Preparing Future Special Education Faculty for Service in Rural Communities

Abstract

In this program description, the authors explain how a doctoral-level embedded service-learning opportunity, part of Project PURPLE (Preparing Urban and Rural Personnel as Leaders in Education), a collaborative personnel preparation training program, taught future faculty to meet the needs of urban and rural schools in high-need settings. The collaboration between two large institutions in the U.S. same state offered scholars a unique opportunity to engage in teaching, research, and service across institutions. For the service-learning project, teams of cross-institution scholars partnered with consultants from a regional special education cooperative that provides technical assistance to a large rural geographical area. Eleven scholars completed seven diverse service projects, ranging from training education professionals to engaging caregivers. This description discusses these projects, along with the benefits to the scholars and the regional cooperative. It also explores implications for practice for future personnel preparation collaborations and possible avenues for future research.

Keywords

program description service learning rural special education doctoral training

In Fall 2019, the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville received funding from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to support the training of doctoral-level leadership personnel in special education. This collaborative effort, Preparing Urban and Rural Personnel as Leaders in Education (Project PURPLE), aimed to develop future faculty members who can effectively research, provide service to, and prepare special education personnel to meet the needs of high-need urban and rural settings. The Project PURPLE faculty defined urban and rural regions using the U.S. Census Bureau classification, which is based on population (i.e., urban > 50,000; rural < 2,500) among other indicators (Health Resources & Services Administration, 2024).

While Project PURPLE was designed to address both urban and rural needs, this program description focuses specifically on our partnerships with rural communities which were embedded in the Project PURPLE curriculum and the required activities. Furthermore, this program description provides a model for future OSEP collaborative partnerships and describes how those partnerships can be used to advance scholars’ service and research. Project PURPLE was conducted in Kentucky. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2023), Kentucky is predominantly rural, with more than 40% of the population living in non-metro areas, thus providing opportunities for Project PURPLE scholars to engage with rural regions and school districts.

Service-Learning

The Project PURPLE conceptual framework is based on three essential domains of competency in higher education: research, teaching, and service. It is crucial for faculty members to engage in service to the profession and the field; therefore, our scholars were involved in providing support, technical assistance, and professional development in high-need urban and rural districts. To bolster the scholars’ ability to provide service, they enrolled in two courses designed to address the nuanced needs of students, educators, district leaders, and families in urban (Project PURPLE I) and rural (Project PURPLE II) settings. The courses were designed as seminars with a robust set of nationally recognized speakers and targeted readings that focused on evidence-based practices for the given geographic regions. In each course, the scholars were immersed in an internship that provided an opportunity for service learning.

Service learning is an “educative experience that allows learning specific competencies . . . together with civic and service engagement” (Mortari & Ubbiali, 2021, p. 124). More so, the focus of the Project PURPLE service-learning experience was to provide a “mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity” (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2015, as cited in Pasquesi, 2020, p. 29). Extant research on service learning in higher education, much of which has been done at the undergraduate level in teacher preparation, indicates that service learning has lasting impacts on critical thinking, engagement, and social justice (Astin et al., 2000; Stamopoulos, 2006); and leadership skills and sensitivity to diversity (Baldwin et al., 2007; Barton, 2000; Carrington & Saggers, 2008; Kerrigan, 2005). Furthermore, for doctoral-level scholars who will be future faculty, providing service to the profession provides twofold benefits: scholars learn to connect their research to service and scholars close the research-to-practice gap. Furthermore, the communities in which the service is provided benefit from the scholars’ expertise and resources.

Both the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky have a strong commitment to community engagement, as recognized by the programs’ Carnegie Foundations classifications. The Carnegie’s Community Engagement classification describes collaborations between universities and their larger community. We are committed to training scholars who can continue this engagement work in their future settings as reflected in the Carnegie statement:

The purpose of community engagement is the partnership of college and university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching, and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good (Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, n.d., para. 1).

