Teacher Education and Special

Education: The Journal of the Teacher

Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children
http://tes.sagepub.com

The Changing Education Landscape: How Special Education Leadership

Preparation Can Make a Difference for Teachers and Their Students With
Disabilities
Deborah Deutsch Smith, Susan Mortorff Robb, Jane West and Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children 2010; 33; 25
DOI: 10.1177/0888406409358425

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/25

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children

Additional services and information for Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/1/25

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

 Teacher Education and Special Education

The Changing Education 33(1) 25­–43

© 2010 Teacher Education Division of
the Council for Exceptional Children
Landscape: How Special Reprints and permission: http://www
.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Education Leadership DOI: 10.1177/0888406409358425

http://tese.sagepub.com

Preparation Can Make

a Difference for Teachers and
Their Students With Disabilities

Deborah Deutsch Smith1, Susan Mortorff Robb1,

Jane West2, and Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler3

Abstract
The roles and obligations of teacher educators have expanded substantially in recent years.
Expectations have increased because of national concerns about the overall achievement results
of all students and because of specific federal mandates—expressed in reauthorizations of the
No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004—about students with disabilities and their access to the general education curriculum
and their increased, successful participation in inclusive educational settings. Complicated by
the chronic and persistent shortage of special educators and the imperative that general edu-
cators have increased skills to address the needs of all struggling learners, demands on special
education college and university faculty have magnified. However, the nation continues to face
a shortage of faculty who can generate new knowledge about effective practices, translate such
research findings into teacher preparation programs’ curriculum, and prepare a sufficient sup-
ply of new and highly skilled teachers. In this article, the authors discuss the current policy
landscape, connections between the shortage of teachers and the shortage of special education
faculty, and the role of the federal government in addressing these shortages. They conclude
with a call for national dialogue—necessary so that the continuing cycle of faculty shortages and
resulting shortages of those who directly serve students with disabilities may finally be resolved.

Keywords
special education faculty shortage, supply and demand of highly qualified teachers, higher educa-
tion policy, federal role in leadership (doctoral) preparation

The connection between teacher educators 1

Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA
working in colleges and universities and edu- 2
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
cation professionals working in school set- Washington, DC
tings is clear, although often underestimated. 3
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Most practitioners receive their training from
Corresponding Author:
college faculty, either through traditional Deborah Deutsch Smith, 1237 North Dartmouth Avenue,
undergraduate and graduate degree programs Claremont, CA 91711
or through university-based nontraditional Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

26 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

certification routes (Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, equipped to work within inclusive educational
& Misra, 2007). Furthermore, the foundation settings or the generation of new knowledge
for proven classroom practices has been built about effective practices.
through decades of research most often con- For decades, parents, school leaders, and
ducted by faculty at our nation’s institutions policy makers have consistently raised con-
of higher education (IHEs). The complexity cerns about the chronic and persistent short-
of the faculty–practitioner relationship age of special education teachers (Boe &
becomes even more apparent when you con- Cook, 2006), and today, concerns are being
sider the interdependent nature of faculty added about general education teachers’ pre-
and practitioners’ supply-and-demand vari- paredness to work with students with dis-
ables; that is, faculty train teachers, some of abilities (U.S. Government Accountability
whom—after years of providing direct ser- Office, 2009). Also, because of more pre-
vices to students with disabilities—return to scriptive federal legislation and national
graduate school for advanced study. After policies, today’s teachers must meet more
obtaining a doctorate, many of them become stringent standards and possess additional
faculty who assume the responsibilities for knowledge and skills. Clearly, the supply of
training teachers, translating research to prac- new, differently prepared general and special
tice, and conducting research that leads to education teachers must increase. In turn, the
evidence-based practices. This perpetual cycle knowledge, skills, and currency of university
is at the core of a complex dynamic within the faculty must reflect these latest standards. In
supply and demand of special education per- this article, we discuss new demands on
sonnel. Any imbalance among these supply- teachers and the educational system at large,
and-demand variables can seriously affect as well as the impact that these policies are
the education of students with disabilities. A having on teacher education programs in a
shortage of faculty leads to a shortage of time of fiscal constraints and in a period
teachers, which then results in a greater when the nation is experiencing a great short-
shortage of faculty and an eventual shrink- age of not only teachers but also faculty. We
age of the profession, the knowledge base, also discuss the increased demand for gen-
and a reduction in the capacity to provide nec- eral and special education teachers who are
essary services to students with disabilities highly skilled and versatile in the application
and their families. of research-based practices. We then turn our
Across the nation, there are some 1,450 attention to the important role that teacher
schools, colleges, and departments of educa- educators have in improving the results for
tion (Duncan, 2009). These administrative all students. Afterward, we shift the discus-
units offer approximately 2,500 special educa- sion to leadership preparation by providing a
tion personnel preparation programs (Person- history of this enterprise, the role of the fed-
nel Improvement Center, 2009). Proportionally, eral government in the development and sup-
however, a small number (some 100) pre- port of this endeavor, and the major findings
pare leadership personnel across a variety of of the only comprehensive study of supply
emphases that produce school leaders, advo- and demand of special education faculty—a
cates, policy makers, teacher educators, and study that revealed a serious shortage of new
researchers (Smith, 2009a). A shortage of any doctorates. We also describe an extension of
type of leader can seriously hamper the field’s that research (which is currently underway),
infrastructure and hinder improved results of and we conclude with an agenda for national
students with disabilities. In this article, we dialogue that must be initiated so that doc-
focus our discussion on the preparation of toral preparation in special education is
future faculty because this aspect of the leader- responsive to new demands for a high-quality
ship agenda is often overlooked when one workforce of general and special educators
considers either the supply of teachers well now and in decades to come.

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 27

The Policy Landscape: serve as examples of how such policies influ-

Insistence on Validated Practices ence the field. More important, we hope that
these examples provide a better understanding
Recent national legislation has affected edu- about how such policy shifts have and will
cation initiatives and guidelines for practice continue to have an impact on teacher prepa-
more than ever before. Current federal poli- ration programs across the nation.
cies now demand that results for schools and
students improve, and as mandated through
legislation, such policies dictate the imple- Policies Guiding Inclusive
mentation of specific practices and accountabil- and Supportive Learning Environments
ity measures (U.S. Department of Education, The No Child Left Behind Act and changes in
2006). Furthermore, these policies—as trans- the Individuals With Disabilities Education
lated into the K–12 curriculum, classroom Improvement Act of 2004 reflect the under-
instruction, and assessment standards—affect standing that effective teachers are at the core
not only schools and teachers but also teacher of every student’s learning. These laws also
preparation (Bain, Lancaster, Zundans, & extend the requirement of Individuals With
Parkes, 2009). Teacher educators must now Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
prepare future teachers who can demonstrate 1997 that all students with disabilities have
competence across a far greater range of ped- access to the general education curriculum
agogy and content. For example, general edu- and be educated in the least restrictive educa-
cators must be masterful at creating an tional setting possible. These policies implic-
educational environment that is inclusive and itly require that all education professionals be
supportive of all struggling learners, includ- well versed in grade-level curriculum and be
ing those with disabilities. They should be able to meet the learning needs of an exception-
able to differentiate their instruction to sup- ally diverse student body. Because all students
port all learners and maximize their learning, now participate in accountability measurements
often through multitiered approaches (e.g., to evaluate their learning, educators need to
response to intervention, positive behavioral ensure that the learning environments they cre-
interventions and supports). They must also ate are truly supportive.
be able to select specific effective instructional More than ever before, federal policies call
methods and implement them with fidelity out and encourage the application of specific
(Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003). practices. We believe that principles embedded
General and special educators are accountable in the practice referred to as universal design
for the progress of their students, which is for learning, which is intended to broaden stu-
assessed not only through statewide achieve- dents’ access to the curriculum, provides an
ment testing but also through individualized excellent example of how today’s legislation
assessment measurements developed directly and regulations extend far beyond those of the
from the curriculum. Specifically for students past by calling out specific practices in legisla-
with disabilities, teachers must be able to mod- tion. Universal design for learning is an out-
ify the curriculum to meet alternate and modi- growth of the architectural term universal
fied achievement standards, and they must design, and it connotes design for use by the
adapt instruction to address the learning styles maximum number of people regardless of
of individual students. physical or intellectual needs (Center for
Instructional practices, now advocated Applied Special Technology, 2007; IRIS Cen-
through federal policy and legislation, are cre- ter for Training Enhancements, 2009; Samuels,
ating a sea change for all educational profes- 2007). A curb cut may be the most commonly
sionals who work with students in inclusive recognized illustration of universal design.
school settings (Fuchs & Young, 2006). We This element was initially designed to provide
highlight some of these key policy shifts to access for individuals who use wheelchairs but

