Contributions from: Denise Clark.
This paper is based on the following study: Ryndak, D. L., Clark, D. M., Conroy, M., & Stuart, C. H. (in press). Preparing teachers to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities: Expertise identified in masters programs. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities.
Abstract
A the number of students with severe disabilities being educated in inclusive general education settings increases, the responsibilities of special education teachers has changed. To meet these responsibilities, special education teachers of students with severe disabilities must possess different expertise than previously necessary. In response to these changing needs of special education teachers of students with severe disabilities, teacher preparation programs are beginning to revisit their masters programs that prepare teachers of students with severe disabilities. Some experts in the field of severe disabilities, as well as in the area of generic special education, have argued that since there isn't a currently accepted set of expertise in the field of severe disabilities, then there is no justification for creating separate programs or certifications to prepare teachers in the area of severe disabilities. Unfortunately, as the expertise required of special education teachers increases, the amount of information that is able to be covered in teacher education programs can not increase due to time and credit hour constraints. Teacher preparation programs must negotiate what expertise will be developed. When experiences to develop expertise for teachers working with students with severe disabilities that are part of a generic teacher preparation curriculum meet the increasing demands of teacher preparation programs, these specific expertise, that may only apply to students with low incidence disabilities, are often excluded from programs in lieu of expertise that apply to greater numbers of students (i.e., those with high incidence disabilities). Alternatively, if there is specific expertise in severe disabilities what is it and how can we prepare teachers to become experts in the field?
This presentation will describe findings from a national investigation individuals currently educating masters students in the area of severe disabilities to understand the curriculum and program configuration being used to develop expertise in severe disabilities, including the definition of the population these programs are preparing students to teach, and the experts' opinions regarding current practice of their program compared to what they believe to be best practice and specific expertise necessary for special education teachers of students with severe disabilities at the masters level.
As students with severe disabilities increasingly are receiving services in inclusive general education settings, the expertise required to meet their unique needs must be available in both general education and special education settings. Some teacher education programs are infusing expertise in severe disabilities within programs that lead to initial certification in both general and special education (Keefe et al., 2000; Rainforth, 2000), and some programs are addressing this expertise in advanced degree programs in severe disabilities (Spooner, Agran, Spooner, & Kiefer-O'Donnell, 2000). In the United States such advanced degrees include masters and specialist degrees.
When considering the expertise required to serve students with severe disabilities, however, the research base offers little guidance. While the literature provides a wealth of information about instructional content and effective instructional methods for students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Wren, Hirose-Hatal, & Goetz, 1997; Hunt & Goetz, 1997; Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2001; Janney, & Snell, 1997; Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, 1999), it does little to describe components of a teacher education program that focuses on severe disabilities. For example, the literature provides little description of either: (a) expertise needed to teach students with severe disabilities (Fox & Williams, 1992), (b) specialized content of advanced teacher education programs, or (c) configurations of advanced programs that have focused on severe disabilities (Lane & Canosa, 1995; O'Reilly & Renzaglia, 1994; Spooner, 1996). While some professional organizations in the United States have compiled lists of broad knowledge and skills believed to be necessary for special educators to demonstrate (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children, 1998; Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 1992; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1999), the way in which this expertise is developed and demonstrated specifically with students with severe disabilities is undefined. Because of this, teacher education programs that use such lists prepare special education teachers who may demonstrate expertise with various students with disabilities, yet not be able to demonstrate expertise in relation to meeting the needs of students with severe disabilities.
In addition to these broad lists, knowledge and skills centered around narrow topics have been discussed in the literature in the United States, such as early intervention (CEC Division on Early Childhood, 1993), transition (Knott & Asselin, 1999), medication management (Schulz & Edwards, 1997), functional behavior assessment (Shellady & Stichter, 1999), collaboration (Foley & Mundshenk, 1997), collaboration with families (Knight & Wadsworth, 1999), working in urban settings (Kozleski, Sands, & French, 1993), teaching students from culturally diverse backgrounds (Burstein, Cabello, & Hamann, 1993), and dealing with aggression in classrooms (Van Acker, 1993). While helpful, the combination of such lists does not yet address the breadth and depth of expertise required to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities. To date, therefore, a clearly delineated list of knowledge and skills related to students with severe disabilities, or a clear description of relevant expertise required to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities, does not exist. In addition, there is no clarification of what expertise either can and should be included in advanced teacher education programs.
Lists of knowledge and skills also fall short of providing information about the structures that support the preparation of effective teachers. To assist preservice teachers in developing expertise in severe disabilities, teacher education programs must ensure that future educators can apply their knowledge and skills with a variety of students with severe disabilities across ages and settings. It is unclear, however, whether this expertise is developed through a set of isolated courses or through interrelated experiences from content courses, field experiences, and exposure to research.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive study was two-fold. First, this study sought information about how nationally recognized masters programs in the United States, designed to prepare teachers specifically to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities, are configured. Information on their configuration includes: (a) the population of students whose needs the future teachers are being prepared to meet; (b) the content courses, field experiences, and exposure to research, as well as the credit hours associated with each; and (c) the resulting certification(s). Second, this study sought information about expertise that is considered to be essential to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities, and that is incorporated within existing masters programs. While information related to both of these purposes can be reviewed in the full study on which this paper is based, only information related to the second purpose (i.e., expertise in severe disabilities) will be addressed in the remainder of this paper.