Therefore, as a component of the course Project PURPLE II: Evidence-based Practices in Rural Schools, the scholars delved into literature related to the needs of special educators in rural areas. Through their reviews, scholars uncovered concerning facts. According to Showalter et al. (2019), in their report “Why Rural Matters,” more than 9.3 million students attended rural schools in the 2018 to 2019 academic year, with one in seven of those students requiring special education services. Providing the free and appropriate public education to which students with disabilities are entitled poses significant challenges due to various factors specific to rural geographic areas (Johnson et al., 2018). One of the most troubling and persistent factors affecting rural school districts is insufficient financial resources. In fact, when surveyed, teachers have identified this as their top concern (Cronin, 2018). National data reinforce this fact, indicating that about one in six students live below the poverty line in rural districts (Walker, 2019), resulting in significantly lower funding. Rural schools also typically have a higher financial output per pupil than urban and suburban schools (Andrews et al., 2002). So, an already stretched budget might have sizable funds allotted to expenses such as transportation for students that live long distances from the school (Showalter et al., 2019). Relatedly, some rural school districts face limited specialist availability, and school districts often share specialists due to limited funds (Davis et al., 2013).

With this knowledge, the scholars then began the main assignment in the course which involved partnering with a rural Special Education Regional Technical Assistance Center (SERTAC) in Kentucky to evaluate the needs specific for that region and design service-learning projects based on the assessment outcomes. This article will describe our partnerships and the service projects undertaken by the scholars.

Description of the Service Projects

Kentucky has nine SERTACs that provide technical assistance and special education support for their school-district members in a geographic region. The SERTACs’ mission is to improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities through services offered by consultants at each center who specialize in various areas related to the needs of the SERTAC region (e.g., math, literacy, behavior). The SERTACs work closely with state leadership and their local education administration to provide needed technical assistance to their regions. These needs are identified using data from the region on outcomes of students with disabilities and align with the initiatives established by the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) Office of Special Education and Early Learning initiatives.

Project PURPLE faculty and scholars partnered with the Kentucky Education Development Corporation (KEDC), which serves 21 school districts located in the rural northeastern region of Kentucky to provide intensive internship experiences for our scholars. These districts provide services to 7,300 students with disabilities (KDE, 2021) within the region they serve, which encompasses 16 counties of which 50% are identified as 100% rural per the 2010 census data. The remaining eight counties range from 25% to 81% rural. Because KEDC is an established entity in their region and has provided various levels of educational and technical assistance since 1965, the partnership between our universities and the SERTAC allowed our scholars to use their service to address pre-identified community needs (Connor-Greene, 2002). To begin, KEDC leadership met with Project PURPLE faculty, who shared intentions of the service-learning task and the course outcomes. The KEDC leadership selected consultants who had active projects that would align with the intentions of this partnership. These consultants were invited to an initial planning meeting with the Project PURPLE scholars, where they described the current needs of the region and the related service opportunities currently underway. Following the meeting, the scholars partnered within and across institutions to brainstorm whose research interests aligned with these pre-identified needs. This resulted in four teams of scholars who then collaborated with consultants from KEDC who most closely aligned to their research interest areas to help spearhead their projects (e.g., those scholars interested in mathematics worked with the SERTAC consultant assigned to math). During the semester, scholars conducted seven service projects to address the identified needs of administrators, school teams, educators, and caregivers. See Table 1 for a description of the key details of each service project, with additional information described in the following paragraphs.

Table 1.

Service-Learning Projects to Meet Needs of Students With Disabilities and Stakeholders in Rural Settings

Focus area	SERTAC need	Title of project	Product details/delivery mode/results
Administrator Training	Increase inter-rater agreement on KMIT scoring for accurate reporting how schools were implementing EBPs in mathematics	The Kentucky Mathematics Innovation Tool Scoring (KMIT) Module	Systematic school staff training to score the KMIT with fidelity Online tool using Google Platform Provided to SERTAC for revision and approval at state level
	Principal training in behavior support, special educator teacher evaluation, scheduling students who receive special education services, and special education teacher retention strategies	From Surviving to Thriving: Supporting Exceptional Child Education Teachers and Students with Individualized Education Programs	Two-part professional development focused on (a) low-intensity behavior strategies, ways to evaluate teachers in different types of special education settings, and how to incorporate special education teachers and students in the master schedule and (b) retention strategies based on the Conservation of Resources theory.In-person training at state-wide conferenceMore than 30 district personnel were trained
Teacher training	Address barriers to assistive technology in rural districts	Making Assistive Technology Choices to Help Students Accomplish Tasks (MATCH AT)	Self-guided online module for teachers to navigate independently and a paper toolkit to guide teachers through a step-by-step process for implementing the use of assistive technologyOnline Toolkit and TrainingContinued refinement of the toolkit; scholars have presented at multiple conferences and are collaborating on a book chapter
Caregiver training	Improve caregiver engagement in sexuality and relationship education for their child with ESN	Sexuality Education Training	Asynchronous training on sexuality education on the use of anatomically correct terminology, creating a team, types and location of resourcesNarrated PowerPoint presentationProvided presentation to KEDC and the Kentucky Autism Training Center for use at their discretion
	Improve caregiver knowledge/ support about transition for post-school settings for students with ESN	Transition Training	Information and resources related to transition including the purpose of transition, community involvement, checklist/ resources for transition services and post-school needsOnline module with accessible resourcesPublished on the KEDC website and shared with KEDC consultants and special education teachers
	Provide caregiver resources for social emotional learning of young children	Social and Emotional Learning for Early Childhood Training	Asynchronous training on practicing social emotional skills in the home, behavior specific praise, and dialogic readingFour narrated PowerPoint presentationsSERTAC Early Childhood Regional Training Center added the trainings to their caregiver online resource library
	Provide coaching for caregivers in evidence-based interventions	System of Least Prompts and Social Stories Training	Asynchronous training on the use of social stories and the system of least promptsNarrated presentationPresentation and link for parental feedback uploaded to the KEDC webpage and YouTube channel

