Project Background and Goals
A common theme of current educational reform is that teachers must address the needs of diverse learners in the regular classroom context. This concept has grown to subsume both the special educator's notion of "inclusion" as well as the multiculturalist's demand for nondiscriminatory, equitable learning opportunities for all children. The pressures brought to bear by advocates within both of these constituencies have emanated from a long history of chronic underachievement and a lack of access to optimal learning environments and resources for minorities and those with physical, mental, and emotional handicaps. (Banks, 1993; Webb-Johnson, Artiles, Trent, Jackson & Velox, 1998)
While professional development initiatives for teachers in the field are attempting to reshape professional attitudes and skills, there is a growing demand for teacher training programs that prepare students to meet these challenges before professional practice begins (Quigney, 1998). Many institutes of higher education are restructuring their programs to produce this new generation of teachers; however, it is not clear at the present time what types of undergraduate and graduate programmatic structures and academic opportunities will effectively and efficiently render these changes in teacher's skills and attitudes (Jorgensen, Schuh & Heron, 1996). It is also clear that programmatic structures and curricula must be designed to accommodate the social, political, and demographic characteristics of individual colleges and universities in order for faculty and administrators to support and fully implement them.
Several years ago, the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota-TC eliminated its undergraduate teacher education program, adopting a post baccalaureate requirement leading to eligibility for teacher licensure. While designing this major restructuring of the regular education "licensure" programs, administrators and faculty representing both elementary and special education licensure programs collaborated in the design of a programmatic option that would incorporate a substantial degree of special education coursework into the elementary teacher education program. Two alternatives for pursuing elementary licensure were made available. One program option enables students to graduate with a degree in their major field of study and enter the post baccalaureate program to complete their education requirements for licensure. Their curriculum contains approximately two credit hours of content related to special education. The other option, identified as the Foundations of Education Program, requires those students pursuing an elementary education license to begin a core of regular education and special education courses in their Junior year while completing the Bachelor degree requirements for their major. During the senior year, these students complete four core courses in special education and a practicum assignment in a public school. The courses are designed to give students content knowledge related to laws and issues in special education, the characteristics, learning styles and needs of exceptional and at-risk students, and appropriate teaching methods for addressing these needs. Objectives to increase knowledge and skills related to working with parents and outside resources, design and use behavioral analysis techniques, create behavior management plans, and analyze and interpret assessment tools and procedures are also included. This coursework resulted in approximately eighteen quarter hours of credit. Following graduation, Foundations of Education students enroll in education courses with the other post baccalaureate students to complete their licensure requirements.
By the Fall of 1997, the Foundations of Education curriculum was defined and faculty/staff from both departments of Curriculum and Instruction and Special Education were assigned teaching, advising, and coordination responsibilities. Ongoing evaluation and development of this program was considered essential to its viability within the College. It was not clear at the time of its inception to what extent students would be interested in pursuing this type of coursework. Ultimately, faculty and administrators hoped that many of the Foundations of Education students would at some point continue their education to pursue a special education license in addition to their elementary education license. The Institutes of Higher Education Collaborative grant sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning was used to evaluate, modify, extend, and enrich the Foundations of Education program. In addition, the grant supported faculty/staff efforts to evaluate students in both the Foundations of Education and Post Baccalaureate programs regarding their perceptions of the importance of taking coursework related to special education at the preservice level. Students' beliefs regarding their own preparedness for teaching in diverse classrooms were investigated. Finally, the funding enabled faculty/staff from the Departments of Curriculum and Instruction, Educational Psychology (Special Education Program), and Institute on Community Integration to collaborate on the design of special education readings and activities that could be readily adopted by Curriculum and Instruction faculty/staff and infused into their regular licensure classes during the fifth year of both the Foundations of Education and the Post Baccalaureate programs. These faculty/staff members also explored possible methods for getting these materials and activities to the students quickly and efficiently so that their learning would not be delayed by prolonged curriculum restructuring efforts.
