Increasing Teacher Retention and Supporting Students With Low-Incidence Disabilities Through University Partnership

Instructional, Assessment, and Online Resources

In this section, we call attention to the available university resources, such as instructional and assessment materials and online resources, to decrease the rural special education teacher shortage and support students with LID via SUPs. For example, we suggest building a university-run lending library.

In our review, a group of scholars discussed rural schools and their shortages in instructional materials and technology, which contributed to teacher attrition and the low performances of students with LID (Ault et al., 2013; Oakes & Saunders, 2004; Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013; Tieken & Montgomery, 2021). For instance, a primary area of research in special education is assistive technology (AT). A study by Ault and colleagues (2013) reveals that students in rural areas had access to AT across functional areas., including communication, body support, protection and positioning, and education and transition. However, compared with all students around the United States, rural students had significantly fewer devices per student. The authors speculate that this could be due to a lack of awareness about AT in rural districts and a lack of funding. Similarly, Sundeen and Sundeeen (2013) indicate that rural schools have limited access to instructional technology due to insufficient funding and budgetary constraints. They note that rural districts may have to utilize alternate funding sources, such as federal and private grants. Furthermore, Walters et al. (2014) list resources available to Grades 3 to 8 teachers in rural Northeast region schools, including 38% who had access to textbooks and other Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) aligned resource materials, and only 23% had access to assessment resources to monitor student progress. Resource deficits are compounded in special education, especially those serving students with LID, because many additional support tools are needed to educate students with high support needs. One key solution our proposed SUP offers is building a university-run lending library that can provide these specialized resources to teachers. An additional benefit of a lending library is that, with these resources, teachers will feel better prepared to teach students with LID and, therefore, less likely to leave their jobs. Researchers have found that improving the retention of current teachers could have a larger positive impact on the teacher shortage than any other intervention (Sutcher et al., 2019).

It is important to note that librarians are crucial in making these resources accessible to teachers. Librarians from both the higher education and rural schools must communicate about the needs of special education teachers and stay current about targeted materials for the rural LID population. A few examples of established university resources that provide teachers with assessment, instructional, or online resources are the lending library program at Texas A&M University (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED260262.pdf), the IRIS Center (n.d.; https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/), and Central Assessment Lending Library (n.d.; https://www.cmich.edu/academics/colleges/liberal-arts-social-sciences/departments/psychology/psychology-centers-clinics-research-labs/central-assessment-lending-library).

Kok (1984) describes a lending library that was part of the Vocational Special Needs program at Texas A&M University. This program provided special education teachers with materials pertaining to the education of students with high support needs, including resource lists and assessment materials. While lending libraries have existed for decades, these programs must evolve with current research and technology. One way to do this would be to establish an online video library for teachers of students with moderate to severe disabilities (Abell et al., 2014) that showcases exceptional instructional practices and provides examples of instructional strategies.

Another helpful model is the IRIS Center. The IRIS Center is hosted by Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College and is supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The Center emphasizes evidence-based instructional and intervention practices, including Evidence-Based Practice Summaries and user-friendly modules that allow users to explore topics discussed in research. The Center’s STAR (Software Technology for Action and Reflection) Legacy Modules provide in-depth information for teachers, including how to write high-quality Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), how to implement evidence-based practices with fidelity, and how to include students with significant cognitive disabilities in the general education classroom (IRIS Center, n.d.; Tyler et al., 2017). The modules are focused on translating research findings into practical information that is easy for preservice and in-service teachers to digest (Tyler et al., 2017).

The last example is the Central Assessment Lending Library (CALL), which provides information, consultation, and resources to teachers teaching students with LID. CALL is staffed by faculty members and a student in the psychology doctoral program (Bradley-Johnson et al., 2015; Central Assessment Lending Library, n.d.; https://www.cmich.edu/academics/colleges/liberal-arts-social-sciences/departments/psychology/psychology-centers-clinics-research-labs/central-assessment-lending-library). School officials can use the library to rent assessments and instructional materials pertaining to students with LID that may have otherwise been inaccessible (Bradley-Johnson et al., 2015). For instance, teachers can borrow materials such as Braille flashcards and the Early Literacy Skills Builder. To give an idea of the content of materials offered, the Early Literacy Skills Builder is a unique reading program for children with moderate to severe intellectual disability (Browder et al., 2008). The CALL is a thoughtful way to connect teachers with the resources they need to help their students succeed, especially in rural areas. Even if the CALL is located in a metropolitan area, it is set up to work with educators virtually, and nearly all of its resources are shipped to those who rented them, making this resource accessible to rural schools (Bradley-Johnson et al., 2015). The CALL can be a tool to increase support for teachers, thus reducing attrition, decreasing the number of students with LID who are isolated in separate settings, and equipping teachers with the resources they need to help students with LID succeed.