Note. EBPs = evidence-based practices; SERTAC = Special Education Regional Technical Assistance Center; ESN = extensive support needs; KEDC = Kentucky Education Development Corporation.

Development of Training Materials for Administrators: The Kentucky Mathematics Innovation Tool Scoring Module

Two scholars worked collaboratively with a KEDC consultant to develop an asynchronous online professional development module, titled “The Kentucky Mathematics Innovation Tool (KMIT) Scoring Module.” The purpose of the module was to provide a systematic method for training school staff to implement and score the KMIT with fidelity. The KMIT was developed by the KDE (2022a) as part of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (KDE, 2022b). It operationalizes eight mathematics teaching practices (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014) to use “as a quality standard for mathematics instruction to improve educational outcomes for students with disabilities” (KDE, 2022a, p. 3). The purpose of the KMIT is to increase mathematical performance for middle school students with disabilities by assessing the available supports for teachers to implement the eight National Council of Teachers of Mathematics practices rather than assess the teachers (KDE, 2022a).

The KEDC established school-based building implementation teams (BIT) to support implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in math at the school level. The BITs had received some training in using the KMIT to document teaching practices, but there were inconsistencies regarding effective scoring practices. Therefore, the identified need was to increase inter-rater agreement among the BITs because this was a critical step in accurately reporting how each school was implementing EBPs in math.

The scholars developed the training module using the Google platform. The modules included an introduction to each KMIT standard, a short video of a teacher providing math instruction in an elementary, secondary, or special education setting, and a rating form for the user to evaluate the lesson against the KMIT standard alignment (see Figure 1). An optional self-check feature prompted the respondent to reconsider their answer selection if it was incorrect and provided immediate feedback to BITs as they worked through the module. If users did not meet the acceptable performance criterion (i.e., 80%), they received a copy of the Scoring Guide and Rationale form and were redirected to complete a second form of the KMIT Scoring Module with different video lessons. Because KEDC serves many rural schools, the KMIT Scoring Module was presented in an asynchronous format to provide accessibility to all school teams regardless of where they were located.

Figure 1.

Kentucky Mathematics Innovation Tool Scoring Module

The KMIT Scoring Module is undergoing revisions based on feedback provided by KEDC, which includes an anticipated release date in the near future. Initial feedback from KEDC focused on cosmetic improvements including larger images, a larger video player, and clearer headers. Additional directions on scoring the KMIT and more specific feedback on missed items were also suggested. Future work with the KMIT Scoring Module should establish inter-rater agreement of scoring responses and an implementation pilot study to identify any modifications that are needed to increase the effectiveness of the module.

The scholars reported that the collaboration and subsequent service-learning project provided a clearer understanding of the research-to-practice gap. One of the scholars said,

Seeing the notorious research-to-practice gap play out in real-time was interesting. On the surface, our KMIT Scoring Module is an attempt to standardize how scores are determined, but upon reflection, it also attempted to address the research-to-practice gap. The KEDC leaders we worked with clearly grasped the research evidence behind EBPs and virtual professional development for teachers. As we developed our scoring guide, we also seemed to be attempting to connect the knowledge of the KEDC leaders with the school-based leaders. Creating an online professional development/training module also reinforced how technology can help address the research-to-practice gaps, especially in rural settings.