Collaborating faculty and staff proposed the following collaborative, interdisciplinary strategies to address the primary goal of extending and enriching the current Foundations of Education program:
Outcome Measures and Results
Measurement of progress toward project goals was conducted using a variety of methods. The descriptive analyses offered in this report reflect the use of qualitative approaches; for example, newly developed course content including reading materials and activities, a course website design, interview responses, and programmatic decisions made as a result of collaborative meetings and communications. Quantitative data are related primarily to student survey responses. At the end of the spring quarter, 1999, both FOE students and Post Baccalaureate students were surveyed regarding their experiences and perceptions related to their respective programs. Seventy-six Foundations of Education students enrolled in required program courses at various times between the fall 1997 and spring 1999, and sixty-six Post Baccaulaureate students enrolled in program courses between winter 1996 and summer 1999 responded to the survey. The FOE students who responded represent 67% of those receiving the survey. The Post Bac students who responded represent 34% of those who received the survey. The difference in response rate is most likely due to the greater number of Post Bac students who had to be reached by mail.
|
Goal Description: To increase the degree of collaboration among faculty and staff who hold teaching responsibilities in the Post baccalaureate and Foundations of Education programs.
|
Related Outcomes:
Planning Meetings
Faculty and Academic Staff from Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Psychology (Special Education Program) met on a regular basis throughout the winter and spring quarters. The focus of these meeting revolved around issues related to merging special education content and activities into the post baccalaureate methods courses. Possibilities for team-teaching efforts were explored. Regular communication also occurred between C&I and SPED faculty/staff holding primary responsibilities for the Foundation of Education Program.
Team Teaching
The planning team discussed opportunities for team teaching of C&I Methods courses. Due to administrative issues related to course credit loads for instructors, etc., it was not possible to make official changes in instructor assignments. However, C&I faculty invited Special Education faculty to speak on special education issues in their classes during winter and spring quarters. Regular education preservice teachers were also encouraged to attend presentations given by Special Education and Institute on Community Integration on a variety of special education issues and topics.
Course Web Development
Because issues related to team-teaching in real classroom time raised a formidable number of administrative and logistical obstacles, the planning team decided that collaborative teaching could occur more readily through the use of an "interdepartmental" course website. This website would enable instructors responsible for the regular education curriculum to use content and activities designed by special education instructors as a regular part of their course. In addition, students in the Post baccalaureate and Foundations of Education programs would have access to special education faculty, doctoral and master's degree graduate students, and special education expert teachers in the public schools to offer direction and feedback related to special education content and activities assigned within the context of their regular education licensure courses. A licensed special education teacher who is currently a doctoral student in the Special Education program was assigned to assist faculty in the development of this website. The first "layer" of the site was piloted in FOE classes during spring quarter. Work on a more comprehensive site is currently underway. The second "layer" of the site, projected to be online for student use by spring semester 2000, will have extensive links for students to access information related to special education, as well as detailed case study materials for students to analyze and use in problem solving activities. For the third "layer" of this course web development, technical staff will build in the interdepartmental connecting capabilities for regular and special education faculty/staff, students, and practicing teacher-experts to have access to this course website. Special education faculty and a select group of doctoral students currently receiving intensive training in technology and web development skills will work with the Curriculum and Instruction faculty to assist them in merging the special education material and activities into their courses via the course web. Some of the content and activities are included in Appendix (A) of this report.
Course Content Development
During winter and spring quarters and the summer session, course content was developed for integration into the Post Baccalaureate Methods courses. The collaborative planning team met regularly to discuss the type of content that would be applicable and most easily incorporated into the fifth year Post Baccalaureate courses. It was decided that the material should focus heavily on readings related to a wide variety of teaching strategies for exceptional and at-risk learners. Selection of what was to be included was based not only on it's representation of "best practice,' but also its wide application to academic subject areas. Case studies were then identified or developed and related activities created for use in the Methods courses. These materials and activities can be used by individual instructors, teams of C &I and Special Education instructors as a part of their regular course instruction, or they can be used as part of the course Website (see Appendix A).
Related Survey Results
Post Bac Student Responses
Members of the collaborative team felt that it would be helpful to survey the Post bac students regarding their interest in learning about special education content and skills as well as their perceptions related to their preparation for working with exceptional students in inclusive settings. When asked why they chose to enroll in the Post bac program as opposed to the Foundations of Education program, only 4.5% indicated that they were "…not particularly interested in special education…" Approximately 1% indicated that they already had a special education background or thought that their knowledge in that area was already adequate. Only 3% chose the Post back program over FOE because they believed they would receive adequate training and experiences after they started their teaching careers.
Only 2.2% and 8.7% strongly agreed and agreed, respectively, that their exposure to special education content offered in their EdHD 5003 course (Development in Individual Differences) was sufficient preparation for working with children with special needs in regular education settings (see Table One). Approximately 61% of the students disagreed or strongly disagreed that this coursework provided adequate preparation.