Method
Potential Participants
Fifty-one potential participants initially were identified from three sources: (a) the main faculty members in teacher education programs in severe disabilities that had received financial support from the United States Department of Education because of their innovativeness and incorporation of state-of-the-art content and procedures; (b) authors of relevant articles cited in a current published synthesis of research in severe disabilities and inclusive education (McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998); and (c) additional teacher education programs that were recommended as exemplary by other participants.
Six of these 51 potential participants were eliminated from the study because they had left the universities with which they had been affiliated. Twelve additional individuals were eliminated because they did not respond to three attempts to contact them at current e-mail addresses and/or telephone numbers. Ten of the remaining potential participants self-eliminated from participation in the study because of ineligibility (e.g., 1 expressed no expertise in severe disabilities; 9 stated their universities had no masters program with a focus in severe disabilities). Of the remaining 23 respondents, 3 did not complete the entire interview.
Twenty respondents actually completed the full interview and provided followup clarifying information when needed, for a usable information response rate of 44% of the 45 individuals for whom contact information was available, and a response rate of 88% of the 23 located individuals who also were eligible for participation. Geographically these 20 individuals represented 20 programs across 18 states, with more than one individual involved in separate programs in 2 states (i.e., 3 individuals representing 3 programs in California; 2 individuals representing 2 programs in Illinois).
Telephone Interview
When initially contacted, each respondent was informed of the intent of the study, asked questions to determine eligibility to participate in the study, and asked if they would be willing to participate in a telephone interview about their masters program and expertise they would expect to be demonstrated by a graduate with expertise in severe disabilities. It was estimated that interviews would take approximately 60 minutes. Once a respondent agreed to participate, a copy of the interview questions and areas of expertise were faxed to them, allowing each respondent time to review both. Table 1 includes the initial set of questions asked during each interview, though followup questions also were asked when additional information or examples were required (see Table 1). Table 2 describes 9 areas of expertise initially addressed (see Table 2), however a 12-page list of 113 items within these areas of expertise was faxed to participants and used during the interview (see Table 3). During the interview participants also were asked to describe any additional expertise in severe disabilities not included on the 12-page list.
Each respondent then was interviewed by telephone, with interviews ranging in duration from 60-90 minutes. While not audiotaped, notes were taken during each of the interviews. When necessary, additional clarifying information about teacher education programs was obtained later by telephone, email, or fax.
Expertise Related to Severe Disabilities
While the first part of the telephone interview focused on the masters program, itself, only information from the second part of the telephone interview will be discussed in this paper. This part of the interview focused on areas of expertise that may or may not be expected to be demonstrated by a teacher with specialized expertise related to students with severe disabilities. The areas of expertise (see Table 2), as well as a list of items within each area (see Table 3), were developed in two stages. First, published sets of competencies for special education teachers (e.g., CEC competencies) were reviewed. The competencies that pertained to serving students with severe disabilities were compiled into one list. This list then was compared with a list of expertise that had been used in a previously federally funded masters teacher education program (Ryndak & Pomerantz, 1992) and one list was compiled. Second, descriptions of expertise were sought through a search of the literature related to expertise in severe disabilities, including journal articles, books, and chapters. This list of expertise then was disseminated to teachers who were providing services for students with severe disabilities, recognized experts in severe disabilities in the United States, and the co-authors. These individuals provided written and/or verbal feedback on the expertise, which was used for further revisions.
In the resulting areas of expertise, some items can be perceived as overlapping across areas and, therefore, could have been included under more than one area of expertise. For example, an item related to the involvement of families in the educational process could have been included in the area of expertise that addresses either advocacy, collaboration, or curriculum content identification process. Though inclusion of an item in multiple areas of expertise was possible, each item was listed in only one area of expertise to avoid redundancy.
During the second part of the interview, respondents were asked whether each specific item was addressed in their masters program, and whether each item should be addressed in a masters program with an emphasis in severe disabilities. While the depth or extent to which each item was addressed in the program (e.g., coverage during one lecture, coverage during an entire course) was not specifically requested, respondents were asked to consider if a graduate from a masters program with a focus on severe disabilities should be expected to have the expertise, and whether their program prepared teachers sufficiently to provide that expertise. Finally, participants were asked to describe additional items that had not been incorporated into the initially identified nine areas of expertise.
