a level highly relevant to special educator preparation at the doctoral level. In this article, the authors explore this complex landscape and offer policy recommendations to strengthen and update special education higher education leadership preparation.

Keywords

special education doctoral training higher education faculty education policy

Continued shortages of doctoral-level special education faculty, large numbers of current special education faculty retirements, external pressures placed on current doctoral training delivery models and funding, and changing preK-12 student demographics provide unique challenges to institutions of higher education (IHEs) faculty preparation programs. For many years, there has been a well-documented need for leadership personnel who are prepared at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels to fill higher education faculty special education positions (see Smith, Montrosse, Robb, Tyler, & Young, 2011; Smith, Pion, & Tyler, 2004; Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010; Woods & Snyder, 2009).

Although the field has faced a consistent shortage of faculty, the predicted supply/demand imbalance is of historic proportions. To meet projected demand, the nation’s doctoral programs will need to produce over six times the current number of SE [special education] doctoral graduates . . . Unless abated, this shortage will impair the field’s capacity to generate new knowledge and produce a sufficient number of higher education faculty who can in turn produce enough well-prepared teachers to meet the needs of students with disabilities and their families (Smith, Montrosse, Robb, Typer, & Young, 2011, p. 38).

This changing landscape in the preparation of special educators is affecting all levels at the intersection of continued shortages and perspective of effective preparation. Although a variety of variables influence educator preparation in 21st-century schools, five contemporary issues rise to a level highly relevant to special educator preparation at the doctoral level.

Although not all-inclusive, five issues collectively represent a macro-view of challenges facing IHEs as they reposition themselves for the future training of preK-12 special educators: (a) changing roles—doctoral faculty today assume increased and/or different roles in research, teaching, and service; (b) evolving diversity—influences of multiple languages and diverse cultures affect both the education of preK-12 educators and their preparation; (c) increasing funding—a significant point of discussion in society today is how to make higher education more affordable, and doctoral-level special educator preparation has a place within these discussions; (d) situating PhDs—educator preparation contributions of, and need for, professionals with doctoral-level training is currently under increased scrutiny; and (e) delivering training—multiple forms of delivery exist for preparing doctorates with continued concerns among professionals in the use of online versus on-site preparation models. Individually, each of these five issues requires contemporary solutions; however, neglect of one or more of these issues contributes to a preparation environment that fails to collectively recognize both political and social forces at work regarding special educator training. (See Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Contemporary issues and doctoral-level preparation.

In this article, we examined each of these contemporary issues for the purpose of advancing the dialogue about practice and possible solutions for best preparing special educators at the doctoral level, which is currently being challenged and reshaped by the 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Evidence of shortages of highly effective special educators continues to exist at all levels of training and service delivery (e.g., rural school systems, preK-12 urban high-poverty schools, IHEs, etc.) with several frequently discussed alternative preparation options (e.g., Teach for America, educator training academies, school district-based endorsement programs, etc.). Central to these discussions is the need for clarification of the overall IHE structures and practice, relative to the five issues discussed in the article, to preparing future preK-12 special educators. Ideally, our discussion will assist policy makers as they create guidelines and funding opportunities that will affect the needed critical preparation of future special education higher education faculty.

The Changing Roles

Historically, the IHE faculty role is one that blends the three features of research, teaching, and service into one position with varying degrees of emphasis depending on the type, mission, and purpose of the college or university (e.g., Tier 1 research, teacher preparation focus, etc.). Moreover, though these three features remain essential to the success of IHE faculty, select contemporary events, laws, or political perspectives necessitate the re-examination of existing IHE special education doctoral preparation to make certain future educator preparation faculty are best prepared for potential changing roles and responsibilities. For example, future faculty may be required to (a) engage in increased publishing even though the primary mission is teacher preparation, (b) incorporate contemporary technology (e.g., use of iPads, course flipping) into teaching and research, (c) generate and secure grant funds, or (d) develop and deliver online coursework, modules, and professional development.

In many of today’s IHE doctoral preparation environments, these and similar skill set expectations are typically the “rule” rather than the exception for newly conferred doctoral professionals. In addition, perhaps the most critical influence of IHE special education doctoral preparation seen in today’s environment is clarification of how a professional with a PhD fits into contemporary educator preparation (see subsequent section for discussion of this topic). Several years ago, Smith et al. (2010) discussed the changing role of special education leadership resulting from increased expectations on learner performance “because of national concerns about the overall achievement results of all students” (p. 25), leading to a potential greater emphasis on value-added modeling and analysis skill sets (Briggs & Domingue, 2011; Yuan, 2015).

