Blended Preparation in Early Childhood and Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education: Reflecting on the Past,Paving a Path Forward

Abstract

The movement toward collaborative models of preservice early childhood preparation, those that attempt to “blend” preparation for both early childhood education (ECE) and early intervention/early childhood special education (EI/ECSE), is entering its fourth decade. This position paper presents a historical analysis of the blended movement through a conceptual framework based on a social foundations perspective that highlights how sociopolitical and foundational influences have affected blended preparation over time. Although blended models were first explored as a means to reconceptualize early childhood preservice preparation for inclusion, the recommendations shared in this article center on the need to reconceptualize blended preparation itself. A call to action is proposed for the development of a robust research agenda and the strategic coordination of advocacy to ensure current and future blended preparation meets the needs of the increasingly diverse contexts, roles, and responsibilities of ECE and EI/ECSE practitioners.

Keywords

blended preparation personnel preparation early childhood education early intervention/early childhood special education teacher preparation for inclusion collaborative models of preparation

Inclusive models of service delivery for children at risk for or with disabilities have significantly increased in prevalence over time (McLeskey et al., 2012; Williamson et al., 2020), and teacher education has long been described as central to achieving inclusive educational practices (Ainscow, 2003). However, despite ongoing efforts to develop teacher education that effectively prepares teachers for inclusive contexts, adequate preparation continues to be elusive (Chang et al., 2005; Dinnebeil et al., 1998; Pugach et al., 2011). Although the response by institutions of higher education (IHEs) has been disjointed (Pugach et al., 2012), ongoing collaboration between general and special education preparation programs has been encouraged as a means to disrupt norms of separation (Blanton et al., 2018) that perpetuate not only separate preparation programs but also separate educational experiences for children.

Collaborative models of early childhood preparation emerged as an attempt to reconceptualize preservice curricula to promote the attitudes, knowledge, and skills necessary for inclusive services (Kemple et al., 1994; Miller & Stayton, 1998; Stayton & Miller, 1993). Historical rationale has centered on the belief that this approach will lead to graduates who are better prepared to provide quality inclusive education for diverse student populations (Piper, 2007; Pugach et al., 2014). Defined as purposeful integration of preservice general and special education teacher education, collaborative preparation has become a clear trend, particularly at the early childhood level (Pugach et al., 2011). Indeed, the fields of early childhood education (ECE) and early intervention/early childhood special education (EI/ECSE) have seen some of the most robust examples of this approach. Unification of the two fields has, historically, been considered a means to enact a common purpose, namely, providing inclusive care and education for all children and their families (Piper, 2007).

The movement toward collaborative early childhood preparation first emerged in the late 1980s and has been described in the ECE and EI/ECSE literature since the 1990s (Correa et al., 1997; Kemple et al., 1994; Piper, 2007; Pugach & Blanton, 2009; Pugach et al., 2011; Stayton & McCollum, 2002; Stayton & Miller, 1993). Since that time, a vast array of terms (e.g., blended, unified, integrated, inclusive, and collaborative) have been used to describe this approach making the synthesis of information difficult (Mickelson, 2013; Piper, 2007). Although various terms continue to be used, blended appears to be the most common label for collaborative early childhood programs and will be used throughout this article.

Although it is currently unclear as to how many universities are implementing or planning some form of blended preparation, the trend appears to continue and be valued (Early Childhood Personnel Center [ECPC], 2014; Mickelson, 2013), and recent activities suggest a renewed interest (ECPC, 2020b). Importantly, several of the original blended programs have demonstrated longevity and have now seen three decades of implementation. Beyond the variety of nomenclature, there are persistent structural, philosophical, and other differences across the field leading to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the concept. The historical literature includes articles published at the onset of this movement, some of which were research-based, yet the field has engaged in very little related research since. Therefore, those currently working to revise, evaluate, or develop blended programs are confronted by a dated and primarily descriptive literature base. Despite historic support for inclusive practices and a persistent value for blended preparation, such models have not been clearly defined in the literature or in practice. In their seminal national study on blended models, Miller and Stayton (1998) suggested that the rationale behind the development of blended programs was based more on philosophical beliefs than empirical data. This remains true today, and blended models have evolved in the absence of common terminology, definitions, guidance, or linkages to the trends of service delivery placements for young children with disabilities.

Indeed, there is a lack of empirical evidence in support or validation of blended or other collaborative models (Brownell et al., 2011; Pugach et al., 2014), and no preparation model, blended or otherwise, has data to support its impact on inclusion. Furthermore, inclusion is by no means a universal model of service delivery for children with disabilities. The most recent data from the 42nd Report to Congress on inclusive services for children aged 3 to 5 years highlight the need for more investigation (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2021). The rate of growth of children receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in regular program placements, at least 10 hours per week, and receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in the regular ECE program has been fairly small over the past 8 years. According to the report, 40.2% of children were served in regular programs in 2018 compared with 35.4% reported in 2013, a mere 4.8% increase. The percentage of children receiving services in separate classes was 22.4% in 2021 and 24% in 2013, a 1.6% decrease.

A critical contemporary issue, exacerbated by the limited and dated literature, is that the contexts in which preparation programs must operate and prepare candidates for are drastically different today than when this movement started. This position paper argues that this increasingly complex landscape coupled with the persistent value for, renewed interest in, and lack of empirical evidence to support blended preparation warrants immediate action. First, a retrospective history of the first three decades of the blended movement in ECE and EI/ECSE is provided through a conceptual framework based on a social foundations perspective. This historical analysis illuminates what is, and what is not, currently known about blended preparation. The article ends with a call to action in an effort to position the field to critically examine what the next generation of blended models should, and could, be. This call to action includes suggestions for directing efforts toward reconceptualization of blended preparation, supporting targeted and robust research, and calling together stakeholders to advocate and enact change.

Historical Analysis of Blended Preparation

The conceptual framework behind this position, and related recommendations, recognizes the sociopolitical and foundational elements that have and continue to influence the blended movement over time. As can be seen in Figure 1, the conceptual framework represents a social foundations perspective recognizing various contextual elements that influence blended preparation. These sociopolitical elements include (a) federal legislation and national policies, (b) blended preparation practice and research, (c) state certification, and (d) national advocacy and support. The framework draws attention to how these sociopolitical elements have interacted with foundational aspects to initiate and drive the blended preparation movement, particularly how ECE and EI/ECSE preparation have addressed issues of inclusion and diversity. Furthermore, the historical analysis discusses how sociopolitical influences have facilitated and hindered blended preparation over time.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for historical analysis of early childhood blended preparation.

Federal Legislation and National Policies: A Focus on Inclusion and Investment in Early Childhood

Over the past 30 years, federal legislation and national policies have significantly shaped the movement toward blended ECE and EI/ECSE preparation. The 1986 passage of PL 99-457 dramatically changed the landscape for professionals working with young children and families, mandating Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for children aged 3–5 years and supporting EI services for children aged birth to 3 years (Pugach et al., 2011; Stayton & McCollum, 2002). Furthermore, the reauthorization of the IDEA of 2004 impacted the early childhood field by enhancing the definition of natural environments to specify young children with disabilities should be served alongside their same-aged peers across community settings. Consequently, this reauthorization increased support for inclusion and highlighted the need to prepare ECE and EI/ECSE professionals not only for work in schools but also for work in homes, childcare programs, and other community settings.