Results: Expertise in Severe Disabilities
Results related to how masters level teacher education programs in severe disabilities are configured can be reviewed in the journal article on which this paper is based. The results presented in this paper will focus only on the expertise identified through this study that is considered to be essential to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities, and that is incorporated within existing masters programs.
In all nine areas of expertise participants indicated that the items that comprised each area should be expected of team members with background related to serving students with severe disabilities and, therefore, should be incorporated into a masters level preparation program. The percentage of items per area of expertise that were described as "should be and is addressed in their masters program" and "should be but is not addressed their masters program" ranged from 93.28% to 98.44% (see Table 4).
When asked to identify items that were not reflected in the nine initially identified areas of expertise, some respondents focused on general education practices (e.g., instructional methods and practices), and the use of expertise related to services for students with severe disabilities within general education settings and activities. Some respondents also commented on the need to conceptualize teacher education holistically - that items within and across areas of expertise overlap, that items must be demonstrated in conjunction with each other, and that progress must be demonstrated through levels of development (e.g., emerging, proficient, and mastery levels of expertise). Because of this, items should not be viewed as developing either in isolation or as discrete events; rather, expertise should be viewed as developing and being utilized in conjunction with each other at various levels of mastery over time.
Discussion
This descriptive study identified a great deal of expertise related to severe disabilities. The participants in this study indicated that the expertise across items per area of expertise, and across areas of expertise, should be viewed as developed over time and demonstrated by graduate students at increasingly higher levels of sophistication, both in depth and in breadth. While many of the items within areas of expertise could be incorporated in any teacher education program (e.g., elementary education, generic special education), the use of knowledge and skills with students who have severe disabilities frequently is more complex than when using that same knowledge and skills with other students. For instance, collaborating with other team members potentially could be more complex because of the number and type of individuals involved (e.g., parents, school personnel, community agencies) and the breadth of information communicated across team members.
Although not specifically stated during each of the interviews, researchers were left with some overriding impressions that were consistent across the researchers. These impressions included that respondents perceived that: (a) expertise in severe disabilities requires mastering skills that are complex and inter-related; (b) expertise develops over the duration of the masters program, with increasingly more sophisticated use of knowledge and skills embedded within complex activities; and (c) such expertise is developed and demonstrated through highly-structured interrelated experiences throughout a masters program, rather than through isolated courses.
Teacher educators who target the needs of students with severe disabilities face a major dilemma. On the one hand, we believe that teacher educators support the concept that all teachers (i.e., both general and special educators) need knowledge and skills related to general education curriculum, general education methods, and accommodating and modifying curriculum and instruction for diverse learners (TASH, 2000). This concept has led to teacher education programs that either infuse relevant special education content into general education courses, or combine relevant special education content with general education content in a unified program. By preparing teachers in this way, the likelihood that students with severe disabilities will receive services in inclusive settings dramatically increases. On the other hand, we believe that teacher educators understand that (a) not ALL of the content and expertise in severe disabilities can be infused into unified teacher education programs, and (b) not ALL general and special educators need the specialized knowledge and skills required to meet the multiple and complex needs of students with severe disabilities. Some teachers must have this expertise, however, when education teams require it (TASH, 2000). This concept has led to many institutions of higher education maintaining specialized teacher education programs in severe disabilities at either the undergraduate or masters level.
References
Burstein, N., Cabello, B., & Hamann, J. (1993). Teacher preparation for culturally diverse urban students: Infusing competencies across the curriculum. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 1-13.
CEC Division on Early Childhood (1993). DEC recommended practices: Indicators of quality in programs for infants and young children with special needs and their families. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Council for Exceptional Children, (1998). What every special educator must know: The international standards for the preparation and licensure of special educators (3rd edition). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Foley, R. M., & Mundshenk, N. A. (1997). Collaboration activities and competencies of secondary special educators: A national survey. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 47-60.
Fox, L., & Williams, D. G., (1992). Preparing teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 97-107.
Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Wren, M., Hirose-Hatal, A., & Goetz, L. (1997). Promoting interactive partnerships in inclusive educational settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 127-137.
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A resource for state dialogue. Author.
Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 129-141
Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (1997). How teachers include students with moderate and severe disabilities in elementary classes: The means and meaning of inclusion. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 159-169.
Keefe, E. B., Rossi, P. J., de Valenzuela, J. S., & Howarth, S. (2000). Reconceptualizing teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms: A description of the dual license program at the University of New Mexico. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 72-82.
Knight, D., & Wadsworth, D. (1999). A national survey of special education teacher preparation programs regarding their inclusion of family focused components of the CEC common core of knowledge and skills. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 214-226.
Knott, L., & Asselin, S. B. (1999). Transition competencies: Perception of secondary education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 55-65.
Kozleski, E. B., Sands, D. J., & French, N. (1993). Preparing special education teachers for urban settings. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 14-22.
Lane, G. M., & Canosa, R. (1995). A mentoring program for beginning and veteran teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 230- 239.
McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical and research foundations. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1999). What every teacher should know and be able to do. Author.
O'Reilly, M., & Renzaglia, A. (1994). A systematic approach to curriculum selection and supervision strategies: A preservice practicum supervision model. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 170-180.
Rainforth, B. (2000). Preparing teachers to educate students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings: Course design in the absence of local models of inclusive education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 83-91.
Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A., & Sommerstein, L. (1999). Literacy before and after inclusion: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 5-22.
Ryndak, D. L., & Pomerantz, D. (1992). Severe handicaps master's level personnel preparation project. Buffalo, NY: State University College at Buffalo.
Schulz, E. G., & Edwards, M. C. (1997). Stimulant medication management of students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: What educators need to know? Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 170-178.
Shellady, S., & Stichter, J. P. (1999). Training preservice and inservice educators to conduct functional assessment: Initial issues and implications. Preventing School Failure, 43, 154-159.
Spooner, F. (1996). Personnel preparation: Where we have been and where we may be going in severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 213-215.
Spooner, F., Agran, M., Spooner, M., & Kiefer-O'Donnell, R. (2000). Preparing personnel with expertise in severe disabilities in the electronic age: Innovative programs and technologies. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 92-103.
TASH (2000). Resolution on teacher education. Baltimore: TASH.
Van Acker, R. (1993). Dealing with conflict and aggression in the classroom: What skills do teachers need? Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 23-33.
Table 1. Interview Questions Related to Descriptions of Masters Programs.
Table 2. Areas of Expertise and the Skills, Knowledge, and Application Items Incorporated Within Each, to be Demonstrated Specifically in Relation to Students with Severe Disabilities.
Collaboration and Technical Assistance
This area of expertise included effective communication skills, teaming skills, and the ability to build partnerships between families, teachers, administrators, and others in order to provide services for students with severe disabilities. In addition, this section included expertise on (a) providing technical assistance, consultation, and collaboration; (b) addressing the needs of individuals with severe disabilities who are culturally and linguistically diverse; and (c) locating relevant resources for service provision.
Inclusion
This area of expertise included knowledge of (a) pertinent issues and professional literature relating to the inclusion of students with severe disabilities in general education settings; (b) issues faced by teachers in the general education system when including students with severe disabilities in their classrooms; (c) barriers to inclusion and application of strategies to facilitate inclusion across ages and life stages; and (d) facilitation of social relationships between students with severe disabilities and their nondisabled peers.
Advocacy and Self-Advocacy
This area of expertise included knowledge of (a) the rights and roles of students with severe disabilities and their families in the education process; (b) strategies for facilitating successful advocacy and building community support; (c) knowledge of the roles of advocacy groups; and (d) knowledge of legal routes for advocacy, including the IEP and due process procedures.
Curriculum Content Identification Processes
This area of expertise included (a) knowledge of key concepts of curriculum models and approaches, including differences between the general education and functional curriculum approaches for students with severe disabilities; (b) knowledge and skills to make curricular adaptations, including the principle of partial participation, in the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities across school, home, work, community, and leisure settings; (c) knowledge and skills in the use of formal/informal assessment for students with severe disabilities, including family, peer, and community inventories; (d) knowledge and skills for incorporating related services (e.g., OT, PT, SLP) into the student's curriculum; and (e) skills to develop a functional IEP and participate on a team to effectively plan an individualized curriculum for students with severe disabilities. In addition, this area of expertise included the development of curriculum across ages of students.
Effective Instruction
This area of expertise included (a) knowledge regarding the characteristics and abilities of students with severe disabilities; (b) skills in the area of applied behavior analysis, functional behavioral assessment, principles of reinforcement and stimulus control; (c) curriculum-based assessment; (d) data collection on student's learning and ability to make changes in instruction based on analysis of student data; and (e) planning and implementation of strategies that facilitate generalization and maintenance of skills.
Functional Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plans
This area of expertise included knowledge and skills in (a) applied behavioral analysis; (b) single subject design methodology; (c) direct and indirect measures of behavior; (d) functional assessment and analysis; (e) development of functional hypotheses; (f) the implementation of positive behavioral supports; (g) crisis and intervention management; and (h) ecological and curricular interventions.
Transition, and Transition to Adult Living
This area of expertise included (a) skills in facilitating transitions across ages and settings; (b) knowledge of services for adults with severe disabilities; and (c) knowledge and skills in the area of supported employment, job coaching, living in inclusive adult communities, and long term family planning techniques.
Physical and Sensory Disabilities
This area of expertise included knowledge of (a) child development; (b) physical and sensory disabilities; (c) medical conditions and medications; (d) occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech-language pathology; (e) universal health precautions; (f) facilitating eating; (g) positioning and handling technique; and (h) assistive technology and equipment, prosthetic devices, and augmentative/alternative communication systems.
Research
This area of expertise included both knowledge of current research issues in the field of severe disabilities, and the ability to interpret and conduct research in the area of severe disabilities.