To best prepare future doctoral special education candidates, one question requires contemporary consideration and resolution: To what extent is the existing special education doctoral preparation program adequately preparing candidates for 21st-century teaching and research demands, expectations, and qualifications? For example, some faculty must instruct in several face-to-face courses as well as international or distance learning programs. In addition, for some institutions as state funding, reductions in credit-hour production, and related financial constraints exist faculty may see increases in responsibilities not previously experienced such as directing both undergraduate and graduate research projects, supervising undergraduate and graduate field internships, increased advising numbers, or serving on additional master and doctoral committees.

In almost all IHE types and levels of training, effectiveness in teaching is an essential criterion for advancement in most faculty appointments. As teaching effectiveness data about faculty continue to be readily accessible to students online, the more successful faculty are effective communicators (Ginsberg, 2007) and skilled at clearly showing students a match between course assessments with observable and measurable student learning outcomes. Continued advancement within the field such as special education research, evidence-based practice, multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), or assessment for eligibility requires new faculty to engage in life-long learning to remain current with subject matter and associated skill sets. Maintaining a contemporary perspective becomes especially challenging for today’s faculty as additional duties and responsibilities are assumed such as those described above.

In regard to preparation to become effective educator preparers, doctoral students should continue to receive guided and structured support when implementing teaching responsibilities. Within the parameters of increased responsibilities, doctoral candidates require supervision from a faculty member, who provides necessary and valuable supports to the planning and teaching of IHE special education courses along with ways to evaluate students. In addition, traditional end-of-semester course evaluations are being replaced with more student-centered instruments such as students’ self-assessment of their own learning gains. This evaluation practice highlights the challenge to new faculty to incorporate into their instruction more active, contemporary, and technological methods to instruct new generations of students who come to college with extensive backgrounds and experiences in using social media as one of their primary platforms for sharing and acquiring new information.

Thus, a need exists to train doctoral candidates in new pedagogies utilizing active learning and contemporary educational technology, including, in some instances, team-taught interdisciplinary courses delivered across multiple online platforms (blackboard, D2L, etc.).

In regard to research and doctoral preparation, professionals at the Institute of Education Science (IES, U.S. Department of Education, 2008) wrote that our nation has an ongoing need to “increase the supply of scientists and researchers in education who are prepared to conduct rigorous education research” (p. 11). Therefore, no matter in which level or type of IHE new special education doctoral professionals find themselves, they must be able to design research studies using a variety of appropriate methodologies, applying at least a minimum level of expertise necessary to move the science of special education research forward by advancing the knowledge base and increasing the quantity of evidence-based practices. Such knowledge is especially desirable to IHEs in today’s financial environments because increased expectations are being placed on faculty to secure research and training grant dollars to improve credit-hour production and one’s research agenda.

Evidence-based practice, research, and grant writing are also necessary skill sets to provide service to the community, which is the third essential feature in a comprehensive special education faculty position. The contemporary emphasis on parent–school–community engagement is seen at all levels of educator preparation and must become more integral to effective special education doctoral preparation.

Overall, possessing the knowledge and skills needed to conduct high-quality research and deliver quality teacher preparation enables faculty members to (a) generate new knowledge and practices, (b) advance the field of special education, and (c) improve the lives of special education students and their teachers. As a result of the many demands placed on doctoral students discussed above, IHE doctoral preparation programs must continue to assist candidates to appropriately balance institutional and professional service along with teaching and research to best meet the contemporary needs of today’s students, teachers, and communities.

Embedded within changing roles and responsibilities of special education faculty is the need to attend to the changing demographics of our diverse preK-12 student populations, requiring examination of an increased emphasis on cultural and linguistic diverse climates, coursework, and training as discussed in the following section.

Evolving Diversity

The diversity of our student population in both society and schools continues to evolve to the level that requires educator preparation programs to revisit training practices, areas of emphasis, and curriculum. Over the past few decades, the number of students representing diverse cultures and associated languages (i.e., culturally and linguistically diverse learners) has increased significantly (see Aceves & Orosco, 2014; Fernandez & Inserra, 2013; Orosco, de Schonewise, de Onis, Klingner, & Hoover, 2016; Watkins & Liu, 2013), creating unique challenges for special education classroom teachers and IHE professionals charged with their educator preparation. Important to consider is the reality that language is interconnected with culture, and as students with disabilities bring a second language to the classroom, they are also bringing their cultural values, teachings, and heritages that directly affect teaching, learning, and assessment (Hoover & Bartletta, 2016). As required in all OSEP (Office of Special Education Program) projects, IHEs must adhere to procedures and practices that encourage diversity in candidate recruitment and retention, which include doctoral candidates.