The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, which reauthorized the Head Start program, also altered the national landscape regarding early childhood personnel preparation. The Act included several provisions designed to strengthen Head Start quality, including a requirement for higher qualifications for the Head Start workforce (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services [USDHHS] & Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center [ECLKC], 2007). Mounting research evidence indicated teachers with higher qualifications provided higher quality learning experiences for children, which, in turn, were associated with children’s increased school readiness skills (Son et al., 2013). In addition, under Section 648A (42 U.S.C. 9843a) of this act, at least 50% of Head Start teachers in center-based programs were required to have either a baccalaureate or advanced degree in ECE, or a baccalaureate or advanced degree and coursework equivalent to a major in ECE by September 30, 2013 (USDHHS & ECLKC, 2007). This created an opportunity for IHE programs to recruit and prepare current and future Head Start teachers. Furthermore, the requirement for 10% of children enrolled in Head Start to be those identified as having a disability (USDHHS & ECLKC, 2020) necessitated that the preparation of Head Start teachers included a focus on inclusive practices. The formal preparation of preschool teachers, and their beliefs about inclusion, had been shown to be highly influential factors in the successful implementation of inclusion (Odom et al., 2002; Winton & McCollum, 1997).

National policies promoting early childhood have also increased over the past several decades and have helped expand services for young children with and without disabilities. For example, in 2014, then-President Obama convened the White House Summit on Early Education, which brought together state and local policymakers, mayors, school superintendents, corporate and community leaders, and advocates (The White House, 2014). The resulting increased investment in ECE provided more opportunities for public preschool education for all children, with and without disabilities, leading to a boom in inclusive opportunities and more collaboration between Part B Section 619, public school, Head Start, and community preschool systems. In 2015, a joint policy statement was released by the USDHHS and USDOE, which provided guidance on the inclusion of children with disabilities in high-quality ECE programs (Love & Horn, 2021; USDHHS & USDOE, 2015). The statement reinforced the need to consider the quality of inclusive classrooms serving children with disabilities, the importance of personnel preparation, and the quality of instruction taking place in those settings.

Also in 2015, a groundbreaking national report was published on the state of early childhood care and education, which included implications for the role of IHEs in preparing ECE professionals for a changing and diverse population of children and families. The report, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation (Institute of Medicine [IOM] & National Research Council [NRC], 2015), summarized an extensive study of the profession and the complex landscape that must be understood to elevate the quality of services for young children aged birth to 8 years and their families. It also provided detailed recommendations including those for helping the early childhood workforce acquire the competencies needed for quality professional practice in early care and education.

Federal investment in personnel preparation through the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funding priorities has also played an influential role over time. As early as 1988, OSEP directed grant funding for the preparation of EI/ECSE professionals, and associated funding was used to begin to experiment with blended preparation (Correa et al., 1997; Kemple et al., 1994; Piper, 2007; Stayton & McCollum, 2002; Stayton & Miller, 1993). More recently, federal support for blended programs has been marred by barriers and complications. For example, Federal Registers containing the Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the 325K personnel preparation grants from 2005 through 2020 indicate that blended ECE and EI/ECSE programs could be funded only if the program was based on blended state personnel standards and certification policies. Beginning in 2017, the 325K competitions have required grants to support scholars from two or more graduate degree programs including one or more related services (Federal Register, 2017). Given these requirements, the most recent 325K competitions have essentially excluded blended ECE and EI/ECSE programs from federal funding unless they also partnered with a related service program. Furthermore, grants since 2017 have required programs to be at the graduate level, which is particularly problematic given that most initial preparation in ECE and EI/ECSE, including blended preparation, is at the undergraduate level (Chen & Mickelson, 2015). Consequently, OSEP support for funding new and undergraduate programs focused on blending ECE and EI/ECSE preparation is simply not available at this time.

The sociopolitical influences of federal legislation and national policies have clearly had a strong impact on the foundations of ECE and EI/ECSE preparation programs. Over time, an increasing focus on inclusion and periods of investment in early childhood have highlighted the need to examine the roles and responsibilities of both ECE and EI/ECSE personnel; thereby bolstering the development of blended preparation models at IHEs across the country. Federal investment will undoubtedly continue to play a critical role in the future of blended programs. As noted, federal investment in personnel preparation through OSEP funding priorities targeting EI/ECSE programs assisted many blended programs in the past, yet more recent parameters of federal grant funding have limited the ability of blended programs to meet eligibility requirements.

Practice and Research: Early Insight Into Blended Models and the Need for Further Research

Demonstrating the impact of the sociopolitical influences of the above legislative mandates pertaining to inclusive practices for young children on personnel preparation, leaders in the ECE and EI/ECSE fields called for more collaborative programs (Bredekamp, 1995; Burton et al., 1992; Miller, 1992). Consequently, faculty began to develop the first blended early childhood preservice programs with the University of Florida, Western Kentucky University, and East Carolina University serving as early models (Correa et al., 1997; Kemple et al., 1994; Miller & Stayton, 1996; Stayton & Miller, 1993). All three universities continue to offer some form of blended preservice preparation today.

Early in this movement, the literature on blended preparation focused on program descriptions, and few empirical studies demonstrating impact or efficacy were conducted. Rather, much of the early literature shared recommendations for designing and implementing collaborative programs as well as challenges to implementation. Many of the challenges reported revolved around preparing candidates to work with all children across the wide array of roles and settings, the full birth to eight age range, and the full range of abilities, including children with significant support needs and/or those designated as academically or intellectually gifted (AIG) (LaMontagne et al., 2002; Mickelson, 2013; Miller & Stayton, 1998; Piper, 2007). Furthermore, the concern over whether programs have sufficient curricular space to adequately address content from both the ECE and EI/ECSE perspectives has been persistent. Research needs pertaining to the need for research overall as well as around outcomes for program graduates were often discussed.

Miller and Stayton (1998) reported on the first national study on blended preparation, which included 38 programs. Results highlighted reasons faculty chose to blend the programs, along with the process of redesigning and implementing the coursework as teams. Findings also highlighted challenges, including the lack of administrative support for collaboration, interpersonal conflicts among faculty, and insufficient high-quality field sites across the birth to 8-year age range (Miller & Stayton, 1998). In a follow-up interview study, the culture of academia presented yet another set of challenges (Miller & Stayton, 1999). Recommendations from participants included the need for interdisciplinary and administrative practices to promote success with a blended model.

In 2002, Teacher Education and Special Education published a special issue on blended preparation (Johnson & Bauer, 2002). Researchers reported on studies of program coordinators and faculty from blended programs (Fader-Dunne, 2002; LaMontagne et al., 2002; Stayton & McCollum, 2002), as well as graduates from North Carolina’s birth to kindergarten programs (Miller & Losardo, 2002). Several benefits of blended programs were highlighted across these studies including increased collaboration and collegiality among faculty and increased levels of confidence and competence in graduates. Several challenges were also reported that related to administrative structures and faculty rewards. Heavy workloads for joint planning and program development took a toll on faculty, especially untenured junior faculty (Stayton & McCollum, 2002). Some faculty reported being uncomfortable with the expanded curriculum content and approaches necessary for preparing students to work with children with a range of abilities and ages across varied settings as well as cultural/linguistic diversity. In some studies, students and program graduates expressed concern as to whether the depth of knowledge and skills they acquired was sufficient to work with a wide range of children and families (Able-Boone et al., 2002; LaMontagne et al., 2002; Miller & Losardo, 2002).

A more recent literature review illustrated that the majority of available research has remained conceptual or descriptive in nature and consists predominantly of descriptions of the development and implementation of some of the first blended preparation programs (Mickelson, 2013). Of the 51 articles included in that review, 20 (39%) were conceptual presentations of rationale, policy, or position statements. Twenty-seven (53%) represented descriptive accounts and/or studies of individual programs or the broader field of blended preparation. Six (12%) articles included some reporting of assessment or evaluation of program elements, and two articles (4%) were literature reviews. Four articles were placed in two categories as they fulfilled the parameters of each equally. Importantly, 69% of the literature included in this review was found to be nonempirical in nature (Mickelson, 2013). This illuminated that the development and implementation of the earliest models of blended preparation dominate the now-dated early childhood literature.