An ideal lending library would incorporate elements from IRIS (Tyler et al., 2017) and CALL (Bradley-Johnson et al., 2015) because these programs can provide practical, effective, and accessible training, an online resource center, and instructional and psychoeducational assessment materials. An optimal SUP should also include elements of instructional coaching such as practices described by Courtade and colleagues’ (2017) study as well as evidence-based practices (Singer et al., 2017), and professional development programs run by the university (Zenkov et al., 2013). Combining elements from existing university-affiliated lending libraries and creating new, innovative solutions to inequities in materials can create an even more effective library.

In agreement with Maheady and colleagues (2016), we acknowledge that these programs (Borthwick et al., 2020; Chu, 2022) may only be sustainable with financial support from state and federal funding intended to create and maintain comprehensive SUPs. Resources for rural teachers of students with LID should be a top priority for support and allocation of resources because learners with LID, compounded with rural inequalities, are at the highest risk of receiving an inadequate education. It is important to note that these programs are meant to bolster already existing district resources and supports.

Future directions include allowing research opportunities for teachers themselves to consume research, conduct action research, and be reflective educators using evidence-based practices focusing on LID students (Collins, 2007; Gesel et al., 2022; Rude, 2005).

Overall, a lending library, as a part of a comprehensive SUP, could strengthen the connection between action research and teachers to create better educational outcomes for students with LID and increase teachers’ preparation to teach these students. When teachers feel adequately prepared to educate students with high support needs, they are more likely to stay in their position, decreasing special education teacher attrition rates.

Mentorship by University Faculty

School–university partnerships allow for mentorship by university faculty. Mentorship refers to collaborative relationships among teacher educators and P-12 professionals (i.e., teachers and school leaders) to improve service delivery to students with disabilities (Maheady et al., 2016). Mentorship of in-service teachers by university faculty is a critical element of a successful SUP. Connections to university staff give in-service teachers positive service examples, allow for collaboration and knowledge sharing, and help teachers develop their instructional skills (Capper, 1990; Courtade et al., 2017; Hoppey, 2016). Mentorships between university faculty and in-service teachers are essential to retaining rural educators teaching students with LID and improving outcomes for students with LID. As Jackson (2008) notes, the high attrition rates, which are majorly contributing to the teacher shortage, are impacted by a perceived lack of preparedness on the part of teachers teaching students with LID. That being said, mentorship by university faculty can allow in-service teachers to feel more qualified to address the needs of their students with the feedback and suggestions of their university mentors who have expertise in the field.

One type of mentorship SUPs can coordinate is between clinical, community, and field experience faculty (i.e., from part of a teacher education program or part of a state-funded grant) who are observing preservice or supporting in-service special education teachers. This way, rural special education teachers can feel more supported and prepared to teach students with LID, increasing teacher retention and reducing the teacher shortage.

However, mentorship is an area that needs serious improvement to alleviate the special education teacher shortage, especially for teachers of students with LID (Hagaman & Casey, 2018). Billingsley et al. (2004) state that 61% of 370 special educators reported having access to a formal mentorship program in the first few years of teaching. While this is more than the majority, 61% still leaves room for improvement, and there needs to be more current research on the availability of formal mentorship for special educators. One avenue for these support networks is mentorship by university faculty, which has been shown to improve student outcomes, build teachers’ confidence, positively affect retention, and improve the research-to-practice gap (Berry, 2012; Courtade et al., 2017; Maheady et al., 2016). Mentorship can be incorporated into university faculty’s service component by being a part of a cohort that provides mentorship. That being said, if this cohort became too large of a workload, adding mentorship as a course could be considered if funding allows. Additionally, it is important to note that faculty should be matched carefully with teachers so, to the extent possible, the university mentor’s experience and expertise match the mentee’s current position (Jackson, 2008).

Furthermore, instructional coaching has a tight tie to research in mentorship. University mentors can work with teachers to bridge the research-to-practice gap. For example, Maheady and colleagues (2016) describe programs in nine rural schools where graduate students coached P-12 teachers in an “I do, we do, you do” (p. 38) coaching style (which is also called guided practice, see Gersten & Kelly, 1992) to conduct research projects looking at substantial instructional difficulties, including active student participation, increasing academic productivity, and decreasing disruptive behaviors. Topics focused on in mentorship can be shaped by paying particular attention to immediate problems of practice that in-service teachers are experiencing, which is one feature of job-embedded professional development that has been shown to enhance student and teacher learning (Croft et al., 2010; Hoppey, 2016).