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

28 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

is now used by everyone, from moms pushing for a virtual explosion in two key areas of
strollers from a sidewalk to a crosswalk to educational intervention: positive behavioral
skateboarders continuing their ride to those interventions and supports (Bradshaw, Reinke,
of us using roller-board suitcases at airports. Brown, Bevans, & Leaf, 2008) and response
When applied to education, the term universal to intervention (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009;
design for learning conjures up the image of a Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008). Both inter-
curb cut to make information accessible for ventions are designed to be systemic and
the widest array of students. In 2008, when the applied schoolwide (rather than individual-
U.S. Congress reauthorized the Higher Educa- ized). They are applied in general education
tion Act (now the Higher Education Opportu- settings and are multitiered—that is, applied
nity Act), it used a definition of universal with increasing intensity in response to stu-
design for learning similar to the one found dents’ performance. In other words, positive
in Individuals With Disabilities Education behavioral interventions and supports and
Improvement Act of 2004: response to intervention initially involve all
students and then provide increasingly inten-
a scientifically valid framework for sive interventions for students who require
guiding educational practice that additional support. Neither intervention is a
(A) provides flexibility in the ways curriculum, however. The first, positive behav-
information is presented, in the ways ioral interventions and supports, is a decision-
students respond or demonstrate knowl- making framework that guides selection,
edge and skills, and in the ways stu- integration, and implementation of the best
dents are engaged evidence-based practices for improving impor-
(B) reduces barriers in instruction, tant academic and behavior outcomes for all
provides appropriate accommodations, students. The second, response to intervention,
supports and challenges, and maintains is a similar but multitiered approach to help
high achievement expectations for all struggling learners. Students’ data are closely
students, including students with dis- monitored at each stage of intervention to
abilities and students who are limited in determine the need for further research-based
English proficiency. (Section 103.a.24) instruction or intervention in general education
or special education or through both services.
Not only does the federal government We use positive behavioral interventions and
specify guiding principles that seek to increase supports and response to intervention as exam-
access, but it also promotes instructional pro- ples not only to show the prescriptive nature
cedures in its policies. Such regulations are of federal policies but also to illustrate the
further extensions of national policies into complex set of new skills that all teachers must
classroom settings. possess. The demand for reform in teacher
preparation programs should be apparent. Cur-
rent and future teachers must possess a vast
Policies Insisting on Validated new repertoire of skill sets different and unique
Instruction and Interventions from the instructional expertise required only
Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act and a decade ago.
the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 both insist that
instructional methods used by teachers be val- The Policy Landscape:
idated, federal policies have gone further by Impact on Teacher Education
describing educational reform that builds on In all the examples we just discussed, federal
specific evidence-based practices. For exam- policies require that new content be infused
ple, the Individuals With Disabilities Educa- into the curriculum of teacher preparation.
tion Improvement Act of 2004 paved the way The federal government has certainly played

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 29

an important role in shaping teacher educa- without disabilities. The inclusion of students
tion programs and so holds incentives to stim- with disabilities as a discrete subgroup in No
ulate change (Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2001). It Child Left Behind has enabled a new level of
often does so through the application process scrutiny related to their education. Although
for federal funding. For example, in the latest students with disabilities achieve at far lower
round of this competitive process, the infu- levels than do students without disabilities,
sion of scientifically based practices into the considerable evidence suggests that they are
curriculum offered by all special education improving at an impressive rate and that the
teacher preparation programs was a require- distribution of their achievement ranges across
ment for funding of a personnel preparation the proficiency scale (see West & Whitby,
project by the Office of Special Education 2008). Thus, the myth that students with dis-
Programs (OSEP, 2009). abilities will be low performing is once again
Whether based on federal support or not, challenged, and the argument for more inclu-
the impact of these new policy-driven innova- sive educational opportunities becomes more
tions on teacher education programs is vast. persuasive.
First, all teacher education programs have an More and more students with disabilities
obligation to meet the demand for newly pre- are being assessed through statewide tests on
pared, highly qualified teachers. However, with the same content as general education students
the chronic and persistent shortage of teachers, (Rabinowitz, Sato, Case, Benitez, & Jordan,
long-term issues remain about being able to 2008); therefore, it is critical that such stu-
produce a sufficient supply. In part because of dents receive instruction from teachers who
the chronic shortage of special educators, the are highly knowledgeable in every content
constituent groups of faculty with expertise in area. Concern among policy makers about
disability studies must expand to include all students with disabilities faring poorly on
education professionals (e.g., general education state- and districtwide assessments provided
teachers, school-based curriculum specialists, the impetus for new requirements in the Higher
school psychologists, principals). Furthermore, Education Opportunity Act for teacher prepa-
the teacher preparation curriculum and its ration programs in higher education. Each
related instruction and experiences will need IHE with a teacher preparation program must
continual adjustments so that new teachers can provide assurances that general education
possess the most current knowledge base, have teachers receive training about providing
the skills necessary to maintain this expertise, instruction to diverse populations, including
and thus be highly qualified. students with disabilities and students with
limited-English proficiency. In addition, all
prospective special education teachers must
Preparing General Educators receive course work and training in providing
to Instruct Students With Disabilities instruction in core academic subjects. Further-
The requirements for highly qualified teach- more, the Higher Education Opportunity Act
ers are necessary, given the trend toward (Section 251) authorizes an entirely new pro-
including more students with disabilities in gram, the Teach to Reach Grants, the sole
general education classrooms for more of the purpose of which is to prepare general educa-
school day. Data from the U.S. Department tion teachers to effectively educate students
of Education indicate that in the 2007 school with disabilities. Required activities include
year, 57% of students with disabilities were ensuring that teacher candidates are skilled in
served in general education classrooms for at the methods used in response to intervention,
least 80% of their school day (U.S. Depart- positive behavioral interventions and sup-
ment of Education, 2008). Therefore, almost ports, and universal design for learning.
all general education teachers instruct stu- The expectation that students with dis-
dents with disabilities alongside their peers abilities will continue their education into