There has also been little reported in the broader collaborative K–12 teacher education literature that is specific to outcomes, program effectiveness, the broader impact of increased collaboration, or whether any particular models improve the preparation of teachers for inclusion (Blanton et al., 2011; Brownell et al., 2011; Mickelson, 2013; Piper, 2007; Pugach et al., 2014). Only one study (Utley, 2009) has reported on learning gains made by students with and without disabilities taught by graduates of a collaborative program. Relatedly, only a small number of studies have examined outcomes for graduates of early childhood blended models (e.g., LaMontagne et al., 2002; Mickelson, 2013; Miller & Losardo, 2002). The recommendation early in the movement toward blended preparation for research into this approach has not yet been met and is, thus, still relevant today.

Undeniably, there is currently a significant void in the ECE and EI/ECSE literature regarding blended models, and in recent decades, on preparation in general. Due to this dearth of research on the topic, little is known as to how contemporary programs are designed or operate or how they should. As discussed earlier, the absence of operationalized definitions and common terminology has made interpretation of the little data that have been gathered to date difficult. The literature on blended programs has outlined tensions in the design and delivery of blended programs such as how to balance preparation adequately across age ranges and abilities, roles and responsibilities, service delivery models, and content traditionally attributed to each discipline (Mickelson, 2013). Those historical tensions not only continue, but are amplified by contemporary circumstances marked by increasingly diverse contexts and populations which programs must operate in and prepare candidates for. The paucity of empirical research on blended preparation, particularly the outcomes for early childhood professionals, children, and families, leaves this valued practice without evidence-based guidance. Regardless, elements from the historical literature have and can continue to inform our understanding of blended preparation as the field moves into the future. Namely, Miller and Stayton (1998, 1999, 2006) and Fader-Dunne (2002) delineated characteristics of, challenges faced by, and recommendations for blended programs.

In addition to the lack of research guidance to support blended programs, the context and culture of higher education create further complexity and challenge. The culture of IHEs, and whether interdisciplinary work was supported, was recognized early in the blended movement as a particular challenge (Miller & Stayton, 1999). Undeniably, the current higher education context brings extraordinary challenges to faculty, administrators, and students. These challenges create significant barriers for faculty and programs interested in engaging in program design or development. Several of these challenges affecting the context and culture of higher education are particularly important to note, specifically trends in IHE budgets, faculty hires, and changes in faculty workload.

IHE budgets

Many IHEs have been facing significant budget cuts for years due to declines in enrollment, reductions in state funding, and the strains of high student debt (Doyle, 2020). The impact of the COVID 19 pandemic has brought about even more unprecedented budget cuts, with some IHEs reporting cuts of 10% to 15% (Doyle, 2020). According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job losses at IHEs have reached historic levels (Bauman, 2020). These challenges have left IHEs struggling to maintain financial stability.

Faculty hires

Over the past several years, IHEs have seen a decline of tenure-accruing faculty lines, an increase in part-time faculty, and in a few cases the abolition of tenure (Gardner, 2018). Budget cuts have often led to an increase in reliance on clinical and adjunct faculty due to fewer available tenure line positions. These individuals may not be afforded the same resources and time or have the requisite knowledge to address program development, redesign, or continued improvement. Budget cuts may also prevent IHEs from committing financial and faculty resources to pursue costly certificates of accreditation, such as through the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), or other professional associations.

Faculty demands

Despite the benefits reported in the literature for blended preparation, the culture of IHEs may continue to burden faculty in these programs (Blanton & Pugach, 2017; Mickelson, 2013; Miller & Stayton, 1999), and the current context likely worsens this aspect. Faculty may not be supported by administrators to engage in the collaboration with interdisciplinary faculty and community partners identified as central to blended models (Mellin & Winton, 2003). Time for developing strong partnerships with various clinical sites, also identified in the literature as important, can be challenging, especially in birth to three settings (Kemple et al., 1994). As more programs move to online preparation, new models for virtual or distance field-based experiences and online coursework have grown.

As new faculty are hired and programs are revisioned for the current context, faculty may also continue to encounter tensions identified as barriers to blended preparation around philosophical differences in beliefs and approaches to ECE and EI/ECSE (Mickelson, 2013). Continuous assessment of the curricula is a critical component of collaborative program success (Blanton & Pugach, 2017). Yet, program assessment processes, often driven by external forces such as state and national requirements, are often divorced from the philosophical examinations necessary to ensure that the vision of blended preparation thrives in program design and sustained implementation. Given the current demands placed on faculty, university administrators must identify how to support faculty to conduct in-depth analysis and research of dimensions and parameters of practice in blended programs within contemporary circumstances marked by financial challenges.

Despite the limited research and complexities presented by the IHE context itself, there has been an apparent expansion of blended preparation at the early childhood level since the onset of the movement. In 2014, a review of IHE program websites reported that an estimated 427 universities across the United States were implementing some form of blended bachelor’s or master’s degree preparation program (ECPC, 2014). However, whether these programs aligned with the earlier proposed definition, philosophy, or purpose of blended preparation remains unclear.

State Certification: Initial Innovation, Yet Persistent Complexity

State certification policy represents another historical, sociopolitical influence on blended preparation. Certification policy shapes personnel preparation program requirements as curriculum must be designed to ensure graduates meet state requirements (Stayton, 2015). Models and requirements for EI/ECSE certification have historically varied within and across states around aspects such as age range, specific requirements for general ECE, EI, and ECSE, and type of certification (e.g., license, add-on license, endorsement, certificate) (Geiger et al., 2003, 2014). At the onset of the blended movement, advocacy efforts led to innovation as state certification departments adapted to the development of blended practices at IHEs and the changing needs of the ECE and EI/ECSE workforce. Yet, the process and contexts were different; therefore, state variation persisted. Connecticut, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Florida were among the first to design and successfully advocate for stand-alone blended certification by integrating both Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and NAEYC standards in some way (Hartle et al., 1997; Miller & Losardo, 2002). The development of blended IHE programs and certification in these states provided models for other IHEs and states. Similar programs began to appear across the country with advocacy in some states helping to establish blended certification, dual certification in ECE and EI/ECSE, or certification with endorsement across ECE and EI/ECSE. Details from three of these states illustrate these early efforts.

In Florida, a state-level revision of early childhood certification resulted in two stand-alone certifications: one in preschool education (birth through age 4) and the other in prekindergarten/primary (age 3 through Grade 3). Both were originally designed to integrate ECE and ECSE and prepare individuals to work with children with and without disabilities (Hartle et al., 1997). Faculty at the University of Florida served on the state’s associated advisory council and task force contributing to the development of the certifications and standards concurrent with their experimentation with blended preparation (Hartle et al., 1997; Kemple et al., 1994).

In Kentucky, the development of a brand new certification was necessary as the state lacked any type of certification for teaching children younger than kindergarten prior to 1995. In 1990, a committee, representing various stakeholders and facilitated by the ECE division of the Kentucky Department of Education, began developing a blended certification based on NAEYC and DEC (1995) personnel standards: Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education (IECE), birth through 5 years. After multiple delays and intense advocacy, the IECE certificate was legislated and required of all state-funded preschool teachers and Part C special instructors.

Following a similar timeline, North Carolina developed a birth through kindergarten (B-K) blended certificate (Miller & Losardo, 2002). This competency-based license, approved in 1992, also combined the DEC and NAEYC personnel standards. After approval of the certification, a B-K Higher Education Consortium of seven university programs was established to coordinate the development and ongoing implementation of program curricula.