It is important to note the possible challenges in SUP-organized mentorship programs; we offer two considerations. First, a historical theme was that university mentors had to allow for flexibility in meeting locations due to geographic isolation (Mollenkopf, 2009). However, virtual mentorship has become possible due to the advancement and availability of technology. The available research, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, offers valuable insights and strategies for conducting effective virtual mentorship (Ault et al., 2019; Marshall-Krauss et al., 2022). For instance, Marshall-Krauss and colleagues (2022) conducted an action research study on virtual mentoring programs. They found that maintaining connections in partnership during times of sudden change is possible as long as virtual mentorship continues to be frequent, regular, and focused. This is an example of the versatility and flexibility of SUP-provided mentorship. Additionally, Ault and colleagues (2019) reflect on alternative ways for mentors to observe rural educators and give feedback during the COVID-19 pandemic. They state that classroom cameras can adequately provide educators and mentors with a way to connect.

While there has been a change in the role technology plays in schools since COVID-19 (Ferdig et al., 2020), researchers indicate access to technology is still a challenge for many schools (Running Bear et al., 2021; Srinivasan et al., 2021). The literature emphasizes rural students’ lack of access to technology and Wi-Fi (Carpenter & Dunn, 2022) but does not explore educators’ access to these resources. Our earlier proposal of creating a SUP with a strong lending library base can solve part of this problem so rural educators have access to technology to participate in a mentorship program fully.

Second, careful attention must be paid to the caseload of university staff mentoring rural educators (Courtade et al., 2017). Too heavy a caseload on one mentor may limit how much time they can dedicate to mentoring each teacher, negatively impacting the partnership’s success (Courtade et al., 2017). These were limitations found in the SPLASH program, a Kentucky Department of Education professional development program that used a coaching model to help rural educators increase the academic performance of students with LID (Courtade et al., 2017).

Overall, a more significant support network for special educators will improve student outcomes and increase teacher satisfaction and commitment to their jobs (Berry, 2012; Edinger & Edinger, 2018; Glover et al., 2016; Rivera et al., 2023). Special education teachers can benefit from working with administration and university mentors to adopt a balanced and realistic approach, allowing them to be more apt to face challenges associated with teaching and less likely to leave the profession (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Hagaman & Casey, 2018).

Professional Development

In this section, we argue that SUPs can provide the professional development needed to retain rural special education teachers and improve outcomes for students with LID. Professional development programs in this paper refer to formats such as seminar days, summer training institutions, and job-embedded professional development (Croft et al., 2010; Hoppey, 2016).

A university-provided professional development program can help begin to repair the rural teacher shortage by providing the necessary knowledge to teach students with disabilities. Rural educators often leave the field because they do not have the specialized knowledge required to teach this population of students (Eppley, 2009; Hobbs & Törner, 2019) for instance an understanding of IEPs (Hott et al., 2021) and AT, including alternative and augmentative communication (Alexandra Da Fonte, 2022; Ault et al., 2013). Students with LID only receive a quality education when their teachers are adequately equipped to teach them (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Rude, 2005).

Furthermore, it is important to consider the key professional development topics that should be improved on to keep rural special education teachers in the field, including (a) supporting students with LID (Berry et al., 2011; Bradley-Johnson et al., 2015); (b) improving teachers’ skills in collaboration and inclusive practices (Berry et al., 2011; Hoppey, 2016); (c) offering resource support for curriculum content (Berry et al., 2011; Bradley-Johnson et al., 2015); and (d) providing access to special education and LID-specific certification programs (Ault et al., 2019; Collins, 2007; Mollenkopf, 2009). For example, Mollenkopf (2009) elaborates on how the University of Nebraska at Kearney uses university resources to improve the rural teacher shortage and create highly qualified teachers. The program focuses on accessible certification programs for rural educators, which can be considered another form of professional development.

Additionally, scholars call for the following information to be provided to teachers in an evidence-based way: strategies that promote the inclusion and interaction of students with LID and their non-disabled peers (Berry et al., 2011; Rude, 2005), facilitation of literacy and language development among learners with LID (Rude, 2005), and the provision of assistive and emerging technologies that enhance the instructional effectiveness for students with LID (Alexandra Da Fonte, 2022; Alsolami, 2022; Michaels et al., 2017; Rude, 2005).

Professional development provided by universities through a SUP allows for the full utilization of university resources and faculty expertise (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Hora & Millar, 2011; Levine, 2006; Mollenkopf, 2009; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Rosenberg et al., 2009). Additionally, it offers practicing educators a specific way to remain current in the field of LID, which is often absent (Rude et al., 2005; Shurr et al., 2014), given that many educational resources and professional development opportunities emphasize general education supports (e.g., the general teacher preparation program when those educators were becoming teachers). Furthermore, through SUP-provided professional development, special education teachers would have access to resources that improve their understanding of these concepts and, therefore, enhance the education of students with LID in their classrooms. After all, students with LID only receive a quality education when their teachers are adequately equipped to teach them (Rude, 2005).