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

30 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

postsecondary school has increased in recent practicing teachers to acquire new sets of
years. For more than a decade, the Higher collaboration and communication skills, such
Education Opportunity Act has supported pro- as those required for co-teaching and collab-
grams that prepare faculty to instruct students orative consultation. The faculty who are pre-
with disabilities in colleges and universities. paring the next generation of teachers must be
In 2008, this program was reauthorized and versatile in this new knowledge base and the
strengthened, and several new programs were skills needed to implement them while provid-
included to improve access to higher education ing teacher candidates with field experiences
for students with disabilities (West, 2009). where they can witness effective collabora-
One such initiative creates model transition tion and develop their skills under the super-
and postsecondary programs for students with vision of expert teachers.
intellectual disabilities where they, for the first
time, are eligible for federal financial aid if
they participate in higher education programs Accountability for Teacher
that are designed for them. This new direction Preparation Results
expands the roles of IHE faculty and perhaps For almost a decade, accountability measures
implies a need for an ever-greater number of for educators have been a recurring theme in
professionals with expertise in the education national education policy conversations. Fed-
of individuals with disabilities. eral policy is now shifting attention to preser-
vice preparation programs and encouraging
strong connections among teacher education,
Preparing Highly Qualified Special teachers’ skills, and students’ learning. In par-
Education Teachers ticular, the effectiveness of teachers and prin-
No Child Left Behind and changes in Individ- cipals is being linked to their preparation
uals With Disabilities Education Improvement programs. This shift is reaching a crescendo,
Act of 2004 reflect the understanding that as demonstrated by the recently issued “Race
effective teachers are at the core of every stu- to the Top” draft priorities, a federal grant pro-
dent’s learning. In defining a “highly qualified gram of the American Recovery and Reinvest-
special education teacher,” these laws clearly ment Act of 2009. This $4 billion program, to
focus on ensuring that all teachers, including be administered by the U.S. Department of
those of students with disabilities, are knowl- Education, requires that the performance of
edgeable in the content areas they are teaching. teachers and principals be determined by their
Because students’ learning of content con- students’ achievement as measured by state-
tained in the general education curriculum is wide assessments (and possibly additional
evaluated through statewide assessments, all data). In turn, teacher preparation programs
teachers must be well versed in the grade-level are to be evaluated by their graduates’ abilities
curriculum. This requirement extends the Indi- to improve their students’ achievement.
viduals With Disabilities Education Act of To develop statewide longitudinal data sys-
1997 requirement that all students with dis- tems required by the American Recovery and
abilities have access to the general education Reinvestment Act, states must first have the
curriculum. As a result, special education capacity to link teacher/student achievement
teacher preparation programs have increas- data to teacher preparation programs—not an
ingly focused on ensuring that special educa- easy or cost-efficient process. At present, only
tion candidates have a major or a minor in the three such evaluation programs have been
content areas in which they will be teaching. attempted, and few states presently have the
Another result is a shift toward increased capacity to initiate such complicated data sys-
integration of teacher preparation for general tems (David Wright, personal communication,
and special education teachers. Such a shift August 20, 2009). For example, New York
requires teacher educators, their students, and City schools amassed a onetime data-based

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 31

picture of student achievement and teacher employment possibilities for many Americans,
placements (Boyd et al., 2006). Although this virtually eliminating long-term shortages expe-
project was short-lived and unsustainable, it rienced by many professions. However, not
made some preliminary links between teacher every sector has been as affected. For exam-
performance and student achievement. On a ple, “educational services” is one of only
more longitudinal scale, Noell and colleagues five industries that has essentially remained
(Noell, Porter, Patt, & Dahir, 2008) reported unchanged in its rate of job openings (Bureau
the effectiveness of specific teacher prepara- of Labor Statistics, 2007). In particular, the
tion programs and student achievement in demand for educators in the areas of mathe-
Louisiana through evaluation data they col- matics, science, and special education remains
lected for the 2004–2005 to 2006–2007 school high. For the past 20 years, special education
years. For the past 10 years, the Center for has consistently been identified as a profes-
Teacher Quality, housed within the California sion with one of the greatest shortages (U.S.
State University’s Office of the Chancellor, has Department of Education, 2009). School dis-
conducted annual evaluations of the universi- tricts in every state continue to experience
ty’s teacher graduates from each of its 23 cam- chronic and persistent shortages of those who
puses. Evaluation information provides data teach students with disabilities. In part because
about the effectiveness of each program’s of the insufficient supply and high demand for
graduates after 1 year of teaching. These data these professionals, many states offer alter-
are used to improve the university’s teacher native licensure programs, maintain targeted
preparation programs. Because of a collabor- recruitment centers, and develop special Web
ative effort between the Carnegie Founda- sites aimed at attracting qualified applicants
tion and the Center for Teacher Quality, the (Rosenberg et al., 2007). To assist with these
ability to link teachers’ instruction directly to efforts, the federal government funds the
their students’ achievement is on the horizon. National Center to Improve Recruitment and
Whether statewide data systems are in place Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children
or not, IHEs must be prepared to address these With Disabilities, or the Personnel Improve-
new evaluation components about their train- ment Center. This organization seeks to
ing programs, and they must do so while the increase the pool of individuals interested in
pressure to increase the supply of new special becoming special educators (see http://www
educators continues. .personnelcenter.org).
Although many strategies are being used
to address supply, the demand for special edu-
Addressing the Chronic and Persistent cators is expected to increase by some 15%
Shortage of Special Education Teachers from now to 2016; this rate is greater than that
The ongoing and persistent shortage of special predicted for all other occupations (Bureau of
education teachers continues to be an impor- Labor Statistics, 2007). In fact, the need for
tant variable in personnel policy (Boe & special education teachers in K–6 settings is
Cook, 2006; Boe, Sunderland, & Cook, 2006; projected to increase by 20%, whereas the
Brownell, Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Smith, 2004; need at the middle school level is projected to
McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004). Despite increase by 16%. Furthermore, about 9% more
job losses across almost every sector of the secondary special education teachers will be
American economy, the demand for special edu- needed to meet the needs of older students
cators remains high, and almost every school with disabilities. Many factors contribute to
district in the country continues to face chronic the continued increase in demand. One is the
shortages of highly qualified special education exceptionally high attrition rate of special
teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). education teachers (Boe & Cook, 2006).
No doubt, the recent economic downturn According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’
has devastated the labor force and reduced Occupational Outlook Handbook (2007), the