Development of Training for Administrators: From Surviving to Thriving: Supporting Exceptional Child Education Teachers and Students with Individualized Education Programs

Three scholars shared an interest in special education teacher attrition considering the nationwide teacher shortage crisis; therefore, they selected this as their service project focus. Identifying factors that contribute to special educator attrition is critical to shift direction and mitigate the adverse effects attrition plays on students and schools, particularly those in rural areas. Current literature identifies administrative support as one of the main factors impacting a special educator’s intent to stay or leave (Bettini et al., 2020). Nonetheless, there is a gap between principal preparation programs and the expectations to support special education staff and lead their schools toward inclusion and effectiveness for students receiving special education services (Aramburo & Rodl, 2020; Bettini et al., 2019; Sider et al., 2021). To better understand the unique needs of the KEDC school districts and teachers, the scholars met with the directors of special education in KEDC’s partner districts. Four areas of need were identified from these conversations including (a) principal training in behavior support, (b) special educator–teacher evaluation, (c) scheduling services for students who receive special education, and (d) special education teacher retention strategies.

After gathering information and reviewing current research, the team developed an in-person professional development (PD) titled, “From Surviving to Thriving: Supporting ECE Teachers and Students with IEPs.” The first portion of the PD focused on low-intensity behavior strategies, ways to evaluate different special education settings, and how to incorporate special education teachers and students in the master schedule (Ennis et al., 2018; Lane et al., 2018). The second half of the training focused on retention strategies based on the Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). These included strategies to provide internal, physical, and material resources to special educators (Bettini et al., 2020). Resource binders were developed to provide principals with ready-to-use resources. The scholars provided their training at a state-wide conference which was attended by more than 30 local school and district personnel. Additionally, in-person training is anticipated with the KEDC partner districts. The scholars’ future work includes analyzing principal preparation, beginning with reviewing coursework related to special education in principal preparation programs to find commonalities and address areas of need.

The scholars reported the service-learning project highlighted the importance of assessing the needs of a given area prior to developing an intervention. One scholar indicated,

It is important to know the district structures before problem-solving or designing PDs. When we began our project, we had pre-determined the type of supports that we thought the districts would need based on national data for teacher attrition. However, when we actually met with the leaders, many of our ideas were not compatible with the actual needs of the rural districts. We learned it is more important to listen first and plan second.

Development of an Online Toolkit and Training for Special Educators: Making Assistive Technology Choices to Help Students Accomplish Tasks

Two scholars were interested in teacher training and assistive technology. They developed the Making Assistive Technology Choices to Help Students Accomplish Tasks (MATCH-AT) tool. The most recommended strategy for supporting rural teachers, including those in the KEDC region, in addressing the barriers to assistive technology (AT) implementation is providing accessible, high-quality PD (Ault et al., 2013; Collins & Ludlow, 2018; Rude & Miller, 2018). Therefore, the tool provides a self-guided online module that teachers can navigate independently and a paper toolkit to guide them through a step-by-step process for implementing AT. Additionally, the MATCH-AT tool allows teachers to support students immediately by increasing their participation, functionality, and access to the curriculum through AT. The MATCH-AT tool provides professional learning on assessing and selecting AT and guidance on implementation. The first part of the module begins with a general introduction to AT, which overviews the laws governing AT usage and statistics outlining AT usage and implementation barriers. Next, AT devices and services are defined, and special educators receive a description of no-tech, low-tech, medium/mid-tech, and high-tech AT with numerous images as examples. Although educators may need more support for implementing high-tech devices, no-tech to medium-tech devices are typically easily accessed in the school environment, are inexpensive, and require less involved training. Additionally, educators can create and customize low-tech and no-tech AT to meet their needs at a fraction of the cost by using inexpensive supplies. Therefore, the emphasis of the MATCH-AT tool is to guide the selection of primarily no-tech and low-tech devices and the accompanying services needed (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Assistive Technology Continuum of Options for MATCH-AT