Diversity among teacher preparation faculty will result from improved efforts to secure more diverse doctoral candidate recruitment pools. This, in turn, contributes to increased diversity in the preparation of a culturally responsive teacher workforce commensurate with ever-changing student demographics. Similar to best practices we use to train preK-12 teachers to deliver appropriate education to students using culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learning contexts, materials, and activities (e.g., role of first language/culture in education, understanding own cultural competence, delivery of evidence-based methods appropriate for CLD learners, etc.), the need exists for IHEs to continue to evolve in their cultural responsiveness. A culturally responsive IHE sets positive examples for its faculty charged with the task of preparing future teachers to meet diverse needs in today’s school and society. Although culturally responsive learning contexts and activities are typically situated within preK-12 teacher education experiences and associated classroom instruction, similar features reflect a culturally responsive IHE environment. That is, faculty teacher educators need to possess and exhibit cultural competence in their practices when training preK-12 teachers (i.e., become culturally responsive teacher trainers).

A culturally responsive special education IHE department provides its doctoral candidates with faculty, experiences, and an environment that promote and represent diversity consistent with that which we expect of the teachers we prepare for preK-12 education. Gay (2013) discussed the challenge of addressing the range of views that faculty teacher educators often possess about the role of cultural diversity in education. Furthermore, many examples found useful in teacher development are also appropriate for development and/or enhancement of a culturally responsive IHE, including (a) critiquing course materials and resources on a periodic basis; (b) incorporating inclusive practice into IHE coursework and experiences; (c) facilitating cultural reciprocity (Harry, Kalyanpur, & Day, 1999; Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012; Wagner, 2001), in which educators self-reflect and share, exchange information, experiences, and perspectives in a safe and non-threatening environment; (d) providing orientation to new faculty highlighting local/regional multicultural issues; or (e) implementing a mentoring program that pairs faculty with diverse students who meet on a periodic basis (e.g., once per month, every 3 weeks), in which support and advisement are provided in non-evaluative ways (Gallagher, DiGiorgio, Bennett, & Antle, 2008; Gay, 2013; Prater & Devereaux, 2009).

A culturally responsive special education IHE program is better situated to attract and retain diversity in its doctoral candidates. The contemporary perspective that diversity exists in preK-12 student populations requiring a more diverse teacher workforce naturally leads to the understanding that faculty teacher educators also require cultural competence to best prepare preK-12 educators. In summary, policy implications reflecting the evolving diversity in our schools and society include ensuring that (a) IHE doctoral candidate recruitment pools represent diverse populations, (b) the IHE culture of learning is responsive to, and reflective of, diversity for prospective doctoral candidates, and (c) ongoing, periodic revisions of IHE curricula exist to address the changing cultural and linguistic educational qualities of the preK-12 diverse student demographics.

Increasing Funding

In this section, we make the argument that the critical and fundamental contribution of federal funding of leadership preparation over time is that it builds a core infrastructure for special education training by creating the capacity for research and preparation to sustain and ground the field of special education. Funding for leadership preparation has contributed to the creation of programs and directly ties teacher preparation to research. A large number of the special education leaders today were prepared with the support of federal funding (see Higher Education Consortium of Special Educators membership list; http://www.hecse.net/). Past federal funding has laid the foundation for the field as it assists in generating the future researchers and teacher educators.

Federal support for preparation of personnel to provide special education and related services to students with disabilities is not new; it was initiated in 1958, when P.L. 85-926 authorized use of discretionary funds for preparing personnel to provide leadership in mental retardation (Kleinhammer-Tramill & Fiore, 2003). Currently, OSEP offers funding opportunities that support the preparation of doctoral-level leadership personnel. There are discretionary grants awarded to IHE organizations through a competitive process (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). As Kleinhammer-Tramill, Tramill, and Brace (2010) explained, “The primary strategy for ensuring that the program is responsive to current needs at a given point in time—in effect the government’s primary policy tool—is to establish priorities for the distribution of federal funds” (p. 195).