A total of 70% agreed or strongly agreed that strategies for teaching special education children should be incorporated in all methods courses in the fifth year of the Post Baccalaureate program (see Table Two). A general question tapping their perceptions of preparedness to handle the challenging needs of special education students in the regular classroom indicated that only 16% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Forty percent neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement, and 43.6% strongly disagreed or disagreed.
Foundations of Education Student Responses
The majority of FOE students enrolled in the program because they believed it would enhance future employment opportunities, were influenced by discussions with peers and advisors, or had personal experiences that had increased their interest in special education. Sixty percent agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend the program to a friend. Approximately thirty percent were uncommitted to agreeing or disagreeing to this statement.
Seventy percent of the FOE students strongly agreed or agreed that they were more prepared to teach special education students by taking the special education block of courses. No one strongly disagreed and only 8.3% disagreed (see Table Three). Ninety-six percent of the FOE students agreed and strongly agreed that coursework and training in special education is important for all teachers preparing or a regular education license (see Table Four). Sixty-two percent agreed or strongly agreed that information related to the special education needs of exceptional children must be incorporated into all methods courses in the 5th year elementary education licensure program. No one strongly disagreed with this statement and 14.9% disagreed.
One striking response on the FOE survey indicated that 99% of the students who had taken the special education core of courses stated that they understood the importance and process of building collaborative relationships between parents, communities and schools (see Table Five). Eighty-four percent agreed or strongly agreed that they are ready to use their knowledge of collaboration to build relationships between schools, parents, and teachers. Sixty-five percent of students agree or strongly agreed that they were prepared to implement inclusive practices in the classroom. Eighty-two percent agreed or strongly agreed that they will be able to utilize the knowledge of special education gained in the FOE program in a regular classroom (see Table Six).
|
Goal Description: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Behavioral Analysis course (EPSY 5116) in providing Foundations of Education students with knowledge and skills required by the reauthorization of IDEA.
|
Related Outcomes:
Related Survey Results
The content of the Behavioral Analysis course section offered to the Foundations of Education undergraduate cohort has been designed to align closely with current IDEA principles and mandated skills. The collaborative planning team decided to evaluate the students' perceptions of their preparation in areas of behavior management and functional assessments. In order to measure this, questions specific to these issues were included on a survey given to Foundations of Education students. The same questions were also asked of Post Baccalaureate students and alumni in order to determine whether students who took the Behavioral Analysis expressed more confidence related to their preparation and skills in this area.
Foundations of Education Student Responses
In response to the survey question stem: "The EPSY 5116 course was helpful in preparing me to work with special needs students," 42.6% strongly agreed and 33.8% agreed with this statement. Only 4% strongly disagreed with this statement. In response to the question: "I feel prepared to handle challenging behaviors in my regular education classroom," 13.5% strongly agreed and 52.7% agreed. Only 1.4% strongly disagreed and 5.4% disagreed (see Table Seven). Nearly 19% strongly agreed and 50.7% agreed to the question: " I understand the concept of a functional behavior assessment and I feel prepared to assist a school psychologist in doing such an assessment if needed." Eight percent and 1.4% disagreed and strongly disagreed, respectively (see Table Eight).
In terms of a general preparedness to participate in observations, assessment processes and interpretation of results, and the design of classroom interventions, 66% of FOE students strongly agreed and agreed that they were. None of the FOE students strongly disagreed with this and only 2.7% disagreed (see Table 9).
Post Baccalaureate Student Responses
In contrast to the FOE student responses, only 3.6% of the Post Baccalaureate students strongly agreed with the statement: "I understand the concept of a functional behavior assessment and I feel prepared to assist a school psychologist in doing such an assessment if needed" (see Table Eight). Also, only 3.7% of the Post Bac students strongly agreed that they were adequately prepared to participate in activities related to observation, assessment processes and interpretation of results, and the design of classroom interventions. Forty-one percent felt that they were not prepared to participate in these activities (see Table Nine).
Comparative analyses of response patterns indicate that FOE students generally feel more prepared than their Post baccalaureate counterpart to participate in activities related to the assessment and management of challenging classroom behaviors. Furthermore, these differences are attributed largely to coursework completed in the EPSY 5116 Behavior Analysis class.