In the second part of the module, educators are given a step-by-step tutorial on implementing the toolkit. Each step of the toolkit gives explicit instructions, questions, and documents to guide the educator. Step 1, “student information,” supports the process of gathering information about the strengths and needs of the student and the demands of the task for which AT is being considered. Step 2, “assessment,” involves observing the student and collecting data to complete a decision-making guide that determines the characteristics of AT needed based on the student’s strengths and weaknesses and the task demands. Step 3, “selection,” supports teachers in determining how to select the appropriate AT for the student and task by guiding educators in comparing potential AT options to determine the optimal choice for the student. Step 4, “implementation,” involves identifying a goal the student will achieve by using the AT device selected, selecting the strategies needed to teach them the use of the AT, developing a plan to accomplish that goal, and delegating roles and responsibilities for implementation. Step 5, “progress monitoring,” assesses students’ performance, quantifies their progress toward goals, and determines how well they are responding to the AT. This step also involves guidance in planning components of data collection and how data will be reviewed to monitor the effectiveness of the chosen AT.

The scholars provided MATCH-AT to KEDC and the Kentucky Autism Training Center for use at their discretion. They continue to refine MATCH-AT from gleaned feedback and plan to conduct a pilot test and reliability testing. One scholar indicated how this service-learning project influenced her research by stating:

The knowledge I gained from this experience has enabled me to provide professionally meaningful contributions to the field of special education. Since the experience, I have presented this content several times, given guest lectures at two universities, and contributed to two book chapters. I have gained a wealth of knowledge and experience that are significant to my long-term professional goals and have expanded my area of research.

Development of Materials for Parents and Teachers: Four Online Trainings

Four scholars were interested in caregiver training. They partnered to develop training modules on various topics specific to issues caregivers (i.e., families and teachers) experience. Caregiver training is an ongoing need for the KEDC region. These projects, while varied, were all focused on specific areas identified by KEDC staff that aligned with the scholars’ research foci.

Sexuality Education Training

One scholar developed training materials for caregivers focused on improving caregiver engagement in sexuality and relationship education for their child. Researchers and educators have noted a lack of information on parent and teacher training related to sexuality and relationship education for individuals with extensive support needs (Andre et al., 2020; Mackin et al., 2016; Rooks-Ellis et al., 2020; Strnadova et al., 2021).

The goal of the project was to provide caregivers with the information and support they need to have conversations about sexuality and relationships with youth and young adults with intellectual disability and autism. The training was designed as a narrated PowerPoint presentation on sexuality education to allow for asynchronous and individual training. It informed caregivers on the use of anatomically correct terminology, creating a team, what types of resources to support the conversations, and where to find resources. Information on rates of sexual victimization was also provided as rationale for having these conversations.

The asynchronous training presentation was given to KEDC for use on their website at their discretion. Future work includes presenting the training to a focus group for explicit feedback on the training format, relevance of the content, and identification of current and relevant resources. Furthermore, the scholar highlighted the importance of collaborative relationships by stating, “In the development of this service project, I found it helpful that I was provided the opportunity to collaborate with a group of individuals that had similar research interests. I also benefitted from working with KEDC leadership.”

Transition Training

One scholar developed online learning modules for caregivers in rural Kentucky focusing on transition for post-school settings for students with extensive support needs. The purpose was to increase caregivers’ confidence, knowledge, and ability to support their children at home and school and increase their ability to advocate for their child. The focus of the modules was to inform participants about various information and resources in transition including (a) the purpose of transition, (b) community involvement, and (c) a checklist and resources for transition and post-school needs.

The modules were created using Google slides and were recorded using video-screen technology (Vimeo) with narrated PowerPoints. The modules were published on the KEDC website and shared with KEDC consultants and special education teachers. The recorded material allowed participants to access the modules asynchronously and to start and stop as needed. Future plans involve publishing the information on district websites throughout the state and offering in-person training at community centers in rural regions. The scholar indicated the project significantly influenced her future research: “This experience fueled my dedication to effecting meaningful change at the policy level to address systematic barriers and enhance support services for underserved populations.”

Social and Emotional Learning for Early Childhood Training

One scholar partnered with the Early Childhood Regional Training Center and a KEDC consultant to develop caregiver resources for social emotional learning of young children. These collaborators indicated that caregivers had expressed concerns about the impact of the pandemic school closures on children’s social skills, attention, and behavior regulation (Linnavalli & Kalland, 2021; Wendel et al., 2020) and therefore were interested in having online resources developed for caregivers to add to their existing resource library. The project consisted of four narrated PowerPoint modules (ranging from 4 to 7 minutes in length) which covered topics such as practicing social emotional skills in the home, behavior-specific praise (Cimpian et al., 2007) and the dialogic reading of books (Doyle & Bramwell, 2006; Vajcner, 2015). The Regional Training Center added the training to an existing caregiver online resource library.