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

32 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

number of students requiring special educa- estimated workforce includes some 15,500
tion services has grown steadily. Experts pre- underprepared teachers (Guha, Shields, Tiffany-
dict that more students will have special needs Morales, Bland, & Campbell, 2008). At the
in the future, owing to advances in early diag- same time, the state is facing a historically
nosis and to medical treatment that saves lives high rate of retirements and exceptionally low
but leaves individuals with disabilities (e.g., rates of teacher production, particularly for
traumatic brain injury), to limited access to elementary schools. In addition, it is experi-
preventive health services among poor and encing not only a substantial rise in the num-
immigrant families, and to the increased inci- ber of children identified as having moderate
dence of some conditions and disabilities to severe disabilities (California Department
(e.g., autism). of Education, 2009) but a resulting demand
for more teachers with the specialized skills to
educate these youngsters in inclusive settings
The Role of Teacher (Robb, 2007).
Preparation Programs How can the nation increase its capacity to
in the Results of Students produce more teachers who are qualified and
capable of working with students with special
Only a few years ago, the benefits of a fully needs? Because college and university faculty
prepared teaching workforce were not clear. are the primary source of all teacher training—
Some policy makers and much of the public whether traditional or nontraditional (Rosenberg
maintained that those teaching in the nation’s et al., 2007)—the answer is to ensure that there
schools do not have to be specially prepared to are sufficient numbers of faculty, instructors,
assume roles as teachers (Finn, Rotherham, & and supervisors to work in teacher prepara-
Hokanson, 2001). In particular, skill in peda- tion programs. In the next section, we provide
gogy, the ability to apply a range of effective a brief history of special education doctoral
instructional practices in a variety of instruc- and leadership training in the United States
tional contexts, and the expertise to assess the and some findings of the most recent study on
power of these interventions with diverse the supply and demand of special education
learners are often undervalued. We now know faculty.
differently: Trained teachers improve student
outcomes and are more likely to remain in the
profession (Darling-Hammond, 2005, 2006a, Context and Background
2006b; Futernick, 2007; Lyon, & Weiser, of Leadership Preparation
2009). Certified teachers consistently produce in Special Education
significantly stronger student achievement
gains than do uncertified teachers, with some Special education began long before the pas-
researchers indicating that students of uncerti- sage of the Education for All Handicapped
fied teachers have 20% lower levels of aca- Children Act in 1975. The 1950s saw a growth
demic achievement (Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, in educational programs for students with dis-
2003). The authors of the Individuals With abilities, particularly for those with mild to
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of moderate intellectual disabilities, who were
2004 and its regulations reflect the importance often educated in extremely restrictive settings
of having a highly qualified teacher for all stu- or did not receive a public education. There
dents, those with and without disabilities (U.S. were not sufficient numbers of professionals
Department of Education, 2006). However, to operate these new, school-based programs,
because of an IHE faculty shortage, teacher however, and the existing teachers and staff
education seems not to have the ability to meet did not have a knowledge base about effective
the demand for more teachers today or in the practices from which to draw when working
future. In California, for example, the current with this new population of students. That

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 33

knowledge needed to come from research. existing programs and 3 new ones. Two years
Therefore, in addition to recognizing a need later, 21 universities with doctoral programs
for more practitioners, Congress and federal (i.e., 6 additional programs had been initiated)
policy makers realized that there was a need were awarded fellowships, and 4 others were
for personnel who could conduct research, provided with start-up funds (Schofer, 1962;
generate a knowledge base about these learn- Smith & Salzberg, 1994). By 1987, a total of
ers, and train teachers and other service pro- 85 special education doctoral programs were
viders. In short, there was a need for more listed in a program directory developed by the
doctoral-level special education personnel. Teacher Education Division (1987) of the
In 1953, the National Institute of Mental Council for Exceptional Children; many of
Health initiated a research training program these were developed and supported through
that prepared “mental retardation research- federal funding of master’s and doctoral fel-
ers,” most of whom worked as IHE faculty or lowships, resulting in both a rapidly expanding
researchers at federally funded institutes or capacity to deliver special education services
centers. (This program continues today through to students with disabilities and an increase in
the National Institute of Child Health and the development of effective practices. This
Human Development’s Mental Retardation rapid expansion is a certain demonstration of
and Developmental Disabilities Branch). In the strength of incentives provided by the fed-
1954, only 14 universities across the country eral government (Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2001).
offered doctoral programs in special educa-
tion (Schofer, 1962; Smith & Salzberg, 1994).
These programs were small and narrowly The Role of the OSEP
focused, with a single field of emphasis (i.e., Nationally, three federal agencies—the OSEP,
visual disabilities, deaf and hard of hearing, the Mental Retardation and Developmental
intellectual disabilities). By 1959, programs Disabilities Branch, and the Institute for Edu-
for students with disabilities were expanding, cation Sciences—support doctoral training
and the need for teachers, teacher educators, focusing on the needs of individuals with
and leadership personnel became apparent. disabilities. The OSEP, however, is the pri-
Congress initiated a grant program (Schofer, mary source of federal funding for the prepara-
1962) to prepare doctoral-level personnel who tion of doctoral-level personnel devoted to
could lead the field and prepare generations improving the results for students with dis-
of teachers and other service providers. abilities through teacher education and the
generation of new knowledge. Doctoral grad-
uates fill a variety of important roles (e.g.,
The Power of Federal Funding policy makers, advocates, researchers,
Perhaps the special education personnel prep- teacher educators, school leaders) working
aration agenda is one of the best examples of on behalf of students with disabilities. The
how external funding can have a dramatic OSEP federal grants program, originally pro-
effect on the size and nature of educational vided through the Bureau for the Education
programs, at both the school level and the uni- of the Handicapped, stems from the original
versity level. As we mentioned, federal fund- legislation just discussed (Schofer, 1962). In
ing for leadership (doctoral) preparation in 2009, the OSEP funded 507 special education
special education began in 1959, when only doctoral students through 77 four-year proj-
14 doctoral programs were in existence. Dur- ects at 42 universities across the nation who
ing the first year of this new federal program, were training for a range of careers working
titled the “Graduate Fellowship Program for with an array of disabilities (Smith, 2009b).
the Preparation of Leadership Personnel in the The second program, the Mental Retarda-
Education of Mentally Retarded Children,” 15 tion and Developmental Disabilities Branch
doctoral programs were funded: 12 of the (begun in 1953), prepares biomedical and

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

34 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

biobehavioral researchers studying intellec- So any program modifications must be thought

tual and developmental disabilities. This mul- through carefully so that the consequences of
tidisciplinary and transdisciplinary training every action is well understood before changes
program awards fellowships to individuals and are implemented. Any programmatic revisions
to training projects at universities that fund must be informed by data and be in response to
groups of students. Although each year about input from broad stakeholder input. Thus, to be
10 training projects are awarded to investiga- fully informed about the supply of doctoral
tors at one of its 16 national centers, typically graduates and the demand for college and uni-
only 3 of these projects focus on preparing versity faculty in special education, the OSEP
behavioral scientists whose work will focus commissioned two studies of these topics: one
on individuals with intellectual disabilities. at the end of the last century and the other cur-
The Institute for Education Sciences, the rently underway. We summarize findings from
third doctoral training program, was initiated the completed study next.
in 2003. The institute’s funds can be used to
support doctoral training with an emphasis on
individuals with disabilities. In 2009, the insti- The Shortage of Faculty
tute funded 15 five-year doctoral preparation in Special Education:
projects to universities. Only 1 of those proj- Findings From the 2001 Study
ects’ abstracts, however, indicates education
of students with disabilities as an emphasis In 1999, special education university faculty
area and only an optional area at that. members joined policy makers, researchers,
Without a doubt, the program managed and other stakeholders to form a team focused
by the OSEP has, for some 50 years, been an on issues related to the supply and demand of
important continual funding stream to pro- special education faculty. The team members
grams and students. The Leadership Prepara- came together to determine whether a short-
tion Initiative, a separate funding competition age of special education faculty existed and,
for support of doctoral students, is important if so, to identify contributing factors and pos-
in many ways. Project directors who receive sible solutions. That work, completed in 2001
these awards report that this funding is criti- and now referred to as the Special Education
cal for student recruitment, program stability, Faculty Shortage Study (Smith, Pion, Tyler,
and doctoral production (Smith & Robb, 2009). & Gilmore, 2003; Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar,
They also report that the OSEP funding pro- & Rosenberg, 2001), had six key findings:
vides the infrastructure needed to maintain a first, a shortage of special education faculty
sufficient student body necessary to offer a does exist; second, in the 20 years between
rich and broad doctoral program. Without this 1981 and 2001, the number of special educa-
funding, the number of full-time students tion doctorates produced annually decreased
diminishes, and so too does the ability to by 30%; third, about 50% of those who
offer doctoral-level seminars. received doctoral degrees in special education
The importance of the funding granted chose to work in higher education (the pro-
through the OSEP program provides the agency portion dropped to 36% when only tenure-line
with the opportunity for exceptional influence. positions were considered); fourth, the percent-
It can purposively guide and direct the national age of doctoral graduates from historically
doctoral preparation effort in special education. underrepresented groups who accepted faculty
Any action taken by the OSEP—whether a positions (14%) was insufficient to meet the
change in the amount of funding available per diverse hiring needs expressed by search
project, the amount of financial assistance coordinators; fifth, more than one third of
provided students, or the number of projects all faculty positions nationwide remained
funded—will have a direct and immediate unfilled; and, sixth, a supply–demand equi-
effect on doctoral programs across the nation. librium (i.e., between new graduates and