Several studies have attempted to investigate and report the status of special education licensure with some including data on blended models. Despite these reports, varied results over time have led to confusion regarding the status of blended certification. At one point, the literature indicated that approximately 28 states reported having some type of blended or combined ECE and EI/ECSE certification (Miller et al., 2000; National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System, 2001). More recently, Chen and Mickelson (2015) reported the results of a national study of ECE and EI/ECSE licensure requirements showing that seven (6%) state certifications were described as blended, and 2% of ECE and 5% of EI/ECSE certifications required dual certification. A study by Sindelar et al. (2019), on national special education licensure, reported that 40 states had some sort of EI/ECSE license. Of those 40 states, approximately eight offered an “EC/SPED integrated” or “EC Dual” option (pp. 106–107). Whether the certification structures reported in these studies align with the historical definition of blended preparation is not known. Therefore, it is important to note that interpretation of this data is complicated by the continued variance in structure, implementation, and interpretation of licensure for professionals working with children ages birth to 8, including blended licensure. Notably, while not all studies have reported on blended models of certification, great variation in age ranges for EI/ECSE certification has been a consistent finding (Danaher et al., 2003; Geiger et al., 2003; Lazara et al., 2010; Sindelar et al., 2019; Stayton et al., 2009). Indeed, the 2015 national study reported by Chen and Mickelson indicated that 23 different age ranges were represented across state certifications. Therefore, historically and continually, a high level of variability in state licensure structures for ECE and EI/ECSE has been reported (Chen & Mickelson, 2015; Piper, 2007; Sindelar et al., 2019; Stayton et al., 2009; Stayton & McCollum, 2002). One major reason for this persistent variability is that despite decades of advocacy, not all states base their state certification requirements on national standards and few offer blended options (Chen & Mickelson, 2015; Stayton et al., 2012).

Furthermore, there is variability in how certifications are interpreted by employers for determining which applicants to employ and what roles those applicants can perform. For example, school administrators may be reluctant to hire individuals only licensed for early childhood when they have the option of employing individuals who are licensed for a broader range of ages/grade levels (IOM & NRC, 2015). In states utilizing blended licensure, employers may not always view program graduates as adequately prepared for certain roles such as those related to special education services. Contributing to the inconsistency, many states require separate or additional certification for areas such as literacy or Part C that must be addressed. Part C requirements are particularly complex given factors such as differing lead state agencies, whether states even require state licensure for Part C employment, and the varying age ranges of state licensure overall which make it unique from preschool and primary education (ECPC, 2013).

This ingrained variability coupled with inconsistent results across the limited studies conducted on state certification policy leads to confusion and lack of clarity in interpreting the status of blended licensure. Investigations are underway to develop an accurate and current picture of the national landscape (A. Mickelson, personal communication, June 1, 2020). Regardless of what is and is not known about state certification, it is clear that related policy has, and will continue to be, a highly influential sociopolitical factor in personnel preparation. The establishment of blended certification has been deemed a support (Hartle et al., 1997), and the lack thereof has been reported to be a significant barrier to the development and implementation of blended programs (Fader-Dunne, 2002; Mickelson, 2013; Piper, 2007). Given the interdependence of preparation programs and state certification, examination of how certification will influence the design and implementation of blended preparation of the future is critical in determining whether blended preparation can live up to its original aim of preparing professionals to provide quality inclusive services to diverse populations of children.

National Advocacy and Support: The Power of Collaboration

Concurrent with efforts to blend programs and develop related state certification, sociopolitical influence has also been observed in the form of national advocacy and support. Discussions within professional organizations about collaboration between ECE and EI/ECSE, particularly around policy and professional standards, have demonstrated the power to be significantly influential throughout the blended movement. Early on, the call for unification of ECE and EI/ECSE came from leaders in NAEYC and DEC (Burton et al., 1992; Miller, 1992; Stayton & Bruder, 1999; Stayton & Miller, 1993). Several joint projects were initiated, the most notable being the joint position statement on personnel standards from DEC (1995), NAEYC, and the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE). The position statement called for states to align certification policy with national personnel standards and advocated for the adoption of blended certifications. To facilitate the application of these recommendations, DEC collaborated with NAEYC to reformat the DEC (1995) personnel standards so that they would reflect the same areas as represented in NAEYC standards and to be included in NAEYC’s (1996) guidelines for IHE programs.

Leaders from the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), DEC, and NAEYC have continued to work collaboratively over time to encourage the use of their respective personnel standards across ECE and EI/ECSE preparation programs. In 2001, NAEYC and CEC/DEC began to conduct joint reviews of blended programs for possible accreditation through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (Stayton, 2015). Relatedly, a definition of blended programs and the required professional standards were published in both CEC’s and NAEYC’s guidance documents for IHE programs (CEC, 2003; Hyson, 2003). By the mid-2000s, NAEYC and DEC were updating and validating their professional standards. The EI/ECSE specialty sets’ knowledge and skills were developed to help the field apply the CEC standards in EI/ECSE contexts and were validated for initial and advanced levels of preparation in 2007 (Lifter et al., 2011). The NAEYC (2010) standards were revised to address meeting the needs of all children, in collaboration with EI/ECSE and other professionals. Taken together, the outcomes of these efforts helped bring the two sets of standards closer in structure and content, thereby better equipping universities with the necessary professional standards to advance the development of blended ECE and EI/ECSE preparation programs.

In 2010, DEC formed a workgroup to conduct an alignment of the NAEYC standards with the CEC professional standards and the DEC EI/ECSE specialty set at the initial level (Chandler et al., 2012). The purpose was to assist IHE faculty and professional development staff in identifying how the standards intersected thereby assisting with the development of curriculum for personnel preparation as well as for accreditation processes (ECPC, 2020a; Mickelson et al., 2021). In addition, the alignment helped programs identify areas of shared knowledge and skills as well as specialized knowledge and skills specific to each discipline (Chandler et al., 2012). Therefore, this alignment was particularly useful to IHEs when developing blended ECE and EI/ECSE programs at the initial level.

Due to significant revisions of both the NAEYC and CEC standards, a second workgroup was appointed by DEC in collaboration with CEC, NAEYC, and ECPC in 2014 to develop new alignments of the standards and the specialty sets. This second alignment was conducted at both the initial and advanced levels and utilized the revised CEC (2014) initial and advanced professional standards, DEC specialty sets, and NAEYC (2010) initial and advanced professional standards. This work was completed in 2015 (Mickelson et al., 2021).

Recently, national advocacy efforts, including the Power to the Profession (P2P), have also generated sociopolitical influence through their response to increased federal support and focus on early childhood in general. P2P, a national collaboration, was initiated in January 2017 and included leaders from 15 national organizations representing members of the ECE field, one of which was DEC (NAEYC, 2020). Their charge was to establish a framework for career pathways, standards, competencies, qualifications, accountability supports, and compensation meant to define the ECE profession. P2P garnered engagement and input through a series of decision cycles that included surveys, focus groups, key informant interviews, webinars, and conference sessions. The culminating set of recommendations, the Unifying Framework for the Early Childhood Education Profession (P2P, 2020), strengthened the relationship between NAEYC and DEC and has set the stage for conversations regarding the current and future relationship between ECE and EI/ECSE.

One of the major outcomes of the P2P work was the recommendation that the 2010 NAEYC professional standards be revised. Through this process, NAEYC updated the name of the standards to reflect the intent that they are to be adopted and used across the ECE community for ECE preparation and certification. The resulting new standards, the Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators (PSCECE), or ECE Standards, were released in 2020 (NAEYC, 2020). Another key outcome was the recommendation for areas of specialization within the ECE field, such as EI/ECSE. Relatedly, the first ever stand-alone EI/ECSE professional standards, birth through 8 years, were developed and approved in 2020 through a collaborative initiative between CEC and DEC, which was supported by ECPC.

Demonstrating an apparent renewed interest across the field in exploring blended preparation and the need for guidance, ECPC, as part of multiple efforts to address the contemporary context and provide guidance to the field, hosted a think tank focused on blended preparation in collaboration with NAEYC and DEC in December 2019. The purpose of the think tank was to garner participants’ views related to current and future needs of blended programs and the use of the 2020 ECE and EI/ECSE Standards. Participants were invited due to their involvement in providing blended preparation and/or facilitating the development of blended programs (ECPC, 2020b). Suggestions included the development of (a) a joint DEC and NAEYC personnel standards position statement including recommendations specific to blended programs, (b) a crosswalk of the new ECE and EI/ECSE Standards, (c) a definition and quality indicators for blended programs, (d) case studies of different program models, and (e) sample program assessments and rubrics. Participants also recommended that the professional associations advocate for states to adopt the national standards for inclusion in their certification policies (ECPC, 2020b).