Additional Areas of Expertise
This area of expertise included any additional expertise respondents described as essential in relation to serving students with severe disabilities.
Table 3. Preparing Teachers to Meet the Needs of Students with Severe Disabilities: Expertise Identified in Masters Programs
| A. Collaboration & Technical Assistance |
| 1) Describe a variety of effective communication skills for interacting with parents, teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel, as equal members of education teams. |
| 2) Build partnerships among education team members, including parents, teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel. |
| 3) Describe the rights and roles of support personnel (i.e., paraprofessionals, practicum students, interns, and volunteers). |
| 4) Describe the major tasks of the collaborative team member. |
| 5) Describe the various consultation models noting advantages and disadvantages of each. |
| 6) Describe the characteristics of effective teams. |
| 7) Describe strategies for collaborative teaming that ensure: a) recruitment of appropriate team members; b) equal participation among members; c) implementation and monitoring of shared goals; and d) steps to promote effective paraprofessional performance. |
| 8) Participate in an instructional team meeting and critique the effectiveness of the team and the collaboration skills of team members. |
| 9) Demonstrate effective communication skills in groups and teams,
including: a) listening; b) sharing information; c) making decisions through consensus; d) encouraging and accepting information from all team members; e) providing feedback; f) disagreeing constructively; g) communicating effectively in controversial or difficult situations; and h) communicating with team members who may be culturally or linguistically different and/or who use alternative communication systems. |
| 10) Function as an effective team member, in ways that
include: a) sharing information appropriately; b) completing responsibilities; c) seeking input from others; d) sharing roles; and e) supporting other team members. |
| 11) Describe and discuss the factors and procedures necessary for inclusion of cultural and linguistic diversity in the consultation/collaboration model. |
| 12) Identifying relevant state, regional, and local resources for service provision, technical assistance, resources, and team membership. |
| 13) Provide technical assistance to parents, school personnel, community members, advocacy groups, and self-advocates. |
| B. Inclusion |
| 1) State and defend a position on the inclusion of students with moderate/severe disabilities. Discuss general education school, general education class, and home school (i.e., the school the student would attend if not disabled) models of inclusion. Use current research literature and position papers to support the position and refute opposing arguments and research from the literature. |
| 2) Describe how special education teachers may integrate into the general education system. Discuss the organization of the general education system, the expectations placed on general education teachers, the duties of general education teachers, and the typical concerns of the general education classroom teacher. |
| 3) Discuss the role of inclusion and the "Regular Education Initiative" in relation to the "excellence in schools" movement. |
| 4) List and describe common barriers to inclusion (e.g., attitudes,
perceived staffing needs, budgetary concerns) and specific
strategies/procedures/activities for overcoming those barriers,
including: a) facilitation of parent networking; b) facilitation of teacher networking; c) development of school based committees to oversee the inclusion process; d) providing information/education about disabilities and inclusion to students and adults; e) merger of special and general educational responsibilities; and f) presentation of parent views of inclusive education. |
| 5) List and describe strategies to facilitate inclusion, across
ages, including: a) peer tutoring; b) cooperative learning; c) peer buddy programs; d) development of natural support systems in the school and community; e) facilitating access to inclusive environments; g) direct instruction of peers; and h) managing school transitions. |
| 6) Describe differences in the ways the implementation of inclusion may vary across life stages (i.e., preschool, elementary and middle school, secondary school, adulthood). |
| 7) Describe techniques that promote friendships and the procedures that facilitate and encourage horizontal relationships between/among non-disabled students and students with disabilities that have the potential of extending beyond school or work environments. |
| 8) When presented with case studies representing inclusion
needs: a) participate with a group to clearly define the problem; b) use collaborative problem solving skills to generate problem solutions; c) select a solution; and d) develop a plan for implementing the solution. |
| 9) Students will collaborate with peers to plan and develop
materials that would be appropriate for disseminating information that would
prepare one of the following groups for some aspect of inclusion: a) parents; b) administrators (general and/or special education); c) classroom teachers (general and/or special education); d) related service personnel; e) general education students; f) extracurricular activity sponsors; g) "extras" teachers; and/or h) other school staff (e.g., cafeteria workers, bus drivers). |
| 10) Develop and implement at least one new activity in which interactions between students with moderate/severe disabilities and nondisabled peers are facilitated. |
| 11) Participate on a team to design, implement, and monitor an instructional program in an inclusive school, community, or vocational setting. |
| C. Advocacy & Self-Advocacy |
| 1) Identify the rights and roles of students with severe disabilities and their parents. |
| 2) Describe strategies that facilitate successful advocacy for and
with students with moderate/severe disabilities for each of the four types of
advocacy: a) legal; b) self; c) citizen; d) family; and e) parent/professional. |