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 35

advertised positions) would be achieved only those who chose careers outside higher edu-
if every new special education doctoral grad- cation. Second, only 36% of those with plans
uate assumed an open faculty position. to work in academe relocated to begin their
The problem created by the production of doctoral study. Finally, these students reported
fewer doctoral graduates was compounded by more dependency on outside jobs to support
certain characteristics of many of the new their studies and less support through assis-
doctoral graduates—characteristics that made tantships, fellowships, or traineeships.
them less likely to select a faculty position in
higher education as a career choice (Pion,
Smith, & Tyler, 2003). Specifically, the study Recommendations From the 2001 Study
found that graduates who displayed any of the In light of these findings, the project’s study
following characteristics were significantly team, stakeholders, policy makers, and research-
less likely to end up in higher education: One ers made recommendations to improve the
earned a bachelor’s degree in an area other supply-and-demand imbalance of new doctorates
than special education; delayed beginning to open faculty positions (Smith et al., 2001;
doctoral study for more than 7 years after the Smith et al., 2003). One important recommen-
completion of the master’s degree; listed some- dation was to take steps to increase the capacity
thing other than a faculty position as a career of the nation’s doctoral programs—namely, that
goal at the onset of the doctoral program; both the number of programs and the size of the
spent a significantly longer time earning the doctoral student bodies be increased. Programs
doctoral degree; was not primarily supported where course work composed only special edu-
through assistantships, fellowships, or trainee- cation minors or emphasis areas were encour-
ships; and did not relocate to accept a position aged to increase the number of course and
following graduation. An individual’s age— seminar offerings, and the team suggested that
both at the beginning of the doctoral program entirely new doctoral programs be developed.
and at graduation—contributed to the nonfac- Also, because the study revealed that many doc-
ulty career choices. The average age of students toral programs had few students, the team sug-
who started the doctoral program (36 years) gested that small and large programs alike could
was equal to the age of the average assistant accommodate more students, which would
professor of earlier decades (Smith & Lovett, eventually produce more graduates to meet the
1987; Tyler, Smith, & Pion, 2003). Given that demand for new faculty.
the average age at graduation had increased to Another recommendation was to recruit
40 years for the 1994–1998 doctoral gradu- students who specifically possess those char-
ates, the expectation of relocating a family to acteristics that are indicators of assuming
accept a faculty position, which often paid less careers in academe. Such actions would mean
than their current public school salaries, was that younger applicants would be recruited, as
unappealing (Smith et al., 2001). would those with clear aspirations for careers
An interesting yet worrisome trend became in academe. Students who were willing to relo-
apparent when the faculty study team investi- cate for doctoral study could also receive
gated the characteristics of students in the spe- special assistance (e.g., moving allowances,
cial education doctoral pipeline during the reimbursement for relocation expenses) as part
spring semester of 1999. Although 44% of the of the recruitment process. Finally, of the
doctoral students cited a career in academe as stakeholder groups considering the implication
their preference, these same students exhibited of the study’s findings, the major recommen-
three characteristics more predictive of careers dation was for Congress to appropriate more
outside of higher education (Tyler et al., 2003). funding toward the personnel preparation
First, they were older than the newly graduated agenda for special education and for the OSEP
faculty members were when they first entered to allocate additional funding to its leadership
doctoral programs, with ages more in line with preparation initiative (Smith et al., 2001).

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

36 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

Impact of the 2001 Study in fiscal year 2006, and dropped to $17,617,094
on Education Policy in fiscal year 2008. These additional funds
supported more doctoral projects, resulting in
Since the release of the Special Education more doctoral students being trained to assume
Faculty Shortage Study and the ensuing publi- leadership roles in special education.
cations, the supply-and-demand imbalance of The Special Education Faculty Shortage
new doctoral graduates and special education Study stimulated other researchers to consider
faculty became apparent to the field and pol- the issues of a faculty shortage in special edu-
icy makers alike (Pion et al., 2003; Sindelar & cation and some to conduct studies of their
Rosenberg, 2003; Smith et al., 2003; Smith, own. For example, the connection between a
Pion, & Tyler, 2004). It is now well acknowl- shortage of faculty and a shortage of teachers
edged that a shortage of special education fac- caught the attention of the press (e.g., Temkin,
ulty does contribute greatly to a shortage of 2002). Researchers began to investigate spe-
special education teachers and other service cial education faculty shortages in their own
providers, ultimately producing a negative states, such as California (Evans et al.,
effect on the quality of services provided to 2005), whereas others studied the relation-
students with disabilities and their families. ship between federal funding on the recruit-
For example, in the Senate committee reports ment of students into doctoral programs
from 2002 to 2005 (Nos. 107-84, 107-216, (Wasburn-Moses & Therrien, 2008).
108-81, and 108-345), Congress expressed Some 10 years after the initial study, many
concern about the shortage of special educa- questions remain about special education
tion faculty and teachers, specifically called doctoral programs, the students who enroll in
out the connection in Public Law No. 108- these programs, and the paths that graduates
447, and directed that federal funds be allo- take. Except for the increase in the overall
cated to increase the supply of both teachers funding for the OSEP leadership preparation
and faculty: “The Committee continues to be initiative just discussed, we do not know
particularly concerned about the shortages of whether changes have occurred in how doc-
qualified special education teachers and of toral students are recruited, what funding pat-
higher education faculty to train those teach- terns are used to support them during their
ers. It intends that these funds be used to doctoral studies, and what curriculum is
address both shortages” (Senate Committee offered in their programs. We also do not
Report No. 108-345). know whether changes, if they occurred, had
Concerns about the faculty shortage in spe- the desired effects. For these reasons, a new
cial education were also called out in the Col- needs assessment of special education doc-
lege Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 as toral training programs is underway. Its pur-
well as the Individuals With Disabilities pose is to determine the impact that special
Improvement Act of 2004. Such congressional education doctoral programs have on the
concern resulted in the retention the OSEP’s nation’s teacher preparation efforts.
Leadership Preparation Program under section
664(d) of the law with an increase in the
appropriations. In fiscal year 2000, while the The Special Education
Special Education Faculty Shortage Study was Faculty Needs Assessment
being conducted, the amount of funds dedi- In 2007, the OSEP funded a new project to
cated to leadership preparation by the OSEP assess the trends in leadership development
was $10,713,844. In fiscal year 2002, the year and to determine whether the nation has the
after the study was concluded and hill briefings capacity to produce a sufficient supply of
were being held, the appropriation for leader- qualified special education teachers. The pri-
ship preparation increased to $13,020,037, mary focus of this evaluation effort is on the
continually increased to a high of $20,607,794 production of new special education doctoral