Some of these recommendations are now being addressed. For example, ECPC, in collaboration with DEC and NAEYC, appointed a workgroup of DEC and NAEYC members to develop a crosswalk (simliar to previous standards alignments) between the 2020 ECE Standards and competencies and the EI/ECSE Standards and components which identifies specific knowledge and skills that are similar across the two (ECPC, 2020a). This crosswalk has substantial potential to support blended models of preparation as compared with previous alignments as it is based on alignment of two stand-alone sets of standards addressing the same age range of birth to 8 years.

The think tank also highlighted a critical need for CEC, DEC, and NAEYC to explore and develop a process for accrediting blended programs. A joint accreditation review process through CAEP has been in place for blended programs since 2001 (R. Mainzer, personal communication, February 4, 2011; Stayton & McCollum, 2002). With the development of the EI/ECSE Standards, it had been anticipated that the review process would be much less cumbersome. However, NAEYC is no longer participating in CAEP accreditation and has developed its own IHE accreditation process. This development has created an increased need for ongoing collaboration and creativity on the parts of CEC, DEC, and NAEYC to determine what this process will entail going forward.

Professional organizations and the standards they promote also influence state licensure policy. The P2P initiative emphasized and reinvigorated the call for states to use the ECE Standards in their state policies (NAEYC, 2020). In its most recent personnel standards position statement, DEC (2017) also advocated that states align their certification requirements to the national standards and that blended licensure be based on the relevant national standards. In another example of enacting recommendations from the blended think tank, DEC has embarked on a revision of the DEC Personnel Preparation Position Statement. A focus of that work will be the inclusion of the new EI/ECSE Standards. Furthermore, blended preparation will be discussed in more depth than in the previous position statement, and the workgroup includes members of both DEC and NAEYC.

A key advocacy role for CEC, DEC, and NAEYC with the development of new standards will be to continue and enhance advocacy efforts specific to state certification policies with the national personnel standards serving as the foundation for those requirements. Looking to the future, the P2P (2020) unifying framework recommends that a cohesive, profession-led governance structure be developed through advocacy and engagement of the multiple professional organizations and individuals that contribute to the ECE profession. Most importantly, P2P stresses the important role professional organizations play in enabling the ECE community to successfully advocate for their profession within local, state, and federal contexts.

As this historical analysis has illuminated, sociopolitical factors at the program, state, and national level have contributed to the continuing movement toward blended ECE and EI/ECSE preparation, which is now embarking on its fourth decade. Despite its long history, high variability in design and implementation persists and no distinct model of blended preparation has been identified as ideal. Furthermore, in the absence of common definitions and guidance to the field, many current faculty may not possess the knowledge and skills necessary to recognize, develop, or implement programs that embody the true and original purpose of blended preparation. Instead, similar to practice reported by Kontos and Diamond (1997) at the beginning of this movement, IHE faculty, community leaders, and state policymakers continue to create what works best for their specific context in preparing today’s personnel (Mickelson, 2013; Piper, 2007; Stayton & McCollum, 2002), leading to a disjointed landscape. Indeed, many historical and contemporary issues have and will continue to impact whether and how models of blended ECE personnel preparation will evolve or even exist.

A Call to Action: Paving the Path Forward

To successfully embark on the future, it is crucial that the field learn from the past and develop innovative ideas to address lingering questions and create a new vision for blended preparation. It remains unclear as to whether blended preparation can live up to its original vision of increasing access to quality, inclusive educational opportunities for all young children and their families. Critical examination of what constitutes blended preparation as well as what is feasible and appropriate in terms of vision, scope, and purpose is sorely needed. Furthermore, faculty must be supported to engage in, understand, and enact the systemic, holistic changes needed to develop and sustain truly blended programs. In the absence of such in-depth and courageous conversations, the potential of blended preparation may never be fully realized.

The position embraced by this article argues that the current context warrants immediate action toward this purpose. Contemporary sociopolitical influences create circumstances that are marked by an increased interest not only in quality ECE and professionalization of the workforce as demonstrated by the P2P initiative but also specifically in blended models of personnel preparation as evidenced by the blended think tank. As the application of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) has illustrated, these sociopolitical influences are intertwined with the foundational elements of blended preparation over time. Taking that social foundations perspective, the contemporary context creates a remarkable opportunity; an impetus for change and innovation similar to that which created the first blended programs in the 1990s. The time to act is now.

Reflecting on the historical analysis of the first three decades of the blended preparation movement, several lingering questions emerge pertaining to the nature of current and future blended preparation, as well as the roles of stakeholders. The most critical and salient questions to address as the field envisions the future include: (a) How should blended preparation be conceptualized now and for the future given the contemporary context? (b) How can the research community enact a robust research agenda to address the lingering questions from the past as well as future dilemmas? and (c) What role can or should professional organizations play in leveraging resources to inform research, practice, preparation, and other aspects that influence models of preparation?

The following call to action proposes means by which the field can leverage attention to these lingering questions to pave the path forward and create meaningful, effective blended preparation for the future. Specifically, the creation of the next generation of blended preparation hinges on engaging in (a) an intense examination of what blended preparation is and should be, (b) the development of a robust research agenda around blended preparation, and (c) strategic and coordinated advocacy and support for this important work.

Direct Efforts Toward a New Reconceptualization of Blended Preparation

A critical issue facing current and future blended preparation models is that the contemporary sociopolitical contexts which preparation programs must operate in, and prepare candidates for, are drastically different than when this movement started. Contemporary programs must prepare candidates for a much broader playing field, including a wider array of settings, roles, and responsibilities. Concurrently, understandings of difference and diversity have broadened to incorporate children and families representing not only differences in ability but also other aspects such as linguistic, cultural, ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic diversity. Moreover, the breadth of curricular demands in ECE and EI/ECSE preparation has mushroomed since the dawn of the blended movement to include elements such as Infant-Child Mental Health, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, English Language Learners, and countless others are likely on the horizon. This already complicated landscape has been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The early childhood community is facing unprecedented challenges, and professionals are on the frontlines of building new ways of educating young children and supporting families through these difficult times (Shonkoff, 2020). The long-term effects of the pandemic on children, families, and early childhood providers, as well as preparation programs, are still unclear.

Given the dramatic developmental changes observed in children from birth to 8 years coupled with the increasingly complex array of service settings and systems that include partnering with families and other professionals, the field must grapple with what is feasible and appropriate in terms of adequate preparation of candidates within single programs. Although blended preparation was originally explored to reconceptualize ECE and EI/ECSE preparation, the current context provides an opportunity to reconceptualize blended preparation itself and identify what the purpose, scope, definitions, and guidance should be for the future.

To do so, contemporary and future blended preparation programs must carefully attend to local, regional, and national meanings of inclusive education and understandings of diversity (Blanton & Pugach, 2017). As the field considers the next phase for blended preparation, it is important to “interrogate assumptions about inclusive education that are generally regarded as stable or even canonical” (Artiles, 2020, p. 289). Historically, inclusion has been defined in a restrictive manner within U.S. special education (Baglieri et al., 2011). Over time, these definitions have evolved from a singular focus on educating children with disabilities to a broad focus on all marginalized groups and on transforming educational systems with attention to equity and access for all (Opertti et al., 2014). Pugach et al. (2020) recently defined inclusion as “a broad, shared equity agenda designed to assure educational success for every group of marginalized learners” (p. 86).