| 3) Describe procedures to increase self-advocacy and self-determination of students with severe disabilities, especially during the IEP process. |
| 4) List and define the roles of advocacy groups for students with moderate/severe disabilities that are active in Florida and participate in one organization that supports inclusive schools. |
| 5) List and describe strategies for building community in ways that
support the inclusion of students with disabilities in school, community,
leisure, and vocational environments: a) personal futures planning; b) MAPS; c) inventories for curriculum identification; and d) natural support network development. |
| 6) Describe how the IEP process, and due process procedures, can be used to support inclusion. |
| 7) Describe a range of systems change strategies, including: a) inservice training; b) providing information to key groups; c) participation in policy development; d) development of pilot programs; e) teaming with general education teachers; f) organizing support networks; g) identifying possible supports in the environment; and h) participating in organizations that support inclusion. |
| 8) Given a case study of a situation where advocacy may be necessary, participate with a team to develop an advocacy plan. The plan should include how to facilitate and respect the choices of the student with moderate/severe disabilities. |
| 9) Participate in one advocacy or systems change activity. |
| D. Curriculum Content Identification Process |
| 1) Describe key concepts of curriculum models and various philosophical underpinnings. |
| 2) Describe differences between general education philosophies underpinning curriculum and instruction between general and special education - including changes within IDEA 1997 Reauthorization. |
| 3) Select from general education curriculum content which is most applicable/meaningful for a student with moderate/severe disabilities across school, home, work, community and leisure settings. |
| 4) List ways in which a student with moderate/severe disabilities can partially participate in general education activities. |
| 5) Discuss the pros and cons of formal and informal assessment procedures for students with severe disabilities. |
| 6) Complete family inventories, peer inventories, and community inventories for students with moderate/severe disabilities. |
| 7) Given completed inventories, work with a team to identify most
applicable general education content and functional content for inclusion on
the IEP of students with severe disabilities, to ensure maximal participation
in school, home, work, community and leisure settings. Ensure inclusion of
embedded skills in activities, including: a) augmentative and alternative communication; b) social interactions; c) socially acceptable behaviors; and d) personal management. |
| 8) List and describe various processes used for effective team collaboration. A team will include at least family members, general education teacher(s), special education teacher(s), occupational therapist(s), physical therapist(s), and speech therapist(s). A team will also include the student with moderate/severe disabilities, students from the general education program, school administrator(s), nurse, and personnel from other relevant general education classes. |
| 9) Participate on a team to develop and write an IEP for at least
one student with moderate/severe disabilities that includes: a) placement of the student in their home school, emphasizing opportunities to interact with non-disabled peers in general education classes and throughout the school day; b) measurable annual goals; c) short term objectives that include conditions, behaviors, and criteria; d) meeting educational needs within general education classes first, then within the general education building, then within the community; e) meeting related services needs/goals within the context of the educational goals; and f) addressing acquisition, maintenance and generalization needs across school, home, work, community and leisure settings. |
| 10) Participate on a team to conduct discrepancy analyses to identify a student's current level of performance on the annual goals included on their IEP, including those related to general education curriculum content and functional content. |
| 11) Participate on a team to identify the team member who will lead in the implementation and monitoring of instruction designed to meet the annual goals on a student's IEP. |
| 12) Coordinate the logistics of providing effective instruction and
services (e.g., scheduling, role assignments, coverage, development of written
instructional procedures, data collection) for a student with moderate/severe
disabilities, ensuring that: a) all annual goals on the IEP are adequately addressed; and b) related services needs/goals are addressed in naturally-occurring activities in general education classes, the general education building, and/or in the community. |
| 13) Coordinate a team to identify and develop necessary adaptations to both general education and functional curriculum content, materials and activities to ensure maximized participation and effective instruction for a student with moderate/severe disabilities. |
| 14) Coordinate a team to develop and implement smooth transitions between classes, service providers, or teachers. |
| 15) Completes competencies #1 through #11 for students with moderate/severe disabilities in at least two different age groups, including: preschool, elementary school, middle school, and/or high school, ensuring longitudinal preparation for supported employment and supported living options in the students' home communities. |
| 16) List and describe methods of interactive computer and video technology for students with moderate/severe disabilities in general education classes, and explain the relationship of such technology to curriculum and learning. |
| E. Effective Instruction |
| 1) Describe the similarities between typically developing students and those with severe disabilities. |
| 2) Describe the prevalence and learning characteristics of students with severe disabilities |
| 3) Define applied behavior analysis and discuss its contributions to a technology of effective instruction. |