Program Restructuring
Based on a review of the content and skills taught in EPSY 5116 and an analysis of the students' responses to this course, members of the planning team decided to change the original semester conversion plan for the Foundations of Education students. In the initial plan, FOE students would take the Behavioral Analysis course later in their graduate program only if they decided to pursue licensure in a specific area of special education. Because students indicated that they highly valued the content and skills taught in this course and felt it increased their competencies related to managing behaviorally challenging behaviors in regular classroom settings, it was decided that the course should be included as part of the curriculum for the senior year. All Foundations of Education students will therefore have a full semester course in Behavioral Analysis as part of their preparation for regular teacher licensure.
|
Goal Description: To design course objectives and materials for directing the work of paraprofessionals in the regular classroom through collaboration with the Institute on Community Integration.
|
Related Outcomes:
Collaborative Course Planning
Faculty and staff from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction the Special Education Program, and the Institute on Community Integration held planning meetings to design course objectives, select readings, and create case study activities that could be integrated into the special education block classes and post baccalaureate methods courses through direct classroom experiences or class website assignments. Foundation of Education students were also invited to participate in training and informational presentations made by staff from the Institute on Community Integration on working with paraprofessionals. Instructors responsible for teaching the core of special education courses offered in the senior year of the Foundation of Education program will be incorporating an increasing amount of content presented in ICI's recently published Minnesota Paraprofessional Guide (1999) and The Paraprofessional (1999) into the EPSY 5613 special education course "Families and Professionals Working with Students with Special Needs." Specific case studies presented on the course website will include questions that require students to select and read articles from the paraprofessional reading list in order to respond to hypothetical circumstances related to working with paraprofessionals in their classroom. The website will also include a link to the "National Clearinghouse for Paraeducator Resources." (See Appendix B for sample materials)
Related Survey Results
Based on survey results of the Foundation of Education students and Post Baccalaureate students and alumni, it appears that FOE students are somewhat more confident of their preparation to direct the work of paraprofessionals in the regular classroom. Forty-eight percent of the FOE students strongly agree and agree that they "… have the skills and are prepared to direct a paraprofessional accompanying a special education student…" Only 1.4% and 10.8% strongly disagreed and disagreed, respectively. In response to this same question, 33% of Post Bac students strongly agreed and agreed that they possessed these skills. More Post Bac than FOE students disagreed and strongly disagreed with this statement, 29.6% and 3.7%, respectively (see Table Ten). These findings should be considered in light of the experiences the Post Bac survey population already have when compared to the FOE population. The Post Bac sample consists of some alumni who have already been teaching on a full time basis for a year or two. Because the FOE program is relatively new, the experience of the sample ranges from several beginning level practica to student teaching. The Post Bac survey sample, therefore, has had more opportunities to actually know and work with paraprofessionals and possibly participate in any district initiatives for in-service training related to paraprofessional. Despite these differences in career level experience, the FOE student responses still reflect a greater perception of preparedness and competence related to working with paraprofessionals in their classrooms.
|
Goal Description: To design and supervise activities related to special education knowledge and skills for the fifth-year Post baccalaureate microteaching practicum through collaboration among Special Education, Curriculum and Instruction, and Institute on Community Integration faculty/staff.
|
Related Outcomes:
Practicum Activities
Both Foundations of Education and Post Baccalaureate students take the microteaching practicum in their fifth year while taking their methods courses. Microteaching precedes the student teaching and is intended to provide students with several teaching experiences that are built upon lessons that the students have designed in their methods blocks. The students teach approximately half the pupils in a regular elementary classroom during a specific class period over several days. They are observed and given detailed feedback regarding their lesson plans and teaching skills. The planning team spent time during the spring quarter collaborating to identify activities that would enable students to use their knowledge of exceptional children and related specific teaching strategies. Team members made observations of students conducting their microteaching lessons and discussions were held with regular classroom teachers in order to gain their perspective on how to design the lessons and activities.
Expansion of the microteaching experience will involve having cooperating teachers share information about an exceptional or at-risk student who will be involved in the microteaching lesson. While designing their these lessons, students will be required to plan for addressing the unique needs of these students and identifying teaching strategies that will be appropriate. Special Education and Curriculum and Instruction instructors will collaborate in giving feedback to students regarding their lesson plans and microteaching experiences. The planning team intends to accomplish some of this collaboration through the course website. Students will be able to access information regarding specific disabilities and teaching strategies on-line for their lesson planning and will also receive feedback from Special Education faculty/staff, graduate students, and on-line teacher experts.