If the future of blended preparation is to live up to its original aim of preparing educators to provide quality inclusive education, it must consider how to prepare them to educate all children inclusively. Historically, however, collaborative models have primarily focused on preparing candidates to work with children with and without disabilities with much less attention to other social identity markers such as race, class, culture, or language in conceptualization and implementation (Pugach et al., 2012). The intersectionality of these various social identity markers has been identified as important to examining issues of equity and access for children across educational contexts (Kozleski, 2020; Pugach et al., 2020). When personnel preparation for inclusion attends to intersectionality, it honors divergent perspectives, capacities, and approaches to learning while ensuring all children have opportunities to experience meaningful inclusion (Kozleski, 2020) and promotes educational equity by recognizing that race and ability are interdependent, relational systems (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011). Therefore, discussions about the future purpose, scope, and curriculum of blended models must challenge common assumptions about inclusion, which ignore structural inequalities of the educational system (Artiles, 2020).

Indeed, to ensure educators are prepared to teach all children inclusively, personnel preparation must be driven by curriculum that balances preparing all educators for inclusion from the perspective of a shared equity agenda while also ensuring specialized preparation to meet the needs of marginalized children, including those with disabilities (Pugach et al., 2020). Blended preparation must expand from its original conception of a model intended to bridge preparation for general and special education to a model to prepare ECE and EI/ECSE professionals to work with diverse populations within the diverse settings that make up the reality of the educational landscape. The proposed suggestions relate to approaching preparation as a unified community, convening and conducting work as a collaborative entity, teaching about disability in relation to diversity, and improving the base preparation of all educators while investigating a place for the expertise of specialists (Blanton & Pugach, 2020).

Invite Researchers and Stakeholders to Conduct Targeted and Robust Research That Informs Practice

The current landscape of blended preparation is convoluted by the fact that many aspects of the approach are simply unknown or unclear. As this article has illuminated, most of the available literature pertaining to blended ECE is descriptive in nature, quite dated, and therefore reflective of the context and understandings of its time. Moreover, the field lacks common terms or definitions making any synthesis of research or other information extremely difficult, if not impossible. The lack of common terminology and definitions has resulted in confusion and misrepresentation, and faculty are without up-to-date guidance as to how to best design or implement blended programs. Importantly, the field still knows very little as to the characteristics that make programs blended, the scope of curriculum within so-called blended models, or the associated effectiveness or outcomes. Investigation into historical and contemporary trends related to inclusive service delivery for young children is critically needed to provide the field with contextualized information about the potential and realized the impact of personnel preparation.

The development of a robust and targeted research agenda is vital to produce a cohesive path forward. Research needs include investigations of contemporary blended models to identify common characteristics, terminology, guidance, and quality indicators. It will be important for researchers to attend not only to the conceptualization, structure, and content of programs in light of goals and understandings of inclusion but also to the complexities inherent in such programs (Blanton & Pugach, 2017). A focused research agenda could support the field to investigate numerous aspects of blended preparation including how to design quality, effective blended programs that affect the quality of inclusive services for young children and families, as well as how to ensure continuous improvement processes.

Addressing the lingering questions and promoting the crucial conversations proposed here will require input from comprehensive, systems-level research as recommended by leading scholars (e.g., Brownell et al., 2011; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006, 2010; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Pugach & Blanton, 2009). This type of research is, to say it plainly, difficult, and full of “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160) that present extraordinary methodological challenges. Personnel preparation is a multifaceted, longitudinal, independent variable situated within complex social-political contexts (Lignugaris/Kraft, et al., 2014). Further complicating the situation is the field’s difficulty to date in convincing policymakers and the public of the importance of conducting this type of research (Lignugaris/Kraft et al., 2014).

Contemporary contexts, particularly within IHEs marked by decreases in tenure track positions and budgets, as well as the erosion of federal funding to support blended programs exacerbate this inherent difficulty by sapping faculty of the time and resources for engaging in this work. Early-career, tenure-track faculty may be unable or unwilling to engage in such time-consuming research endeavors due to pressures related to publication productivity. Furthermore, funding and other supports for comprehensive, systems-focused research of preparation programs, which could help mitigate issues of time, are difficult to secure. As Strain (2018) illustrates, research has become constrained by narrow definitions imposed by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) as to what can be studied as well as how research must be conducted. Indeed, investigator and field-driven research has become nearly impossible to conduct due to contemporary research standards, restrictions, and priorities (Strain, 2018).

Call Together National, State, and Local Organizations to Advocate for and Enact Change

This work is possible. As noted above, conversations have already begun that relate to the needs described here. There appears to once again be increased interest across the field in collaborative preparation as a means to provide quality, meaningful, inclusive education for all children and families. The P2P initiative, DEC’s recent think tank on blended preparation, and OSEP’s return to funding support for interdisciplinary preparation are examples of signs that the field is on the cusp of change where innovation could be possible. Yet, this will only come to pass if the field comes together and collaborates with other stakeholders to strategically coordinate the effort.

The involvement of professional organizations, primarily NAEYC and DEC, in the preparation of the ECE workforce has been influential and important throughout time. Federally funded ECE centers, such as ECPC, have also lent a great deal of support. Continued and invigorated support and advocacy is essential to promoting future blended preparation. Indeed, given the inherent complexities and lingering questions that persist, it is imperative that DEC and NAEYC provide the necessary leadership and opportunities for the field to come together to move blended preparation into the future.

The range of settings in which graduates of ECE and EI/ECSE programs are employed translates into the need for attending to a wide range of standards and policies, such as those from state departments of public instruction in relation to certification as well as federal- and state-funded early care and education programs. Strategically coordinated efforts are needed to support the field to achieve greater success in advocating for the adoption of state licensure structures supportive of blended preparation, including the adoption of national standards. Consequently, this work must entail collaboration across interdisciplinary groups and a wide array of perspectives. NAEYC and DEC must take the lead to bring a range of stakeholders, among them the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC), to the table.

A robust future for blended preparation will also require strategic advocacy and support for the type of in-depth, field-initiated research described by Strain (2018). For this to be possible, research priorities and related funding must support research that is driven by the field, methods that are determined by the investigator, and sustained long-term investigations that allow researchers to obtain greater depth of understanding (Strain, 2018). Strain (2018) reminded the field that DEC’s role and past success in expanding services to young children include “important lessons of messaging, coalition-building, and strong legislative advocates” (p. 115) that could be applied in efforts to return the early childhood research authority to OSEP and make more meaningful research once again possible. Fixsen (2018) added that moving research back to OSEP would help create support for applied research that prioritizes relevance and leverages implementation science with a “mission-driven focus on solving problems in education” (p. 118). Such research could help the field address the specific professional development needs that have been identified as necessary for faculty in programs striving to enact blended preparation (Raschke et al., 2001). The field must also be supported to solicit and utilize targeted federal funding, long heralded as a means to help ameliorate teacher and faculty shortages, to help prepare the next generation of faculty who will enact blended preparation as well as the future graduates of those programs. Professional organizations including CEC, DEC, CEC’s Teacher Education Division (TED), and NAEYC can provide leadership to advance this agendum.

Although many of the conversations and processes necessary for addressing these issues are already beginning to take place, they must be leveraged to propel the blended movement forward. DEC and other professional organizations must apply the lessons of the past to once again strategically advocate for the future of the field and help mitigate the inevitable challenges of this work. Some aspects will be difficult, and negotiation will be needed to address philosophical differences and build consensus. Strategic and coordinated facilitation by professional organizations, community partners, and state and federal entities will be required to achieve success and will be needed at all levels: program, state, regional, and national. This must involve integrated examinations across many aspects such as program and curricular design, implementation, field/clinical experiences, state licensure policy, professional standards, and federal funding and policy.

Professional organizations could propel these efforts by coordinating and sustaining what Blanton and Pugach (2017) call Communities for Pre-service Learning (CPLs) comprised of faculty, researchers, families, and community partners representing broad-based expertise across multiple aspects of education, student characteristics, and personnel preparation. Such groups could work collaboratively to identify what constitutes personnel preparation for inclusion (Blanton & Pugach, 2017) and could create a supportive network to address immediate needs related to blended preparation. By doing so, the field can come to a better understanding of contemporary blended preparation and the issues it faces, thereby initiating a new wave of scholarship. If instituted and facilitated, these CPLs could help the field grapple with what the future of blended preparation should and could be.