| 4) Explain the role and importance of functional assessment of inappropriate behavior |
| 5) Define and apply the principles of reinforcement and stimulus control in instructional programs. |
| 6) Describe and apply the following instructional
procedures/strategies: a) chaining; b) fading; c) shaping; d) system of least prompts; e) graduated guidance; f) time delay; g) incidental teaching; h) peer-mediated instruction; i) classwide peer tutoring; j) cooperative learning; k) direct instruction; and l) positive behavioral supports. |
| 7) Describe and apply the following characteristics of
instructional interactions: a) opportunities to respond; b) reinforcement of correct responses; c) availability and immediacy of error correction; d) use of natural cues and corrections; e) integrating into meaningful activities; and f) frequency of assessment and use of systematic criteria for mastery. |
| 8) Analyze instructional interactions, in collaboration with
professional peers, for the purpose of improving instructional design relative
to: a) chaining; b) fading; c) shaping; d) system of least prompts; e) graduated guidance; f) time delay; g) incidental teaching; h) peer-mediated instruction; i) classwide peer tutoring; j) cooperative learning; k) opportunities to respond; l) reinforcement of correct responses; m) availability and immediacy of error correction; n) use of natural cues and corrections; o) inclusion into meaningful activities; and p) frequency of assessment and use of systematic criteria for mastery. |
| 9) Conduct appropriate curriculum-based assessment. |
| 10) Describe and apply common event-based and time-based strategies for measuring behavior, collecting student performance data over time, and graphing results in such a manner that they can be easily communicated to non-expert team members. |
| 11) Use techniques for visual analysis of data in order to make appropriate instructional decisions to progress, back-up, or change procedure. |
| 12) Develop and implement effective community-based instruction. |
| 13) Define generalization and maintenance. Describe and apply strategies to maximize generalization of student gains. |
| 14) Describe the characteristics of effective schools and effective instruction in the terms associated with the "school improvement movement." |
| 15) Describe and apply systems of classwide, proactive behavior management techniques across classroom settings. |
| 16) Describe and discuss applications of computer assisted instruction for students with moderate/severe disabilities in conjunction with non-disabled peers |
| F. Functional Assessment and Behavioral Intervention Plans |
| 1) Demonstrate knowledge of basic applied behavior analysis principles, including data collection and analysis techniques. |
| 2) Implement single subject designs to evaluate the effects of intervention strategies. |
| 3) Collect and analyze direct and indirect measures of behavior,
including: a) ABC analysis b) interviews; c) rating scales; and d) checklists. |
| 4) Conduct a functional assessment and analysis of behavior, |
| 5) Develop motivational hypotheses in relation to the function or context of a target behavior, including the assessment of ecological variables, setting events, potential competing behaviors, communication repertoire and function, and quality of life. |
| 6) Develop and implement positive behavioral interventions. |
| 7) Apply the following concepts when implementing interventions
that may decrease a behavior: a) baseline data collection and analysis; b) antecedent and consequence analysis; c) historical information; d) communicative functions analysis; e) health issues; f) ecological considerations; g) curriculum considerations; and h) motivational functions. |
| 8) Apply the concepts of replacement and alternative behavior when
designing behavioral intervention plans, including: a) functional efficiency and equivalence; and b) zero compatibility of replacement behaviors. |
| 9) Establish a process and schedule for conducting continuous assessment and providing positive behavioral supports for a student over time, as behaviors and environments change, and/or as maturation occurs. |
| 10) Differentiate between the use of crisis and intervention management procedures, and incorporate these procedures into the intervention evaluation. |
| 11) Design nonaversive interventions based on ecological and curricular manipulations as well as the rearranging of environmental consequences. |
| G. Transition, and Transition to Adult Living |
| 1) Facilitate transitions between service providers and environments (e.g., preschool to school; school building to school building; district to district; school to adult life). |
| 2) Describe adult services in the state, including their legal foundations, funding mechanisms, and how they compare to adult services in other parts of the U.S. and other countries. |
| 3) Describe procedures for obtaining adult services from the various systems and agencies providing them locally. Include timelines for accessing services in a manner which minimizes disruption of services. |
| 4) Describe and demonstrate effective team transition planning and case management of a transition plan, in which personnel are assigned to oversee implementation of each activity. Included on the team are such collaborators as teachers, parents/guardians, siblings, guidance personnel, representatives of the rehabilitation and developmental disability adult services systems, and employers. |
| 5) Define supported employment, differentiate it from other forms of adult service, and give examples of various supported employment models. |
| 6) Demonstrate the components of job development, including job finding, negotiation with employers, job adaptation, and job re-design. |
| 7) Describe the components of job placement, including networking with co-workers, on-the-job instruction, and fading of unnatural supports and supervision. |
| 8) Define supported living in inclusive adult communities, differentiate it from other residential options, and describe the kinds of supports which may be needed by an adult with severe handicaps, including educational supports, human supports, and assistive technological supports. |