Related Survey Results
The FOE students were surveyed to find out if they would have liked more preservice opportunities to teach exceptional students in a regular classroom environment; for example, during the fifth year microteaching units. Slightly more than half (52.1%) agreed or strongly agreed with this. Fewer than 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement and 32.4% were uncommitted (see Table Eleven).
The Post Bac students were surveyed to ascertain whether they thought it would have been helpful to have more knowledge and skills in the area of special education to help them during their microteaching and student teaching experiences. Sixty-four percent strongly agreed or agreed with this statement, nearly 20% were uncommitted, and 17% disagreed or strongly disagreed (see Table Twelve). Some of the anecdotal comments related to this question suggested that a number of those disagreeing with this statement did so because they entered the Post Bac program with special education experiences already, i.e., working as paraprofessionals, counselors, etc.)
|
Goal Description: To align field experiences with Special Education course content and objectives through collaboration among Special Education, Curriculum and Instruction faculty/staff, and Practicum site teachers and administrators.
|
Related Outcomes:
Course Design
Three of the special education courses required in the Foundations of Education program (EPSY 5601: The Education of Exceptional Children; EPSY 5608: Family and Professional Planning for Persons with Disabilities; and EPSY 5700: Assessment and Decision-Making in Special Education) were redesigned to include requirements that involved observations and activities to be performed in public school settings. Many of these assignments were connected to the Curriculum and Instruction practicum that students enrolled in while taking the special education block. A teaching assistant was hired to assist specifically with setting up and coordinating this practicum so that students had access to special education classrooms, teachers, and students. Special education faculty invited principals in the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and first ring suburban districts to become practicum sites. Meetings were held to orient the principals and teachers regarding the goals and objectives of the practicum and the types of activities required for the students. The focus on inclusion was emphasized. Students were then assigned to a variety of special education, remedial, and regular classroom settings to observe children, teaching strategies, and programmatic practices related to IDEA. Students were also required to conduct interviews with special and regular educators, support personnel, resource agency personnel, and parents of children with exceptionalities. The teaching assistant communicated regularly with the students both in person and on-line regarding their progress. On-line discussion group assignments required students to make applications of practicum experiences to content and issues covered in class. The teaching assistant was responsible for communicating with principals, cooperating teachers, students and faculty regarding assignments and expectations of the students on a continual basis. By the end of spring quarter, eight new schools had become practicum sites for this collaborative field experience.
Follow-up Evaluation Meetings
Special Education faculty/staff conducted follow-up evaluation meetings with practicum site school administrators and teachers at the end of the spring quarter. Information related to the success and challenges of the practicum experiences was solicited. Teachers were generally positive in their review of how the students conducted themselves and emphatically reinforced their need to have the students assist them with the students while they are in the classroom. Most of the teachers expressed concern that students should not be required to spend too much time just observing. Teachers felt that if they were going to open their classrooms and provide mentoring to University students, they needed assurance that practicum requirements be flexible enough for students to help out as much as possible. These meetings clearly illuminated the need for practitioners and University faculty to continue to collaborate and negotiate a shared understanding of the expectations and responsibilities related to each stakeholder.
Related Survey Results
The FOE students were surveyed on a variety of issues related to their practicum experiences while enrolled in the special education block. There was a need to eliminate students in the first two cohorts from responding to some of the questions since the practicum did not relate specifically to special education during those quarters. Seventy-four percent of the students who had taken the practicum after the alignment process was initiated indicated that it was helpful to have practicum experiences that reflected course content. Thirteen percent disagreed or strongly disagreed (see Table Thirteen). The majority of students had their field experience in regular classrooms (64.2%) where special education students were included. This was considered desirable by the planning team if the practicum students also had opportunities access to observe occasionally in other special education program options. Fifteen percent of the students indicated that they never had opportunities to observe in a variety of settings and only 4.1% of students strongly agreed that they had a sufficient variety of experiences in a variety of settings, therefore, this is considered to be an area that requires further development with participating sites.