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 37

graduates who assume faculty positions. It is premature to suggest future research priori-
therefore assessing both the supply and the ties. However, once the final analyses of the
demand for new special education faculty. Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment
This evaluation effort comprises six major data are complete, policy makers and stake-
components, each with a specific purpose: holders should have the necessary informa-
tion upon which to inform future policy
1. assess the status and capacity of spe- decisions and suggest research agendas. For
cial education doctoral programs; current and updated information about the
2. assess the demographics, career Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment
goals, and characteristics of current project, visit http://www.cgu.edu/sefna.
special education doctoral students
who are “in the pipeline”;
3. determine career paths, demograph- Summary and Next Steps
ics, and other characteristics of 10 We know much more about the special educa-
years of special education doctoral tion leadership landscape than we did before
graduates; the initiation of the Special Education Fac-
4. determine basic characteristics of ulty Shortage Study in 1999. We now under-
university-based special education stand that federal policy and funding have a
teacher education programs (e.g., staff- significant influence on the quality and quan-
ing patterns, projected retirements); tity of special education teachers and faculty.
5. determine the completion rates of We better understand the connections between
doctoral students supported by an the supply and demand of faculty and the sup-
OSEP leadership project initiated in ply and demand for teachers, and vice versa;
fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001, or that is, if there is a shortage of special educa-
fiscal year 2002; and tion teachers, there is shortage in the supply
6. compare the OSEP financial assis- pipeline for future faculty. We also know that
tance packages (e.g., stipends, today’s teachers face more rigorous standards
tuition, educational costs, health and must be knowledgeable about an ever-
insurance) with those provided widening range of instructional and behav-
through other federal agencies’ doc- ioral interventions and techniques. These
toral training grants programs. interventions and techniques are discovered
through research primarily conducted by our
At the time of this publication, with the nation’s special education faculty. The 2001
exception of Task 4, data collection efforts for study revealed a shortage of these same fac-
this needs assessment effort have been com- ulty members, and the Special Education Fac-
pleted, and data analyses for Tasks 1 through 3 ulty Needs Assessment study will provide
are underway. Updates will be posted contin- information about whether a faculty shortage
ually on the Special Education Faculty Needs still exists. This new effort will also shed light
Assessment’s Web site (http://www.cgu.edu/ on whether the nation has the capacity to
sefna), and the final results will be published increase the role of special education faculty
in future editions of this journal. to better prepare general educators to serve
Once the Special Education Faculty Needs students with disabilities.
Assessment’s work is complete, the nation
will have data from two points in time (the
2001 Special Education Faculty Shortage Pre-Service Training
Study and the 2009 Special Education Fac- for General Education Teachers
ulty Needs Assessment study) that will pro- Recent policy changes require greater knowl-
vide a better picture of the current state of edge about inclusive processes and practices,
special education doctoral training, as well as such as response to intervention, positive
how it has changed over the last decade. It is behavioral interventions and supports, and

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

38 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

universal design for learning. These require- Specifically, Duncan called out three great
ments affect not only special education teach- challenges that fuel the imperative for recon-
ers but general educators as well. Most ceptualization of the teacher preparation
students with disabilities spend the majority of curriculum:
their school days in inclusive settings; there-
fore, all teachers must be prepared to meet 1. prepare students to live and work
their academic and social needs. How well do in the information age,
our current teacher training programs meet 2. successfully teach all students so
this need? The federal government’s account- that they reach their full potential,
ability office (U.S. Government Accountabil- and
ity Office, 2009) recently released a report 3. produce a sufficient number of
about the preparedness of teachers to work well-prepared new teachers to
with students with disabilities and with replace retiring baby boomers—
English learners. Included in the report are the nearly one third of the teaching
following findings: Most elementary and force (up to 1 million teachers)
secondary education majors are required to within the next 4 to 5 years.
take at least one course that includes some
content about inclusive education; fewer are IHEs are by far the largest producers of new
required to take a separate course about stu- teachers, preparing some 95% of the supply
dents with disabilities (73% of elementary and (Duncan, 2009). The burden of meeting the
67% of secondary programs); even less have demand for more teachers may prove in itself
field experiences with these students (58% of to be overwhelming, but these new teachers
elementary and 51% of secondary programs); will need different types of training programs
finally, the most common field experience because they will need to possess skill sets dif-
includes only observation of special needs ferent from those of previous generations of
students with no instructional component. It teachers. We believe that these contexts will
should not be surprising that new general necessitate new and innovative models for
education teachers feel underprepared to work teacher training and the delivery of services to
with students with disabilities in their classes children. The nation cannot continue to train
(Duncan, 2009; National Comprehensive teachers in the same way, whether in general
Center for Teacher Quality, 2008). In line with education or in special education, and it can-
this information and the current economic not afford to have an underqualified teaching
conditions, our recommendation is that the force, one ill prepared to meet the educational
nation’s teacher preparation enterprise be needs of every student.
rethought and revised. Some teacher preparation programs’ fac-
In a recent speech at Teachers College, ulty and administrators are rethinking the
Columbia University, U.S. secretary of edu- teacher preparation efforts at their universi-
cation Arne Duncan (2009) voiced similar ties. They are seeking to increase trainees’
concerns: knowledge and skills in working with students
with disabilities, namely through the follow-
Yet, by almost any standard, many if ing actions: hiring more faculty with proven
not most of the nation’s 1,450 schools, experience in working with exceptional stu-
colleges, and departments of education dents, adapting existing courses, increasing
are doing a mediocre job of preparing collaboration among those with experience
teachers for the realities of the 21st cen- in working with exceptional students, creating
tury classroom. America’s university- new field experiences, and developing new
based teacher preparation programs courses (U.S. Government Accountability
need revolutionary change—not evolu- Office, 2009). To whom will the responsibili-
tionary tinkering. (p. 1) ties for these revisions in training fall? When