Universities with federally funded special education doctoral training programs produce leadership personnel who will have the skills and competencies to prepare the next generation of teacher educators and to conduct the research needed to determine best practices. As Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, and Rosenberg (2001) in their study on special education faculty shortage articulated, there is tremendous significance in the federal government’s role in the infrastructure of doctoral leadership preparation. This premise still holds true 15 years later, since without federal dollars, there would be a clear negative impact on each state’s ability to provide free appropriate public education to students identified as in need of special education and their families. As West and Hardman (2012) stated, “The 2001 study established an indisputable link between the shortage of special education faculty in universities and colleges and the pervasive shortage of special education teachers” (p. 155). It is imperative that a sufficient supply of doctoral graduates be trained to replenish those faculty who are retiring (Smith et al., 2010). Smith and Montrosse (2012) suggested that although the number of doctoral preparation programs graduating funded scholars increased between 2002 and 2012, the programs producing the graduates are projected to lose more than half of their faculty due to retirement in the next 5 years. Montrosse and Young (2012) suggested that “retirements across all special education programs (i.e., doctoral and teacher education combined) are predicted to increase by 21% per year between 2011 and 2017” (p. 149). To fill this gap, special education doctoral programs will need to produce more than 6 times the number of current graduates a year. In addition, of the current graduates, only half enter academe (Smith montross, Robb Tyler and Young, 2011), calling into question the extent to which our current supply can meet the predicted demand (Montrosse & Young, 2012). Over the past decade, the federal government has funded fewer doctoral training programs nationally, and if this trend continues and the capacity of doctoral programs shrinks in the number of graduates per program, the entire supply chain will be negatively affected. The implications in terms of policy directions are discussed in a later section.

Situating PhDs

Delivery of educator preparation licensure and endorsement at the preK-12 level has traditionally been situated primarily in IHEs. As previously indicated, however, the ability of educator preparation programs to produce highly effective teachers has become an issue of national concern, putting into question the value, role, and need for PhD-level educators in the training of teachers (Worrell et al., 2014). Therefore, a fundamental question challenging IHEs is as follows: Why is it necessary to have PhD-level educators prepare preK-12 classroom teachers? To respond to this question, the value of what an educator with a doctorate brings to educator preparation needs to be examined, relative to skills required of the prepared teacher. Although several possible value-added features exist, one of the most relevant preparation skills possessed by doctoral-level trained special educators is the ability to prepare teachers as researchers.

For many years, educators have discussed the importance of teachers possessing research-based skill sets to become effective educators (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Goodnough, 2011; Lynch & Sell, 2014; Mohr, 1980). Specifically, “Teachers who practice teacher research find that it expands and enriches their teaching skills” (Painter, n.d.). Researchers investigating effects of teachers as researchers document positive effects on teaching (Edwards & Burns, 2016) and is transformative in nature (Borg, 2010). In the 21st-century schools and classrooms, teachers’ application of research skills in teaching and learning is still considered important and necessary. Teachers as researchers are best prepared to deliver some of the most important instructional practices discussed in contemporary educational research journals such as (a) selecting evidence-based methods, (b) implementing research-based instruction, (c) engaging in research-based data collection procedures, (d) analyzing student data, and (e) making informed research-based instructional adjustments. Collectively, these “teacher as researcher” skill sets situate classroom teachers to best deliver instruction to all learners in today’s schools. Moreover, these skill sets, which are essential and unique components of any effective doctoral training program, frame one important aspect in the development of special education doctoral-level educators.

Therefore, at minimum, doctoral-level trained educators provide a highly valuable and unique contribution to educator preparation through delivery of expertise pertaining to teacher as researcher skills. Future IHE preparation should ensure continued emphasis on developing teacher as researcher skill sets in its special education doctoral candidates, who in turn incorporate this highly specialized knowledge into their future preK-12 teacher preparation. Additional contributions of highly trained special education doctoral-level candidates in preK-12 educator preparation should be identified and articulated by IHEs, through continued discourse and research into this challenging and potentially controversial national topic.

Delivering Training

The characteristics of doctoral training programs in special education have evolved to address current realities that define the discipline in critical domains for essential leadership skills to be demonstrated, including knowledge production and dissemination, personnel preparation that extends to ongoing professional development, and policy/advocacy expertise or professional practice. The emphasis on research-based or evidence-based practices has reinforced the need to prepare doctoral graduates with current research skills, including facility with both quantitative and qualitative designs to discriminate effective from marginal or ineffective practices. The similarities in program structures are much greater than the differences among doctoral-level preparation institutions across the country that prepare special education professionals for leadership roles as university faculty members, administrators, researchers, and other leadership positions in the field of special education.