Social Narratives and System of Least Prompts

One scholar developed training for rural caregivers that would assist with working on functional skills with their children at home. Rural caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder experience multiple challenges accessing high-quality services due to factors identified by Meadan et al. (2016) including (a) an already short supply of service providers, especially in rural areas, coinciding with the increased prevalence of children requiring intervention; (b) staffing shortages that are further exacerbated by extensive travel time to rural areas; and (c) the higher poverty rate in rural communities that further limits the types and duration of services. Coaching caregivers in evidence-based interventions has proven to be an effective solution to the scarcity of services in some communities (see Lane et al., 2016).

Once needs were identified through collaboration with the KEDC consultant, a series of online training modules and accompanying handouts were created. Two evidence-based methods were highlighted for training: social narratives and the system of least prompts. The social narratives module was broken down into the following sections: history and rationale, guidelines for writing social narratives, and creating and implementing social narratives to address challenging behaviors. The response prompting strategy system of least prompts module included information on the need for EBPs, key terms and introduction to the system of least prompts, and introduction videos on system of least prompts. The narrated presentations as well as a link for parental feedback were uploaded to the KEDC webpage to be used at their discretion and uploaded to YouTube (see Figure 3). YouTube is an optimal platform to house video training because it is compatible with multiple devices, thereby increasing the chance that caregivers would be able to access the modules with a phone or computer. Future plans include conducting a “town hall meeting” as an in-person training option for families and to answer specific questions about the instructional methods taught in the modules.

Figure 3.

Caregiver Training: Social Narratives

Discussion and Conclusion

These service-learning projects were completed during the spring of 2021, during which time COVID restrictions, while waning, had created a shift in way partner districts worked with institutions of higher education in Kentucky. Therefore, Project PURPLE faculty responded by reaching out to KEDC which serves a large rural area in Eastern Kentucky.

The KEDC has an infrastructure established in their region which allowed the scholars to immediately begin work. By tapping into the tremendous KEDC resource, the scholars were able to piggyback onto existing projects with the KEDC consultants. This meant that rather than spending time identifying needs, the scholars were able to begin work immediately with the consultants to develop service-learning projects that aligned with their personal areas of interest. The result was a diverse set of projects that met multiple areas of need in the region that were targeted specifically to include efficient methods of providing training in rural regions (e.g., online training and PD; Erickson et al., 2012). Three of the service projects focused on education professionals (i.e., PD, training), and four focused on caregiver support.

Furthermore, the collaboration allowed the scholars to develop professionally in the areas of service and research. They forged collaborative research partnerships across institutions and with state-level special education leaders. As a result of these projects, scholars presented 10 presentations at national and state-level professional conferences and published two peer-reviewed papers, enabling them to gain experience in this area.

For KEDC, the benefits of this partnership included additional manpower to accomplish their projects. The PD plays a crucial role in improving teacher effectiveness and impacting student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). However, there are barriers to providing PD in rural school settings: limited financial resources, limited human capital, and geographic isolation (Cadero-Smith, 2020; Glover et al., 2016). Many of these barriers were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. One KEDC consultant noted,

One of the projects from which I benefited the most was the KMIT calibration tool. I am a part of the regional implementation team and found it to be really helpful in identifying the “look fors” when doing math walk-throughs. It created strong professional discussions and increased my knowledge and confidence in completing the KMIT.

As mentioned in the introduction, budget concerns are forefront in rural school districts due to both tax-based funding structures and the increased financial output per pupil (Andrews et al., 2002; Walker, 2019) that can result in a lack of expertise in rural areas. Therefore, school districts seek support for training and service. Partnerships such as the one described can be invaluable for rural districts to gain access to resources and the expertise of highly trained doctoral scholars. The added benefits include free trainings on EBPs, additional man-power, and future connections to local university faculty.

Lessons Learned and Future Research

While the learning outcomes of the Project PURPLE II course were accomplished (e.g., demonstrating advanced knowledge of needs and EBPs in rural settings) and current KEDC projects were completed with the assistance of the scholars, there were several lessons learned that lend themselves to areas for future research.

The typical 16-week semester format limited the scholars’ ability to gather data on the implementation of their projects prior to the end of the course. Several of the projects, such as the KMIT Scoring Module, include ongoing refinement and implementation at the state level. Those projects that included an in-person aspect (e.g., 3, 4, and 5’s administrator training) where not able to be scheduled in the short timeframe our semester provided.