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 39

students with disabilities are the focal point, resources and instructional units about the
most general education faculty lack the knowl- education of students with disabilities in inclu-
edge, background, and experience to effec- sive settings. These instructional materials are
tively provide relevant instruction. The use designed for use in college courses and pro-
of special education faculty members often fessional development activities. Called out in
becomes the solution. For example, when ele- the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s
mentary and secondary education majors are report (2009), the IRIS Center for Training
required to take one course about working Enhancements (www.iriscenter.com) provides
with students with disabilities, a special edu- one facet of the solution to the challenge of
cation faculty member usually teaches that bringing new knowledge about effective
course. We believe that as more content and practices to traditional course work. Clearly,
field experiences are added to the general edu- the federal government should provide fund-
cation curriculum, special education faculty ing for more innovative programs that provide
will be relied on more frequently. incentives and resources for systems change
It is unclear whether sufficient numbers of in teacher preparation efforts and facilitate
doctoral-level faculty are available to meet this coordination of dissemination activities.
additional workload, especially given the chal- The federal government also has an impor-
lenges involved in addressing the shortages of tant role to play in fostering change in pro-
special education teachers. Many special educa- grams that prepare the next generation of
tion programs are currently turning to adjunct college faculty. It can initiate a national con-
and master’s-level instructors to meet the versation about leadership preparation and its
instructional demands for their undergraduate implications for teacher training. We strongly
courses, citing as justification departmental encourage the OSEP to convene a leadership
budgetary constraints and the inability to fill preparation summit—a meeting of national
faculty positions. In short, there may be no spe- experts and stakeholders. Such action was suc-
cial education faculty to spare. A shortage of cessful in the past and, we believe, would be
special education faculty will hamper the capac- again. In 2004, the OSEP commissioned the
ity of higher education to meet a critical new Blue Ribbon Task Force Committee (2004) to
need: to prepare general education teachers to examine its leadership personnel preparation
effectively instruct students with disabilities. competition. Although the group’s primary
charge was to determine quality indicators for
use in the competition’s criteria, the task force
The Role of the Federal Government recommended that the OSEP increase support
The U.S. Department of Education can play a for leadership preparation by awarding more
more significant part in addressing this chal- projects. This action was taken and is possibly
lenge. Currently, 10 grant programs that fund the explanation for the increase in the num-
general teacher preparation programs are ber of special education doctoral graduates
administered through four offices of the depart- (National Opinion Research Center, 2009) and
ment. Within these federal programs, more the reversal of a 20-year downward trend.
emphasis could be provided to ensure that future The work to be conducted at a new national
generations of general educators are better pre- summit about leadership preparation is impor-
pared to meet the needs of students with dis- tant. We believe that it is critical that this sum-
abilities who are learning in inclusive settings. mit be called soon. Policy makers, stakeholders,
Other examples of how the federal gov- university faculty, and others need to address
ernment can make a difference abound. For and make recommendations about
example, to assist with the enhancement of
the teacher preparation curriculum, the OSEP •• increasing the supply of special edu-
invests in a center that provides free online cation faculty,

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

40 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

•• meeting the demand for expanded Blue Ribbon Task Force Committee. (2004). Draft:
roles for special education faculty in Guidelines for OSEP leadership program com-
the preparation of general educators, petition applications. Washington, DC: Office
•• revising the curriculum of doctoral of Special Education Programs and the Higher
preparation programs to increase the Education Consortium for Special Education.
knowledge and skills of the next Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://
generation of teacher educators, www.cgu.edu/pages/5612.asp
•• determining the gaps in the current Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. (2006). The chronic and
knowledge base and developing a increasing shortage of fully certified teachers
research agenda, and in special and general education. Exceptional
•• creating a national plan of action. Children, 72, 443-460.
Boe, E., Sunderland, B., & Cook, L. (2006, Novem-
Present federal policy makers have already ber). The supply of teachers from traditional
assumed a major role in the national teacher and alternative routes of preparation. Presenta-
education agenda. They have instigated wide- tion at Teacher Education Division Conference,
spread educational reform and have cleared San Diego, CA.
the path for subsequent initiatives. We are Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S.,
confident that a comprehensive national effort Michelli, N., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex
can produce the necessary changes to ensure by design: Investigating pathways into teaching
that a sufficient supply of faculty is available in New York City schools. Journal of Teacher
to address the shortage of special education Education, 57, 155-166.
teachers and the expanded roles of general Bradshaw, D., Reinke, W., Brown, L., Bevans, K.,
educators in meeting the educational needs of & Leaf, P. (2008). Implementation of school-
students with disabilities and their families. wide positive behavioral interventions and
Now is the time is for action. supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Obser-
vations from a randomized trial. Education and
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of Brownell, M. J. Rosenberg, M. S., Sindelar, P. T., &
interests with respect to the authorship and/or pub- Smith, D. D. (2004). Teacher education: Toward
lication of this article. a qualified teacher for every classroom. In
A. M. Sorells, H. J. Rieth, & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.),
Financial Disclosure/Funding Critical issues in special education (pp. 243-257).
The authors disclosed receipt of the following finan- Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
cial support for the research and/or authorship of this Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Occupational
article: The work presented in this article was partly outlook handbook, 2008–2009 edition: Teach-
supported by the Office of Special Education Pro- ers—special education. Washington, DC: U.S.
grams, U.S. Department of Education, through the Department of Labor. Retrieved December 15,
Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment project 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos070.
(No. H325U070001), which is awarded to Claremont htm
Graduate University. The contents of this article do California Department of Education. (2009). Data-
not necessarily reflect views or policies of the quest analysis of California students, staff, and
Department of Education, nor does mention of trade demographics. Retrieved on September 7, 2009,
names, commercial products, or organizations imply from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/
endorsement by the U.S. government. SpecEd1.asp?cChoice=SpecEd1&cYear=2006/07
&cLevel=State&cTopic=SpecEd&myTimeFrame
References =S&submit1=Submit&ReptCycle=December
Bain, A., Lancaster, J., Zundans, L., & Parkes, R. J. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2007).
(2009). Embedding evidence-based practice in Summary of 2007 national summit on universal
pre-service teacher preparation. Teacher Educa- design for learning working groups. Wakefield,
tion and Special Education, 32, 215-225. MA: Author.

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 41

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005, April). Correlation Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://ies
between teachers and student achievement. Pre- .ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
sentation at the American Education Research Guha, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Bland,
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. J., & Campbell, A. (2008). California’s teach-
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006a). Constructing 21st- ing force: Key issues and trends. Santa Cruz,
century teacher education. Journal of Teacher CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and
Education, 57, 300-314. Learning.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006b, November). Devel- Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110-
oping a profession of teaching. Presentation at 315 (2008).
CalTEACH Annual Faculty Professional Con- Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub.
ference, San Jose, CA. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997).
Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher preparation: Reforming Individuals With Disabilities Education Improve-
the uncertain profession. Remarks of secretary ment Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118
Arne Duncan at Teachers College, Columbia Uni- Stat. 2647.
versity. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http:// IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. (2009).
www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009 Universal design for learning: Creating a
.html learning environment that challenges and
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. engages all students. Retrieved on September
L. No. 94-142 (1975). 4, 2009, from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt
Evans, S., Eliot, M., Hood, J., Driggs, M., Mori, A., .edu/udl/chalcycle.htm
& Johnson, T. (2005). Assessing the special edu- Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. J. (2001). The federal role
cation faculty shortage: The crisis in California— in preparation of special education personnel:
A statewide study of the professoriate. Teacher An historical perspective. AACTE Policy Per-
Education Quarterly, 32, 7-21. spectives, 2(3), 1-8.
Finn, C. E., Jr., Rotherham, A. J., & Hokanson, Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). In harm’s
C. R., Jr. (Eds.). (2001). Conclusions and way: How undercertified teachers hurt their stu-
principles for reform. In C. E. Finn Jr., A. dents. Educational Leadership, 60, 34-39.
J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson Jr. (Eds.), Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowl-
Rethinking special education for a new cen- edge, instructional expertise, and the development
tury (pp. 259-288). Washington, DC: Thomas of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning
B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Disabilities, 42, 475-480.
Policy Institute. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Flippin, S. S. (2004).
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2008). The supply of and demand for special educa-
Response to intervention: A framework for read- tion teachers: A review of research regarding the
ing educators. Newark, DE: International Read- nature of the chronic shortage of special edu-
ing Association. cation teachers. The Journal of Special Educa-
Fuchs, D., & Young, C. L. (2006). On the irrelevance tion, 38, 5-21.
of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., &
reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Develop-
8-30. ment, measurement, and validation. American
Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retain- Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315-340.
ing California teachers so all students learn. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Qual-
Sacramento, CA: Center for Teacher Quality. ity. (2008). Lessons learned: New teachers talk
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., about their jobs, challenges, and long-range
Santoro, L., Linan-Thompon, S., et al. (2009). plans. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
Assisting students struggling with reading: December 15, 2009, from http://www.tqsource
Response to Intervention and multi-tier inter- .org/publications/LessonsLearned3.pdf
vention for reading in the primary grades. A National Opinion Research Center. (2009). Grad-
practice guide (NCEE No. 2009-4045). Wash- uation trends of special education doctorates.
ington, DC: National Center for Education. Chicago: Author.