Doctoral-level preparation in special education is predicated on the critical context of leadership training experiences that are embedded within the culture of higher education (i.e., the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of the professoriate). Christensen and Eyring (2011) highlighted the intensive scrutiny being placed on universities to maintain reputational excellence while achieving greater efficiencies, citing the banking industry as an entrenched institution just decades ago that has been reinvented through managerial innovation and agility. Stephenson and Yorke (2012) identified this challenge within the context of higher education as the commitment to the quality of outcomes that benefit from increased capabilities to support student autonomy in learning. The needs of post-graduate students continue to reflect a strong preference for hybrid and online degree programs of high quality that support convenience provided by graduate programs that now account for more than 60% of all online course enrollments (Babson Survey Research Group, 2016). Poulin and Straut (2016) report significant trends for increases in online graduate enrollments over the past 5 years at the same time that overall enrollments are decreasing.

In 2004, in response to a request from OSEP, Higher Education Consortium for Special Education (HECSE) provided guidelines for use in considering leadership competition applications. These recommendations delineate the criteria and process considerations for the development, review, and funding of federally supported doctoral preparation projects in special education. More recently, HECSE, Leadership Quality Indicator Subcommittee (2014) created a set of quality indicators (i.e., the demonstration of identified knowledge and skills from a given course of instruction) for preparation of leadership personnel in special education that included the following: (a) a quality program is grounded in a mission statement that addresses both process and product elements that contribute to clearly defined roles and functions of program graduates that meet identified needs; (b) a quality program has clearly defined competencies related to teaching and/or administration, research, and service roles that are grounded in foundational literature, research-based practice, and evaluation methods for the use of data; and (c) a quality program develops independent scholars through supported experiences in the areas of research, teaching/administration, and service.

In developing the quality indicators, HECSE intended to aid doctoral programs, OSEP, and other funding agencies to evaluate the quality of specific programs, whether they were university doctoral preparation programs provided through traditional in-person approaches, fully online models that provided for acquisition of all program elements at a distance, or through the use of a combination (i.e., hybrid strategies) that provided elements of both. The concern for doctoral program quality is separated from the manner in which preparation programs are provided. A rigorous meta-analysis of more than 1,000 experimental studies comparing online with face-to-face learning approaches revealed better outcomes for the online condition (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The study revealed

the corpus of 51 effect sizes extracted from 46 studies meeting these criteria was sufficient to demonstrate that in recent applications, online learning has been modestly more effective, on average, than the traditional face-to-face instruction with which it has been compared. (U.S. Department of Education, 2009, p. 51)

Further discussion and clarification is needed, however, and much controversy exists today around (a) how “better outcomes” are defined and (b) what are examples of the 51 independent effects? As we move forward, discussion on delivery of doctoral training must consider how to prepare and evaluate quality programs—both online and face-to-face.

The planning and resources required for effective instruction and support to students are equally important to online and face-to-face instructional deliveries. The planning and structure of an online course is as critical for students to demonstrate successful performance in a doctoral program of study as the need to provide effectively designed bicycles to competitive cyclists. The requirement for elite athletes to utilize state-of-the-art bicycle technology for optimal performance outcomes is analogous to the necessity of superior instructional design technology for doctoral scholars to demonstrate academic excellence. Quality Matters (Adair & Shattuck, 2015; Shattuck, 2015) is one approach to an instructional design rubric that promotes adoption of research-informed, tested design quality standards for online courses and the online components of blended courses. The eight factors that are analyzed and developed within the organization and design of online or hybrid courses through the Quality Matters framework include (a) course overview and introduction, (b) learning objectives or competencies, (c) assessment and measurement, (d) instructional materials, (e) course activities and learner interaction, (f) course technology, (g) learner support, and (h) accessibility and usability. These factors are applied to classes delivered through fully online formats, as well as those that are provided through hybrid or blended approaches that may provide between 25% and 75% of all instruction online. Are these quality standards also incorporated into on-site courses? There is much more scrutiny of syllabi at the higher level today from outside agencies (e.g., National Council on Teacher Quality)

The efficacy and evidence-based nature of successful online learning has been documented through a variety of beneficial outcomes. Among these are findings that demonstrate online classes are more successful in supporting deep learning when characterized by a community of inquiry and the positive impacts of collaborative learning (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Burkle and Cleveland-Innes (2013) provided beneficial research-based outcomes (e.g., active engagement for learning, increased response opportunities, and more in-depth responses to questions) regarding accessibility and inclusivity. Collins and Galyon-Keramidas (2006) identified critical components of effective online course design and execution that are positively correlated with successful outcomes. The necessity of detailed planning that includes course format and technology decisions is a basic provision that takes place prior to the start of any course. Effective planning also includes attention to identification of team members and team roles, accessibility considerations for all learners, and careful construction of the online delivery platform. The guiding purpose for these efforts is to ensure access on three critical dimensions: (a) student–content interactions, (b) student–student interactions, and (c) student–professor interactions.