| 9) Given case examples of adults with moderate/severe disabilities in inclusive living and work environments, suggest procedures for "building community" (i.e., developing natural social supports income, work, and neighborhood settings). |
| 10) Facilitate or discuss with family's long-term planning for an
student with severe disabilities including issues related to: a) financial; b) supported employment; c) medical; d) guardianship issues; e) supported living; and f) building natural support networks. |
| H. Physical and Sensory Disabilities |
| 1) Recognize patterns of normal child growth and development. |
| 2) Identify important aspects of anatomy and physiology. |
| 3) Define physical and sensory disabilities. |
| 4) Define common vocabulary for medical conditions, etiologies, and impairments associated with physical and sensory disabilities. |
| 5) Define terms and concepts associated with physical, occupational, and speech therapies. |
| 6) Describe the steps of the following health related procedures
needed to maintain students with moderate/severe disabilities in the school
program, including, but not limited to: a) catheterization; b) suctioning; c) tube-feeding; d) misting; e) percussion; and f) ventilator assistance. |
| 7) Demonstrate hygiene techniques for infection and contagion control, and other safety precaution related to physical and sensory disabilities. |
| 8) Using information from team members, apply strategies to facilitate eating and improve independent eating (including associated mealtime behaviors such as social interaction) in students with moderate/severe disabilities. |
| 9) Using information from team members, transfer students with
disabilities using the following transfer techniques: a) one-person; b) two-person; and c) assisted. |
| 10) List factors to assess when evaluating appropriateness of a position for a student with a physical disabilities and select appropriate positions for students based on their characteristics. |
| 11) Describe procedures for the management of equipment that may be
used by students with physical disabilities, including, but not limited to:
a) wheelchairs; b) positioning devices; and c) bracing. |
| 12) Using information from team members, complete range of motion
activities and position at least 2 different students with physical
disabilities in the following ways: a) wheelchair; b) prone; c) side-lying; and d) assisted seating. |
| 13) Using information from team members, remove, check for appropriate fit, and replace orthotic or prosthetic devices for at least two students with physical disabilities. |
| 14) Using information from team members, evaluate the functional use of hearing and vision in an student with severe handicaps and make appropriate programmatic recommendations based on the evaluation. |
| 15) Describe, list strengths and weaknesses of, and select appropriate augmentative and/or alternative communication systems for students with physical or sensory disabilities. |
| 16) Design, implement, and monitor progress of an instructional program to improve communication skills for an student with limited verbal language skills. |
| 17) Participate in a team to develop plans for delivery of services to a student with physical and/or sensory disabilities within the context of functional routines in natural settings. |
| 18) Apply curricular, instructional, technological, and/or environmental adaptations for at least 3 different students with physical and/or sensory disabilities. |
| 19) Design, implement, and monitor an instructional program of a functional routine for an student with physical and/or sensory disabilities that contains embedded related service objective(s). |
| 20) Describe purposes of and side-effects of medications that may be prescribed for students with disabilities. |
| 21) State and defend a position on the use of medication for control of students with disabilities. Use research and position papers to support your chosen position. |
| 22) Describe the applications of technology for instruction of students with physical or sensory impairments. |
| I. Research Skills |
| 1) Critique current research and position papers regarding issues in the field of moderate/severe disabilities. |
| 2) Identify research questions relevant to: a) student needs in applied settings; b) needs for program development; and/or c) needs in the knowledge base in the field of moderate/severe disabilities. |
| 3) Describe and interpret appropriate research designs or methodology for addressing identified service needs and/or research questions. |
| 4) Develop and complete a project relevant to an identified service need and/or research question. |
| 5) Write a report of a research project which is appropriate for submission to a professional journal. |
Respondents Indicating Whether Areas of Expertise are Addressed, and Should be Addressed, in Their Masters Program.
| Area of Expertise | Numberof Items | Number of Responses | Addressed in Program | Not Addressed in Program | Don't Know If Addressed | Total Responses | Percent of Responses as"Should Be" | ||
| Should Be | Should Not | Should Be | Should Not | ||||||
| Collaboration and Technical Assistance | 13 | 260 | 227 | 0 | 22 | 6 | 5 | 249 | 95.77% |
| Inclusion | 11 | 220 | 200 | 0 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 214 | 97.27% |
| Advocacy and Self-Advocacy | 9 | 180 | 138 | 0 | 335 | 4 | 3 | 173 | 96.11% |
| Curriculum Content Identification Process | 16 | 320 | 289 | 1 | 26 | 3 | 1 | 315 | 98.44% |
| Effective Instruction | 16 | 320 | 296 | 0 | 16 | 3 | 5 | 312 | 97.50% |
| Functional Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plans | 11 | 220 | 207 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 214 | 97.27% |
| Transition, and Transition to Adult Living | 10 | 200 | 189 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 193 | 96.50% |
| Physical and Sensory Disabilities | 22 | 440 | 358 | 21 | 52 | 9 | 0 | 410 | 93.18% |
| Research | 5 | 100 | 78 | 0 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 94 | 94.00% |
| Total | 113 | 2260 | 1982 | 22 | 162 | 41 | 23 | 2144 | 94.87% |
| Percent | 87.70% | 0.97% | 7.17% | 1.81% | 1.02% | 94.87% | |||
 |
 |