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

42 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. Schofer, R. (1962). Public Law 85-926. Unpub-
107-110. lished manuscript.
Noell, G. H., Porter, B. A., Patt, R. M., & Dahir, A. Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2003). The
(2008). Value added assessment of teacher demand for faculty in special education: A study
preparation in Louisiana: 2004–2005 to 2006– of searches conducted in 1997-98. Teacher Edu-
2007. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from cation and Special Education, 26(3), 172-181.
http://regents.state.la.us/Academic/TE/2008/ Smith, D. D. (2009a). Briefing to the OSEP Leader-
Final%20Value-Added%20Report%20(12.02 ship Team. Washington, DC: Office of Special
.08).pdf Education Programs.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2009). Smith, D. D. (2009b). SEFNA brief: The federal
Application for new grants under the Individuals role in the preparation of special education doc-
With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Fiscal torates [Unpublished report]. Claremont, CA:
year 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department Claremont Graduate University, Special Educa-
of Education. tion Faculty Needs Assessment.
Personnel Improvement Center. (2009). The Smith, D. D., & Lovett, D. (1987). The supply and
National Center to Improve the Recruitment demand of special education faculty members:
and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Chil- Will the supply meet the demand? Teacher Edu-
dren With Disabilities at the National Associa- cation and Special Education, 10, 88-96.
tion for State Directors of Special Education Smith, D. D., Pion, G. M., & Tyler, N. C. (2004).
(NASDSE). Retrieved December 14, 2009, Leadership personnel in special education: Can
from http://www.nasdse.org/Projects/Personnel persistent shortages be resolved? In A. M. Sorells,
ImprovementCenter/tabid/414/Default.aspx H. J. Rieth, & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.), Critical issues
Pion, G. M., Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (2003). in special education (pp. 258-276). Boston: Allyn
Career choices of recent doctorates in special & Bacon.
education: Their implications for addressing Smith, D. D., Pion, G. M., Tyler, N. C., & Gilmore, R.
faculty shortages. Teacher Education and Spe- (2003). Doctoral programs in special education:
cial Education, 26, 182-193. The nation’s supplier. Teacher Education and
Rabinowitz S., Sato, E., Case, B. J., Benitez, D., & Special Education, 26, 172-181.
Jordon, K. (2008). Alternate assessment for spe- Smith, D. D., Pion, G. M., Tyler, N. C., Sindelar,
cial education students in the Southwest region P., & Rosenberg, M. (2001). Final report: The
states. Received December 14, 2009, from http:// study of special education leadership personnel
www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rstudy/39 with particular attention to the professoriate
Robb, S. M. (2007). Claremont Graduate Univer- (No. H920T97006-100A). Nashville, TN: Van-
sity’s PULSE Pipeline Project to Prepare Urban derbilt University.
Leaders in Special Education: Phase Two— Smith, D. D., & Robb. S. M. (2009). SEFNA brief:
Moderate and Severe Disabilities. Claremont, Follow-up of doctoral students supported by
CA: Claremont Graduate University, School of OSEP funded leadership preparation projects
Educational Studies. initiated in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 [Unpub-
Rosenberg, M. S., Boyer, K. L., Sindelar, P. T., & lished report]. Claremont, CA: Claremont Gradu-
Misra, S. K. (2007). Alternative route programs ate University, Special Education Faculty Needs
for certification in special education: Program Assessment.
infrastructure, instructional delivery, and par- Smith, D. D., & Salzberg, C. (1994). The shortage
ticipant characteristics. Exceptional Children, of special education faculty: Toward a better
73, 224-241. understanding. Teacher Education and Special
Samuels, C. A. (2007, October 31). “Universal Education, 17, 52-61.
design” concept pushed for education. Ed Week, Teacher Education Division. (1987). National direc-
p. 1. tory of special education personnel preparation

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010

Smith et al. 43

programs. Reston, VA: National Information West, J., & Whitby, P. (2008) Federal policy and
Center for Children and Youth With Handicaps. the education of students with disabilities: Prog-
Temkin, J. (2002, November 10). Special education ress and the path forward. Focus on Exceptional
shortage starts at universities. Chicago Tribune. Children, 41(3), 1-16.
Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com
Tyler, N. C., Smith, D. D., & Pion, G. M. (2003). Bios
Doctoral students in special education: Charac- Deborah Deutsch Smith, Professor of Education,
teristics and career aspirations. Teacher Educa- directs the Special Education Needs Assessment
tion and Special Education, 26, 194-205. project at Claremont Graduate University. She is
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Assistance the Co-Principal Investigator of The IRIS Center
to states for the education of children with dis- for Training Enhancements and directs IRIS-West,
abilities program and the early intervention pro- the services branch of the center. She is the recipi-
gram for infants and toddlers with disabilities: ent of the University of Washington’s 2009 Col-
Final rule. Federal Register, 34(CRF Parts 300 lege of Education Distinguished Alumni Award.
and 301).
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Part B, Susan Mortorff Robb, Professor of Education,
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, coordinates the special education doctoral program
implementation of FAPE requirements, 2007 emphasis and directs an OSEP personnel prepara-
[Data Analysis System, OMB No. 1820-0517; tion project at Claremont Graduate University. She
data updated as of July 15, 2008]. Washington, is a long-standing member of California’s Depart-
DC: Office of Special Education Programs. ment of Education Special Education Leadership
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Teacher Team, is the Outreach Director for The IRIS Center,
shortage areas nationwide listing 1990–91 and is the SEFNA Study Team for the Special Edu-
thru 2009–10: March 2009 [OMB No. 1840- cation Teacher Education Program component.
0595]. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecond-
ary Education Policy and Budget Development Jane West is Sr. Vice President for Policy, Pro-
Staff. grams and Professional Issues at the American
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2009). Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Teacher preparation: Multiple federal education West has an ongoing keen interest in special edu-
offices support teacher preparation for instruct- cation policy and personnel preparation. She holds
ing students with disabilities and English lan- a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland and
guage learners, but systematic department-wide served in the U.S. Senate as the Staff Director for
coordination could enhance this assistance. the Subcommittee on Disability Policy under the
Washington, DC: Author. chairmanship of Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (I-CT).
Wasburn-Moses, L., & Therrien, W. J. (2008). The
impact of leadership personnel preparation Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler, Assistant Professor of
grants on the doctoral student population in spe- the Practice in Special Education and Co-Principal
cial education. Teacher Education and Special Investigator of the IRIS Center for Training
Education, 31, 65-76. Enhancements at Peabody College of Vanderbilt
West, J. (2009). Increasing access to higher educa- University, directs the Center’s efforts in the devel-
tion for students with disabilities and strengthen- opment of free online materials about working
ing the preparation of professionals who instruct with students with disabilities in inclusive settings.
them: The Higher Education Opportunity Act of She is the SEFNA Study Team Leader who coordi-
2008 policy and practice. Advances in Learning nates the project’s work relating to doctoral stu-
and Behavioral Disabilities, 22, 189-225. dents in the special education leadership pipeline.

Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010