The evidence-based nature of these commitments to interactions among content, learner, and instructor ensures positive outcomes on the critical dimension of social presence. Tu and McIsaac (2002) defined social presence as “a measure of the feeling of community that a learner experiences in an online environment” (p. 249). Although researchers do not agree on a clear definition, what remains clear is the significance of social presence for improving instructional outcomes across delivery approaches, and the phenomenon is critical to the success of online and blended hybrid-delivered doctoral programs. The ability to establish a beneficial community of learners contributes to positive outcomes through systematic attention to associated variables such as (a) timely response, (b) communication styles, (c) length of messages, (d) formal/informal interactions, (e) type of task (e.g., strategic, creative, social), (f) size of class, and (g) communication strategies.

The ability to conduct effective evaluation of doctoral preparation programs relies on established research and evaluation methods. The process for evaluating face-to face, online, or blended hybrid-delivered doctoral degree programs hinges on the application of instructional design principles. The key considerations for comparability are the clarity of course expectations, responsiveness to student questions or concerns, timeliness of feedback on assignments or projects, and the connectivity that contributes to social presence resulting in a positive community of learners. Mertens (2008) described a variety of evaluation paradigms that can be applied to the considerations regarding the efficacy of teaching and learning approaches. A transformative paradigm of program evaluation addresses issues of power and representativeness of respondents through a variety of approaches, although one that is most relevant for assessing the impact of program delivery approaches is participatory evaluation. The attention to consumer satisfaction measures as determined by course evaluation surveys and questionnaires are routine in doctoral programs. The determination of doctoral student competencies and other performance demonstrations is expected through accreditation processes and the expectations of professional associations and organizations that employ doctoral program graduates. Finally, the determination of employment outcomes and professional impact is a longer term evaluation measure that extends over the course of doctoral graduates’ careers.

The concern for a diminished quality of doctoral program preparation experience as a function of different delivery approaches is not substantiated in the current research and evaluation literature. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000) had investigated this over time with attention to the various camps that have emerged with contradictory viewpoints on the relative merits and value of different delivery models. Proponents of online programs see the increasing numbers of online programs as a solution to reducing the cost, increasing the convenience, and promoting increased access to doctoral program opportunities. In addition, the emerging demands for higher education faculty to demonstrate technologically based or enhanced competencies in the areas of instruction, supervision, research, and service further support this trend (Christensen & Eyring, 2011; Poulin & Straut, 2016). This trend is controversial, however, as many in the field of special education take an opposite position, suggesting that online learning can never be the equivalent of in-person instruction provided at a bricks and mortar institution with all the trappings of traditional academe. Although still to be resolved, the incorporation of online delivery of IHE special education doctoral preparation is occurring, and we need additional research to clearly determine its long-term success.

Recommendations

Changing roles, evolving diversity, increasing funding, situating PhDs, and delivering training have immediate implications for the preparation of future special education IHE faculty. To best prepare future IHE faculty to prepare preK-12 educators successfully for instruction in today’s culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, special education doctoral preparation programs should, at minimum, incorporate the following policy and practice recommendations. These recommendations, not provided in any particular priority order, include the following:

Doctoral programs should be continuously evaluated, with judicious input from practicing educators in the field, based on rigorous criteria that include performance demonstrations of expected doctoral scholar competencies.

The performance-based expectations for special education doctoral program graduates should include emerging roles of higher education faculty members that are aligned with preK-12 teacher educator’s expectations such as ongoing assessment, continuous improvement, and individualized and differentiated educational approaches that address results driven accountability for teachers and learners.

The determining factor for measuring competency of doctoral-level graduates should be the demonstration of required outcomes and competencies rather than the delivery system used.

The funding for special education leadership projects should be substantially increased to ensure an adequate supply of high-quality leadership personnel.

Special education doctoral programs must prepare scholars for a variety of technology-rich experiences (e.g., teaching online, supervising teacher candidates at a distance in real time, demonstrating best practices in technology-based instructional innovations, etc.).

Recruitment strategies should be created to identify an adequate pool of doctoral candidates that reflects the demographics of the changing preK-12 student population.

Special education doctoral program providers must promote an institutional culture that reflects a culturally responsive atmosphere with appropriate supports to assist in retaining qualified diverse doctoral candidates.