Nearly 70% of the students responded that they never or rarely worked with the teacher in implementing interventions or took on teaching responsibilities. This is considered appropriate by the planning team since this is an early field experience and students are there to observe and interact with the students but should not be asked to take on responsibilities they are not adequately prepared for. A little over half the students (52%) indicated that they sometimes, often, or always received guidance and feedback from the cooperating teacher on their performance related to practicum activities. This also would be considered an area for further development since 27.4% of the students indicated that they never received such feedback. Seventy-four percent of the students responded that they would benefit from more experiences with regular education teachers who also had experience and knowledge of special education and exceptional children (see Table Fourteen). The planning team when locating and working with practicum sites will consider this; however, at the present time it is difficult to find teachers with both regular and special education expertise.
|
Goal Description: To communicate regularly with College of Education and Human Development Administrators, and the Teacher Education Council regarding the status of the Foundations of Education Program.
|
Related Outcomes:
Meetings/Communications Department
Chairs of the Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Psychology departments received regular communications from the Curriculum and Instruction and Special Education faculty/staff regarding enrollment patterns and course enrollment numbers in the FOE program. Several meetings were held with both regarding the current and future staffing and fiscal needs of the program. Expectations for students in the program and program delivery obstacles and challenges were frequently discussed at the Special Education faculty meetings. These issues were also discussed informally on an ongoing basis throughout winter and spring quarters among faculty and staff directly responsible for the FOE program.
FOE faculty/staff also attended Council of Teacher Education meetings to learn about the committee's progress in the development of practicum and student teaching evaluation instruments. The Special Education representative to this committee was kept abreast of collaborative efforts related to the FOE and Post Bac programs and was therefore able to serve as a liason in sharing relevant information concerning the Council's agenda.
Throughout the winter and spring quarters of 1999, collaboration among interdepartmental faculty and staff members involved in the Foundations of Education and Post Baccalaureate regular education licensure and the Special Education programs increased significantly. Frequent meetings and communications occurred in efforts to conceptualize, and later implement, programmatic changes aimed at merging special education content into the regular education coursework. A key finding that emerged from these efforts was that the task of providing quality training related to inclusive practices would be most effectively and expeditiously served through the promotion of a interdepartmental course website. In fact, the development and use of the website will, in all probability, become a vehicle for increasing and enhancing interdepartmental teaming efforts. At this point, new course content designed specifically to increase the competence of regular education teachers in inclusive settings has been developed and is ready for use in a variety of contexts, including the course website.
It is also clear that students value their special education practicum experiences and want more time in schools, more variety in their classroom placements, and more access to teachers who have both regular and special education expertise. This finding has implications related to the ongoing development of school-university professional partnerships. Both the course website and the new course content that were developed for this project were designed to increase students' exposure to "simulated" practicum experiences through the use of case study teaching methods. In addition, the website will enable students to discuss specific cases with online experts and have access to a vast body of research to assist them in solving problems, designing interventions, and selecting effective accommodations and modifications for exceptional students.
Another key finding relates to the comparison of the perceptions of regular education licensure students who have received a core of special education coursework versus those that have completed a program that has very little exposure to special education content and skills. While generalizations based on the survey results must be restricted somewhat because of limited post baccalaureate response rates, a distinct difference in student confidence levels related to training and skills seems to be emerging. Students in both programs appear to believe that preservice preparation in special education will enhance their competence to handle challenges they will face in today's classrooms. It is significant, therefore, that the students who have taken the core of special education courses along with the related practicum express far more confidence in their knowledge base and skills and their overall readiness to take on responsibilities mandated by the reauthorization of IDEA. These findings support the importance of merging special education content into the regular licensure curriculum. Very simply, students value this information and feel more prepared when it is offered. In light of the severe shortage of special education teachers, it will also be increasingly important to expose preservice licensure students to options available in both special education as well as regular education early in their teacher education programs. Opportunities for encouraging students to pursue a license in special education will be increased.
As a result of the work accomplished under the CFL sponsored grant, the College of Education has made significant progress in addressing the needs of students seeking regular education licensure. New channels for sharing information have been opened and collaborative activities among interdepartmental and public school faculty and staff have increased significantly.
References
Banks, J. (1993). "Multicultural Education." Phi Delta Kappan, 75(1), 22-28.
Jorgensen, C., Schuh, M. & Heron, E. (1996). "Preparing Teachers to Teach Children: New Hampshire's Teacher Education Systems Change Project." In Jorgensen, C. (Ed.) Teachers Are For All Children: Restructuring Teacher Education for Today's Diverse Classrooms. Durham: Institute on Disability/UAP, University of New Hampshire.
Quigney, T. (1998). "Collaborative Teacher Training for Special and General Educators: Rationale and Recurring Themes." Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 20-31.
Webb-Johnson, G., Artiles, A.J., Trent, S.C., Jackson, C.W. & Velox, A. (1998). "The Status of Research on Multicultural Education in Teacher Education and Special Education: Problems, Pitfalls, and Promises." Remedial and Special Education, 19 (1), 7-15.
 |
 |