While our scholars did provide a service to the state, and specifically KEDC’s identified rural region, we did not gather quantitative data regarding the scholars’ and KEDC consultants’ perspectives on the collaboration. We have anecdotal evidence that the partnership was mutually beneficial and resulted in learning on both sides. Future research should include more quantitative and robust measures to assess the mutual benefits derived from such projects and the impact on the scholars’ teaching, research, and service, as well as the impact of the project on the region and state.

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

We received funding from the Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Grant H325D190030.

ORCID iDs

Kera B. Ackerman

Melinda Jones Ault

Ginevra Courtade

Mary Elliott

Abbi M. Long

Kate Snider

References

Andre

T. G.

Valdez-Montero

Marquez-Vega

M. A.

Ahumada-Cortez

J. G.

Gamez-Medina

M. E.

(2020). Communication on sexuality between parents and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Sexuality & Disability, 38(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-020-09628-1

Andrews

Duncombe

Yinger

(2002). Revisiting economies of size in American education: Are we any closer to a consensus? Economics of Education Review, 21(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00006-1

Aramburo

Rodl

(2020). Boosting school administrator confidence when evaluating special educators through district support and training. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 5(2), 86–95. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1301179.pdf; https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v5i2.3147

Astin

A. W.

Vogelgesang

L. J.

Ikeda

E. K.

Yee

J. A.

(2000). How service-learning affects students. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. https://heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/HSLAS/HSLAS.PDF

Ault

M. J.

Bausch

McLaren

(2013). Assistive technology service delivery in rural school districts. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(2), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200403

Baldwin

Buchanan

Rudisill

(2007). What teacher candidates learned about diversity, social justice, and themselves from service learning experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107305259

Barton

A. C.

(2000). Crafting multicultural science education with pre-service teachers through service learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 797–820. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/110

Bettini

Gilmour

A. F.

Williams

T. O.

Billingsley

(2020). Predicting special and general educators’ intent to continue teaching using conservation of resources theory. Exceptional Children, 86(3), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919870464

Bettini

Wang

Cumming

Kimerling

Schutz

(2019). Special educators’ experiences of roles and responsibilities in self-contained classes for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762470

10.

Cadero-Smith

L. A.

(2020). Teacher professional development challenges faced by rural superintendents. In Sahin

(Eds.), Teacher professional development challenges faced by rural superintendents. International Society for Technology, Education and Science Organization. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605531.pdf

11.

Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education. (n.d.). The elective classification for community engagement. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/elective-classifications/community-engagement/

12.

Carrington

Saggers

(2008). Service-learning informing the development of an inclusive ethical framework for beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 795–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.006

13.

Cimpian

Arce

H.-M. C.

Markman

E. M.

Dweck

C. S.

(2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18(4), 314–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x

14.

Collins

B. C.

Ludlow

B. L.

(2018). Best practices for students with moderate and severe disabilities: A rural retrospective. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870518764636

15.

Connor-Greene

P. A.

(2002). Problem-based service learning: The evolution of a team project. Society and the Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2903_02

16.

Cronin

(2018). Assistive technology reasoning in rural school-based occupational therapy. Assistive Technology, 30(4), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2017.130

17.

Darling-Hammond

Hyler

M. E.

Gardner

(2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12365/17357/46%20Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf?sequence=1

18.

Davis

T. N.

Barnard-Brak

Arredondo

P. L.

(2013). Assistive technology: Decision-making practices in public schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(4), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200403

19.

Doyle

B. G.

Bramwell

(2006). Promoting emergent literacy and social–emotional learning through dialogic reading. The Reading Teacher, 59(6), 554–565. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.6.5

20.

Ennis

R. P.

Royer

D. J.

Lane

K. L.

Menzies

H. M.

Oakes

W. P.

Schellman

L. E.

(2018). Behavior-specific praise: An effective, efficient, low-intensity strategy to support student success. Beyond Behavior, 27(3), 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295618798587

21.

Erickson

A. S. G.

Noonan

P. M.

McCall

(2012). Effectiveness of online professional development for rural special educators. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100104

22.

Glover

T. A.

Nugent

W. C.

Chumney

F. L.

Ihlo

Shapiro

E. S.

Guard

K. N.

Bovaird

(2016). Investigating rural teachers’ professional development, instructional knowledge, and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 31(3), 1–16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1101917.pdf

23.