Now is the time to leverage the increased interest and focus on this important work by bringing the field together to critically investigate current needs, initiate a robust research agendum, develop a vision for the future, and ultimately promote positive outcomes for children and families. It is with optimism that this article implores the field to do so and for the professional organizations that have long guided the field to provide the strategic leadership needed by initiating and supporting a vigorous agendum of discourse and exploration.

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.

ORCID iD

Ann M. Mickelson

Author Biographies

Ann M. Mickelson is an assistant professor in Child and Family Development at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. Her research interests include interdisciplinary preparation for inclusive practice, blended early childhood preservice preparation, early intervention practice, personnel preparation certification, and professional practice-based standards.

Vivian I. Correa, PhD is professor emerita in the Department of Special Education and Child Development at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. Her research interests include early childhood, early intervention, and early childhood special education personnel preparation with attention to issues of cultural and linguistic diversity.

Vicki D. Stayton, PhD is professor emerita in the School of Teacher Education at Western Kentucky University. Her research interests include early childhood, early intervention, and early childhood personnel preparation with a focus on blended preparation, professional standards, and certification.

References

Able-Boone

Harrison

M. F.

West

T. A.

(2002). Interdisciplinary education of social inclusion facilitators in early childhood settings. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(4), 407–412.

Ainscow

(2003). Using teacher development to foster inclusive classroom practices. In Booth

Nes

Stromstad

(Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 15–32). Routledge.

Artiles

A. J.

(2020). Inclusive education in the 21st century disruptive interventions. The Educational Forum, 84(4), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1831821

Baglieri

Bejoian

L. M.

Broderick

A. A.

Connor

D. J.

Valle

(2011). [Re]claiming “inclusive education” toward cohesion in educational reform: Disability studies unravels the myth of the normal child. Teacher College Record, 113(10), 2122–2154.

Bauman

(2020, October 6). The pandemic has pushed hundreds of thousands of workers out of higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-the-pandemic-has-shrunk-higher-educations-work-force

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

(2017). A dynamic model for the next generation of research on teacher education for inclusion. In Florian

Pantić

(Eds.), Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling: Issues for research and practice. Inclusive learning and educational equity (pp. 215–228). Springer.

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

(2020). Dual certification programs. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1183

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

Boveda

(2018). Interrogating the intersections between general and special education in the history of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 354–366.

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

Florian

(2011, May). Preparing general education teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities [A white paper]. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and National Center for Learning Disabilities. https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/aacte_ncld_recommendation.pdf

10.

Bredekamp

(1995). What do early childhood professionals need to know and be able to do? Young Children, 50(2), 67–69.

11.

Brownell

Griffin

Leko

Stephens

(2011). Improving collaborative teacher education research: Creating tighter linkages. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(3), 235–249.

12.

Burton

Hains

Hanline

M. F.

McLean

McCormick

(1992). Early childhood Intervention and education: The urgency of professional unification. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(4), 53–70.

13.

Chandler

L. K.

Cochran

D. C.

Christensen

K. A.

Dinnebeil

L. A.

Gallagher

P. A.

Lifter

Stayton

V. D.

Spino

(2012). The alignment of CEC/DEC and NAEYC personnel preparation standards. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32(1), 52–63.

14.

Chang

Early

D. M.

Winton

P. J.

(2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special education at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Intervention, 27(3), 110–124.

15.

Chen

Mickelson

A. M.

(2015). State licensure/certification requirements for personnel serving infants and young children with special needs and their families. Infants and Young Children, 28(4), 294–307.

16.

Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

(2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Correa

Hartle

Jones

Kemple

Rapport

M. J.

Smith-Bonahue

(1997). The unified PROTEACH early childhood program at the University of Florida. In Blanton

Griffin

Winn

Pugach

M. C.

(Eds.), Teacher education in transition: Collaborative practices in general and special education (pp. 84–105). Love Publishing.

18.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators (5th ed.).

19.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators (7th ed.).

20.

Danaher

Kraus

Armijo

Hipps

(2003). Section 619 profile (12th ed.). National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.

21.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.

22.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.

23.

Dinnebeil

L. A.

McInerney

Fox

Juchartz-Pendry

(1998). An analysis of the perceptions and characteristics of childcare personnel regarding inclusion of young children with special needs in community-based programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18(2), 118–128.

24.

Division for Early Childhood. (1995). Personnel standards for early education and early intervention [Position statement].

25.

Division for Early Childhood. (2017). Position statement on personnel standards in early childhood special education. https://www.decdocs.org/position-statement-personnel-standa

26.

Doyle

W. R.

(2020, October 12). Higher education’s nightmare scenario. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/higher-educations-nightmare-scenario

27.

Early Childhood Personnel Center. (2013). The national landscape of early childhood personnel standards for professionals serving infants and young children with disabilities and their families under 619 and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Data Report 1). University of Connecticut Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. https://ecpcta.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2810/2019/12/Data_Report1.pdf

28.

Early Childhood Personnel Center. (2014). The national landscape of IHE programs in early childhood and early childhood special education across degree level (Data Report 4). Early Childhood Personnel Center, University of Connecticut Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. https://ecpcta.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2810/2019/05/IHE-data-summary-Data-report-4-1.pdf

29.

Early Childhood Personnel Center. (2020a). Alignment of personnel preparation standards: The CEC standards (2012), DEC specialty sets (2017), and NAEYC standards (2012) (Data Report No. 6). University of Connecticut Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. https://ecpcta.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2810/2020/09/Data-report-alignment-of-personnel-preparation-standards.pdf

30.

Early Childhood Personnel Center. (2020b). DEC/ECPC think tank: Blended personnel preparation programs (Data Report No. 8). University of Connecticut Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. https://ecpcta.org/

31.

Fader-Dunne

L. F.

(2002). Characteristics of unified and separate early childhood education and early childhood special education programs: A national study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 219–235.

32.

Federal Register . (2017). 82(1), 95–106. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-03/pdf/2016-31838.pdf

33.

Fixsen

D. L.

(2018). A commentary on personal thoughts on early childhood special education research. Journal of Early Intervention, 40(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815118760315

34.

Gardner

(2018, June 18). Want to kill tenure? Be careful what you wish for. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/want-to-kill-tenure-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

35.

Geiger

W. L.

Crutchfield

M. D.

Mainzer

(2003). The status of licensure of special education teachers in the 21st century. Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida.

36.

Geiger

W. L.

Mickelson

A. M.

McKeown

Barton

Kleinhammer-Tramill

Steinbrecher

(2014). Patterns of licensure for special education teachers. In Sindelar

P. T.

McCray

E. D.

Brownell

M. T.

Lignugaris/Kraft

(Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 30–46). Routledge.

37.

Grossman

McDonald

(2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.

38.

Hartle

L. C.

Jones

H. A.

Rapport

M. J.

Kemple

K. M.

Correa

V. I.

(1997). Systems change in the process of unifying teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 18(1), 75–88.

39.

Hyson

(Ed.). (2003). Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

40.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 , P.L. 108-446, 34 C.F.R.300.114[a][2]).

41.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/19401/transforming-the-workforce-for-children-birth-through-age-8-a

42.

Johnson

L. J.

Bauer

A. M.

(2002). From the editors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 1.

43.

Kemple

K. M.

Hartle

L. C.

Correa

V. I.

Fox

(1994). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: The development of a unified teacher education program in early childhood and early childhood special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 38–51.

44.

Kontos

Diamond

(1997). Preparing practitioners to provide early intervention services in inclusive settings. In Winton

P. J.

McCollum

J. A.

Catlett

(Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues models, and practical strategies (pp. 393–410). Brookes.

45.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2020). Disrupting what passes as inclusive education: Predicating educational equity on schools designed for all. The Educational Forum, 84(4), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1801047

46.

LaMontagne

M. J.

Johnson

L. J.

Kilgo

J. L.

Stayton

V. D.

Carr

Bauer

Carpenter

(2002). Unified early childhood personnel preparation programs: Perceptions from the field. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 236–246.