Policy makers should carefully monitor the supply and demand for special education doctoral-level graduates to ensure that an adequate supply of high-quality faculty is being prepared to address ongoing critical shortages.

Summary

The need for leadership personnel prepared at the doctoral level to fill special education faculty positions at IHEs and have the skill sets necessary to train the next generation of preK-12 teachers is at a critical point in time. Specifically, attention to the changing roles of special education faculty, including how to be situated in future preK-12 education preparation; ensuring IHE cultural diversity in faculty, coursework, and related supports; evolving changes in special education funding priorities and allocation; and emerging doctoral program online delivery systems to meet the changing needs and demographics of special education doctoral candidates is required to further advance the dialogue and solutions generation for the education of preK-12 students with disabilities and their families and communities. It is crucial that all interested parties reflect upon, establish, and move forward on the set of policy and practice recommendations outlined in this article, especially in light of the current challenges and opportunities that have been identified.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Laurie U. deBettencourt, is a professor and department chair in special education in the School of Education at the Johns Hopkins University. Her research interests include preparing preservice special educators to use evidence based practices and become reflective practitioners and the supply and demand of special education leaders.

John J. Hoover is an associate research professor of multicultural special education in the School of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. His research interests include referral and assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse learners, MTSS, and graduate level special educator preparation.

Harvey A. Rude is a professor and director of the School of Special Education at the University of Northern Colorado, where he also serves as director of the Bresnahan-Halstead Center on Disabilities. His research interests include American Indian education, educator effectiveness, leadership, and systems of accountability.

Shanon S. Taylor is an associate professor and coordinator of the Special Education Program in the College of Education at the University of Nevada Reno. Her research interests include special education teacher preparation, behavior management, and doctoral education.

References

Aceves

T. C.

Orosco

M. J.

(2014). Culturally responsive teaching (Document No. IC-2). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Adair

Shattuck

(2015). Quality matters: An educational input in an ongoing design-based research project. American Journal of Distance Education, 29, 159-165. doi:10.1080/08923647.2015.1057094

Babson Survey Research Group. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Borg

(2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43, 391-429.

Briggs

Domingue

(2011). Due diligence and the evaluation of teachers: A review of the value-added analysis underlying the effectiveness rankings of Los Angeles Unified school district teachers by the Los Angeles Times. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/due-diligence

Burkle

Cleveland-Innes

(2013). Defining the role adjustment profile of learners and instructors online. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17, 73-87.

Christensen

J. M.

Eyring

H. J.

(2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cochran-Smith

Lytle

S. L.

(2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Collins

B. C.

Galyon-Keramidas

(2006). Planning and delivering online instruction. In Ludlow

B. L.

Collins

B. C.

Menlove

R. R.

(Eds.), Online instruction for distance education delivery (pp. 43-75). Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Trafford.

10.

Edwards

Burns

(2016). Language teacher action research: Achieving sustainability. English Language Teaching Journal, 70, 6-15.

11.

Fernandez

Inserra

(2013). Disproportionate classification of ESL students in U.S. special education. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 17(2), 1-22.

12.

Gallagher

T. L.

DiGiorgio

Bennett

Antle

(2008). Understanding disability and culture while enhancing advocacy. Teaching & Learning, 5, 30-36.

13.

Gay

(2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 48-70.

14.

Ginsberg

S. M.

(2007). Shared characteristics of college faculty who are effective communicators. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(2), 3-20.

15.

Goodnough

(2011). Examining the long-term impact of collaborative action research on teacher identity and practice: The perceptions of K-12 teachers. Educational Action Research, 19, 73-86.

16.

Harry

Kalyanpur

Day

(1999). Building cultural reciprocity with families. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.

17.

Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, Leadership Quality Indicator Subcommittee. (2014). Quality indicators for preparation of leadership personnel in special education. Retrieved from http://static1.squarespace.com/static/534e8bcde4b06285ac58d2c2/t/53612ec0e4b08cab3cb74ce9/1398877888046/HECSEQualityIndicators14.pdf

18.

Hoover

J. J.

Barletta

L. M.

(2016). Special education assessment of ELs. In Hoover

J. J.

Baca

L. M.

Klingner

J. K.

(Eds.), Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 117-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

19.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: Author.

20.

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Rigor and relevance redux: Director’s biennial report to Congress (IES 2009-6010). Washington, DC: Author.

21.

Kalyanpur

Harry

(2012). Cultural reciprocity in special education: Building family-professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.

22.