Health Resources & Services Administration. (2024). Defining rural population. https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/what-is-rural

24.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

25.

Johnson

Ohlson

M. A.

Shope

(2018). Demographic changes in rural America and the implications for special education programming: A descriptive and comparative analysis. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(3), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870518771381

26.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2021). Kentucky school report card. https://www.kyschoolreportcard.com/home?year=2021

27.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2022a). Digital readiness reports. https://applications.education.ky.gov/trs_reports/TopTrends.aspx?id=Region%207

28.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2022b). Kentucky mathematics toolkit to support students with disabilities. https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/instresources/Documents/MathematicsToolkitSupport.pdf

29.

Kerrigan

S. M.

(2005). College graduates’ perspectives on the effect of capstone service-learning courses. In Pasque

P. A.

Bowman

Martinez

(Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on higher education for the public good (pp. 49–65). National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good.

30.

Lane

J. D.

Ledford

J. R.

Shepley

Mataras

T. K.

Ayres

K. M.

Davis

A. B.

(2016). A brief coaching intervention for teaching naturalistic strategies to parents. Journal of Early Intervention, 38(3), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815116663178

31.

Lane

K. L.

Menzies

H. M.

Ennis

R. P.

Oakes

W. P.

Royer

D. J.

Lane

K. S.

(2018). Instructional choice: An effective, efficient, low-intensity strategy to support student success. Beyond Behavior, 273(3), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295618786965

32.

Linnavalli

Kalland

(2021). Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the social-emotional wellbeing of preschool children and their families. Education Sciences, 11(8), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080435

33.

Mackin

L. M.

Loew

Gonzalez

Tykol

Christensen

(2016). Parent perceptions of sexual education needs for their children with autism. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 31(6), 608–618. https://doi-org.echo.louisville.edu/10.1016/j.pedn.2016.07.003

34.

Meadan

Snodgrass

M. R.

Meyer

L. E.

Fisher

K. W.

Chung

M. Y.

Halle

J. W.

(2016). Internet-based parent-implemented intervention for young children with autism: A pilot study. Journal of Early Intervention, 38(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815116630327

35.

Mortari

Ubbiali

(2021). Service learning: A philosophy and practice to reframe higher education. Athens Journal of Education, 8(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.8-2-1

36.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. www.nctm.org/principlestoactions

37.

Pasquesi

(2020). Putting the “community” in college and university classrooms: Research-based teaching practices in service-learning and community engagement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 164, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20421

38.

Rooks-Ellis

D. L.

Jones

Sulinski

Howorth

Achey

(2020). The effectiveness of a brief sexuality education intervention for parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 15(4), 444–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1800542

39.

Rude

Miller

K. J.

(2018). Policy challenges and opportunities for rural special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517748662

40.

Showalter

Hartman

S. L.

Johnson

Klein

(2019). Why rural matters 2018–2019: The time is now—A report of the Rural School and Community Trust. Rural School and Community Trust. https://www.ruraledu.org/WhyRuralMatters.pdf

41.

Sider

Maich

Morvan

Villella

Ling

Repp

(2021). Inclusive school leadership: Examining the experiences of Canadian school principals in supporting students with special education needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 21(3), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12515

42.

Stamopoulos

(2006). Empowering pre-service teachers to embrace diversity. Australian Journal of Early Childhood Education, 31(4), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693910603100406

43.

Strnadova

Danker

Carter

(2021). Scoping review on sex education for high school-aged students with intellectual disability and/or on the autism spectrum: Parents,’ teachers,’ and students’ perspectives, attitudes and experiences. Sex Education, 223(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2021.1941842

44.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Rural health information hub. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/states/kentucky

45.

Vajcner

T. J.

(2015). Dialogic reading using social-emotional themed storybooks: Impact on preschoolers’ emergent literacy and emotion knowledge [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ohio State University.

46.

Walker

(2019, November 26). Many rural students still “invisible” to lawmakers. NEA Today. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/many-rural-students-still-invisible-lawmakers

47.

Wendel

Ritchie

Rogers

M. A.

Ogg

J. A.

Santuzzi

A. M.

Shelleby

E. C.

Menter

(2020). The association between child ADHD symptoms and changes in parental Involvement in kindergarten children’s learning during COVID-19. School Psychology Review, 49(4), 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1838233