47.

Lazara

Danaher

Kraus

Goode

Hipps

Festa

(2010). Section 619 profile (17th ed.). The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.

48.

Leonardo

Broderick

(2011). Smartness as property: A critical exploration of intersections between whiteness and disability studies. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2206–2232.

49.

Lifter

Chandler

L. K.

Cochran

D. C.

Dinnebeil

L. A.

Gallagher

P. A.

Christensen

K. A.

Stayton

V. D.

(2011). Personnel preparation standards: Revision 2005–2008. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(2), 151–167.

50.

Lignugaris/Kraft

Sindelar

P. T.

McCray

E. D.

Kimerling

. (2014). The “wicked question” of teacher education effects and what to do about it. In Sindelar

P. T.

McCray

E. D.

Brownell

M. T.

Lignugaris/Kraft

(Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 461–471). Routledge.

51.

Love

H. R.

Horn

E. H.

(2021). Definition, context, quality: Current issues in research examining high quality inclusive education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 40(4), 204–216.

52.

McLeskey

Landers

Williamson

Hoppey

(2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 43(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910376670

53.

Mellin

A. E.

Winton

P. J.

(2003). Interdisciplinary collaboration among early intervention faculty members. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(3), 173–188.

54.

Mickelson

A. M.

(2013). Blending worlds, reforming practice? An instrumental case study of collaborative early childhood teacher education [Doctoral dissertation]. University of South Florida. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4729

55.

Mickelson

A. M.

Stayton

V. D.

Chandler

L. K.

Green

K. B.

Vail

C. O.

Danner

Swett

Jones

Robbins

S. H.

(2021). The significance of alignment of the CEC/DEC and NAEYC personnel preparation standards: Documenting process and results [Manuscript submitted for publication]. College of Education, Special Education and Child Development, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

56.

Miller

(1992). Segregated programs of teacher education in early childhood: Immoral and inefficient practice. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(4), 39–53.

57.

Miller

Fader

Vincent

(2000). Preparing early childhood educators to work with children who have exceptional needs. In Horm-Wingerd

Hyson

(Eds.), New teachers in a new century: The future of early childhood teacher preparation (pp. 89–123). National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education, U.S. Department of Education.

58.

Miller

Losardo

(2002). Graduates’ perceptions of strengths and needs in interdisciplinary teacher preparation for early childhood education: A state study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 309–319.

59.

Miller

Stayton

V. D.

(1996). Personnel preparation in early education and intervention: Recommended preservice and inservice practices. In Odom

S. L.

McLean

M. E.

(Eds.), Early intervention/early childhood special education recommended practices (pp. 329–358). Pro-Ed.

60.

Miller

Stayton

V. D.

(1998). Blended interdisciplinary teacher preparation in early education and intervention: A national study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18(1), 49–59.

61.

Miller

Stayton

V. D.

(1999). Higher education culture: A fit or misfit with reform in teacher education? Journal of Teacher Education, 50(4), 290–302.

62.

Miller

Stayton

V. D.

(2006). Interdisciplinary teaming in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(1), 56–56.

63.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1996). Guidelines for the preparation of early childhood professionals.

64.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2010). NAEYC standards for early childhood professional preparation programs: Position statement.

65.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Professional standards and competencies for early childhood educators: A position statement held on behalf of the early childhood education profession. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/professional_standards_and_competencies_for_early_childhood_educators.pdf

66.

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System. (2001). Section 619 profile (10th ed.).

67.

Odom

S. L.

Schwartz

I. S.

, & ECRII Investigators. (2002). So what do we know from all this? Synthesis points of research on preschool inclusion. In Odom

S. L.

(Ed.), Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschool programs (pp. 154–174). Teachers College Press.

68.

Opertti

Walker

Zhang

(2014). Inclusive education: From targeting groups and schools to achieving quality education as the core of EFA. In Florian

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 149–169). SAGE.

69.

Piper

(2007). What we know about integrating early childhood education and early childhood special education teacher education programs: A review, a reminder, and a request. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(2), 163–180.

70.

Power to the Profession. (2020). Unifying framework for the early childhood education profession. http://powertotheprofession.org/unifying-framework/

71.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

(2009). A framework for conducting research on collaborative teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 575–582.

72.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

Boveda

(2014). Preparing general education and special education teachers for inclusion and collaboration: Transcending the structural divide, rethinking the grand narrative. In Sindelar

P. T.

McCray

E. D.

Brownell

M. T.

Lignugaris/Kraft

(Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 143–160). Routledge.

73.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

Correa

V. I.

(2011). A historical perspective on the role of collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching all students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(3), 183–200.

74.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

Florian

(2012). Unsettling conversations: Diversity and disability in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 235–236.

75.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

Mickelson

A. M.

Boveda

(2020). Curriculum theory: The missing perspective in teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 85–103.

76.

Raschke

Maude

Brotherson

M. J.

Milburn

(2001). A unified birth through grade three early childhood endorsement: Challenges to IHE faculty across Iowa. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(3), 169–182.

77.

Rittel

H. W. J.

Webber

M. M.

(1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

78.

Shonkoff

(2020). Stress, resilience, and the role of science: Responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/stress-resilience-and-the-role-of-science-responding-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

79.

Sindelar

P. T.

Fisher

Myers

(2019). The landscape of special education licensure, 2016. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12(2), 101–116.

80.

Son

S. C.

Kwon

Jeon

Hong

(2013). Head Start classrooms and children’s school readiness benefit from teachers’ qualifications and ongoing training. Faculty Publications from Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cyfsfacpub/28

81.

Stayton

V. D.

(2015). Preparation of early childhood special educators for inclusive and interdisciplinary settings. Infants and Young Children, 29(2), 113–122.

82.

Stayton

V. D.

Bruder

M. B.

(1999). Early intervention personnel preparation for the new millennium: Early childhood special education. Infants and Young Children, 12(1), 59–69.

83.

Stayton

V. D.

Dietrich

S. L.

Smith

B. J.

Bruder

M. B.

Mogro-Wilson

Swigart

(2009). State certification requirements for early childhood special educators. Infants and Young Children, 11(1), 4–12.

84.

Stayton

V. D.

McCollum

J. A.

(2002). Unifying general and special education: What does the research tell us? Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 211–218.

85.

Stayton

V. D.

Miller

P. S.

(1993). Combining general and special early childhood special education standards in personnel preparation programs: Experiences from two states. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 372–387.

86.

Stayton

V. D.

Smith

B. J.

Dietrich

S. L.

Bruder

M. B.

(2012). Comparison of state certification and professional association personnel standards in early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32(1), 24–37.

87.

Strain

P. S.

(2018). Personal thoughts on early childhood special education research: An historical perspective, threats to relevance, and call to action. Journal of Early Intervention, 40(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815117750411

88.

U.S. Department of Education. (2021). 42nd annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2020. https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2020/parts-b-c/42nd-arc-for-idea.pdf

89.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services & Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center. (2007). Head Start Act. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/head-start-act

90.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services & Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center. (2020). Inclusion of children with disabilities. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-20-01

91.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services & U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Policy statement on inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood programs. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/earlylearning/joint-statement-full-text.pdf

92.

Utley

B. L.

(2009). An analysis of the outcomes of a unified teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409334204

93.

The White House. (2014). Fact sheet: Invest in US: The White House summit on early childhood education. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/10/fact-sheet-invest-us-white-house-summit-early-childhood-education

94.

Williamson

Hoppey

McLeskey

Bergmann

Moore

(2020). Trends in LRE placement rates over the past 25 years. The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 236–244.

95.

Winton

McCollum

J. A.

(1997). Ecosystem perspectives on personnel preparation: Rationale, framework, and guidelines for change. In Winton

McCollum

J. A.

Catlett

(Eds.), Handbook of personnel preparation for early intervention (pp. 3–25). Brookes.