Kleinhammer-Tramill

Fiore

T. A.

(2003). A history of federal support for preparing special educators and related services personnel to serve children and youth with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 217-229.

23.

Kleinhammer-Tramill

Tramill

Brace

(2010). Contexts, funding history, and implications for evaluating the Office of Special Education Program’s investment in personnel preparation. Journal of Special Education, 43, 195-205.

24.

Lynch

Sell

(2014). “The teacher as researcher” premise. In Sell

Lynch

(Eds.), The teacher as researcher: Case studies in educational research (pp. 11-25). Tarragindi, Australia: Oxford Global.

25.

Mertens

(2008). Transformative research and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Mohr

M. M.

(1980). The teacher as researcher. The Quarterly, 3, 4-6. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/1894

27.

Montrosse

B. E.

Young

C. J.

(2012). Market demand for special education faculty. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 140-153.

28.

Orosco

M. J.

de Schonewise

E. A.

de Onis

Klingner

J. K.

Hoover

J. J.

(2016). Distinguishing between language acquisition and learning disabilities among English language learners. In Klingner

J. K.

Hoover

J. J.

Baca

L. M.

(Eds.), Why do English language learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 7-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

29.

Painter

D. D.

(n.d.). Teacher research could change your practice. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/tools/17289.htm

30.

Poulin

Straut

(2016). WCET distance education enrollment report 2016. Retrieved from http://wcet.wiche.edu/initiatives/research/WCET-Distance-Education-Enrollment-Report-2016

31.

Prater

M. A.

Devereaux

T. H.

(2009). Culturally responsive training of teacher educators. Action in Teacher Education, 31(3), 19-27.

32.

Shattuck

(2015). Focusing research on quality matters. American Journal of Distance Education, 29, 155-158. doi:10.1080/08923647.2015.1061809

33.

Smith

D. D.

Montrosse

B. E.

(2012). Special education doctoral programs: A 10-year comparison of the suppliers of leadership personnel. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 101-113.

34.

Smith

D. D.

Montrosse

B. E.

Robb

S. M.

Tyler

N. C.

Young

(2011). Assessing trends in leadership: Special education’s capacity to produce a highly qualified workforce. Claremont, CA: IRIS@CGU, Claremont Graduate University.

35.

Smith

D. D.

Pion

G. M.

Tyler

N. C.

(2004). Leadership personnel in special education: Can persistent shortages be resolved? In Sorells

A. M.

Rieth

H. J.

Sindelar

P. T.

(Eds.), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability (pp. 258-276). New York, NY: Pearson.

36.

Smith

D. D.

Pion

G. M.

Tyler

N. C.

Sindelar

Rosenberg

(2001). The study of special education leadership personnel with particular attention to the professoriate: Leadership final report. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.

37.

Smith

D. D.

Robb

S. M.

West

Tyler

N. C.

(2010). The changing education landscape: How special education leadership preparation can make a difference for teachers and their students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 25-43.

38.

Smith

D. D.

Truong

Watson

Hartley

M. D.

Robb

S. M.

Gilmore

(2011). The federal role in the preparation of special education doctorates: An analysis of the office of special education programs’ leadership preparation initiative. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 267-282.

39.

Smith

D. D.

Young

Montrosse

Tyler

N. C.

Robb

S. M.

(2011). The impending shortage of special education faculty: A summary. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University. Retrieved from www.cgu.edu/sefna

40.

Stephenson

Yorke

(2012). Capability and quality in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.

41.

C. H.

McIsaac

(2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 131-150.

42.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Discretionary grants. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/discgrant.html

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

44.

Wagner

(2001). Cultural reciprocity aids collaboration with families. Retrieved from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e614.html

45.

Wang

Hannafin

M. J.

(2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5-23. doi:10.1007/BF02504682

46.

Watkins

Liu

K. K.

(2013). Who are English language learners with disabilities? [Feature Issue on Educating K-12 English Language Learners With Disabilities]. Impact, 26(1), 2-3.

47.

West

J. E.

Hardman

M. L.

(2012). Averting current and future special education faculty shortages: Policy implications and recommendations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 154-160.

48.

Woods

Snyder

(2009). Interdisciplinary doctoral leadership training in early intervention. Infants & Young Children, 22, 32-34.

49.

Worrell

Brabeck

Dwyer

Geisinger

Marx

Noell

Pianta

(2014). Assessing and evaluating teacher preparation programs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

50.

Yuan

(2015). A value-added study of teacher spillover effects across four core subjects in middle schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 1-24.