Search

Understanding the context of the demand for special education (SE) teacher education (TE) faculty is important because it can provide faculty at doctoral-granting universities with useful information for program planning. Knowing more about SE teacher preparation programs currently in place and program revisions being planned allows doctoral programs to be more responsive to their consumers. Doctoral students seeking careers in academe will be better able to prepare for the jobs they fill in the future. With this intent in mind, in fall of 2009, the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment (SEFNA) surveyed a sample of SE TE coordinators. The survey requested information about past, present, and future concentrations or programmatic offerings. It also asked questions about projected need for new faculty resulting from attrition, program expansion, and expanded faculty roles. In addition, the survey gathered information about current staffing patterns at these college and university preparation programs. A two-phased, nonprobability, purposeful sampling approach was employed. Programs in small and large states were sampled, and the survey obtained a 78.1% response rate ( n = 57). Results indicate that SE teacher preparation programs are not closing. Rather, the roles of SE faculty and the programs they offer will expand greatly in the upcoming 5 years. This expansion is expected at a time of significant attrition, some 21% annually due to retirements alone, making it clear that demand for new faculty will far outstrip the supply in the next few years.

The first article in this special issue is about the doctoral programs, the suppliers of new doctoral graduates in special education. It focuses on one component of a larger effort, the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment (SEFNA) project, which investigated many aspects of the supply of new doctoral graduates as well as the demand for new college and university faculty members. Here, the authors present information about the characteristics of the nation’s doctoral programs and their capacity to produce a sufficient supply of teacher educators, faculty for doctoral-granting universities, school leaders, federal and state officials, policy makers, researchers, and advocates. In the 10-year period since The Faculty Shortage Study (Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, & Rosenberg, 2001) was completed, substantial improvement in the capacity of doctoral programs (i.e., number and size) and the supply (i.e., number of graduates produced) occurred. Federal and stakeholder actions contributed greatly to progress made in addressing the special education faculty shortage identified in the previous study. These programs are at substantial risk of being understaffed in the upcoming years due to overwhelming attrition due to faculty retirements, which will impact the supply chain across the field of special education.

As the field of special education (SE) examines issues related to supply and demand of SE teachers and faculty, an investigation of students currently enrolled in doctoral programs and doctoral graduates is an important perspective to consider. The results of two components of the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment (SEFNA), focused on the aforementioned two populations, are described. Students enrolled in SE doctoral programs during the spring of 2009 ( n = 1,263) and graduates of SE doctoral programs between 1999 and 2008 ( n = 626) were surveyed about their educational backgrounds, experiences in applying to doctoral programs, doctoral programs and studies, postgraduation plans, postgraduation career choices, and background information. Results indicated that key predictors of doctoral students who become college and university faculty include the following: intent to pursue a faculty career, financial support (e.g., teaching assistantship, research assistantship, traineeship, fellowship), age when enrolling in a doctoral program, reduced time to complete the doctoral degree, and willingness to relocate after graduation for employment. Comparisons are made to results from the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study, a predecessor to SEFNA.

In 2007, the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment (SEFNA) project was initiated. SEFNA sought to determine whether the nation had the capacity to produce a sufficiently large workforce of education professionals required to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities. Before the contents of this special issue are introduced, it is important to outline the reasons for the SEFNA project.

As a result of educational reforms, students with disabilities are educated in inclusive settings to a greater degree than ever before. Regrettably, many teachers report that they feel unprepared to work effectively with these students. Because teacher effectiveness is strongly linked to student outcomes, these perceptions of inadequacy are clearly problematic. Improved teacher preparation is a necessity. Yet, teacher educators face their own challenges when trying to keep up with current literature and a rapidly expanding knowledge base. Web-based technology offers solutions to some of these challenges, yet not all Web-based resources are valid or reliable. The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, provides free online resources for those working with struggling learners and students with disabilities. The resources are developed in collaboration with leading educational researchers, are highly rated, and are heavily used in multiple countries to improve the quality of teacher education.

Three studies are described in this article. Each is focused on a different aspect of the long-standing initiative that supports special education doctoral students. This initiative is one of the discretionary programs of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act that is managed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Study 1 sought to determine the graduation rate of OSEP-supported special education doctoral students. Study 2 analyzed funding patterns provided to these doctoral students. Study 3 used data from the first two studies to make comparisons with information provided by other federal agencies that provide funding for students’ pursuit of doctorates across many disciplines. From the authors’ findings, they conclude that OSEP’s projects are critical to the nation’s capacity to produce a sufficient supply of special education doctorates, who in turn produce a sufficient supply of general and special educators who can be effective in inclusive educational settings. This article includes key findings from each study, provides overarching conclusions about how the specific funding and support packages might be modified, and suggests a process to use when making adjustments to these projects’ and doctoral students’ award levels.

This study was part of a comprehensive investigation on the supply and demand of special education faculty (see also Sindelar & Rosenberg; Pion, Smith & Tyler; and Smith, Pion, Tyler, & Gilmore, this issue). Students enrolled in doctoral programs during the Spring of 1999 were surveyed about their doctoral programs, educational background, experiences in applying to doctoral programs in special education, current doctoral study, post-graduation plans, and background information. The survey had an 82% response rate (1,267 students). The study found that doctoral students were older and their primary consideration in selecting a doctoral program was not having to relocate. Overall, students were fairly satisfied with the training they received in research skills, less so in areas of college teaching, administration/supervision, and cultural and linguistic diversity. Additionally, less than half (44%) were interested in faculty positions after graduation.

The insufficient supply of special education doctorate recipients to meet the demand for higher education faculty has been a chronic problem. One reason for the continued shortfall has been the low proportion of new graduates who pursue academic careers. In order to explore the factors underlying the career choices of recently trained leadership personnel, a survey of individuals who earned their doctorates between 1994 and 1998 was conducted in fall 1999. The results revealed that there has been no sign of growth in the proportion that moved into faculty positions. In sharp contrast to the estimated 85% of individuals who earned their degrees in the 1960s and took faculty appointments, approximately 36% of 1994–98 doctorate recipients were employed full-time in tenure-line positions. Although several reasons contribute to this situation, the most influential involved the age at beginning doctoral study, the career aspirations of beginning doctoral students, the extent to which they received institutional support to finance their training, and their ability to relocate after graduation. These factors point to the need for doctoral programs to vigorously recruit new doctoral students at a younger age, provide them with adequate financial support during their training, and streamline the educational process so as to reduce the time between receipt of the baccalaureate and awarding of the doctorate.

After a systematic national search, we found that 86 special education doctoral programs were active in 1999. Our search found that five programs had closed in recent years, but six new programs were in the planning process. Additional programs were identified, but they are best described as emphasis areas (possibly minor areas of concentration) administered by other departments or programs typically housed in colleges of education (e.g., educational leadership, curriculum and instruction, early childhood). Administrators of identified doctoral programs were surveyed to determine enrollment, graduate rates, program content, and means of student recruitment. Possibly some of the most revealing findings from this component of the larger Faculty Study found that: (a) most special education doctoral programs are under-enrolled, (b) doctoral students' enrollment has declined 30% over the last 20 years, and (c) programs are not highly selective. Unless deliberate actions are taken, the supply from special education doctoral programs will not increase and the demand for leadership personnel, particularly for faculty who work in academe, will not be met.

This country is evidencing a shortage of special educators from diverse backgrounds. The current, scant supply of certified teachers in special education, coupled with the lack of teachers from diverse backgrounds in this country, along with the growing numbers of culturally and linguistically diverse children, has created a national awareness about special education teacher training issues. This article provides a brief summary of the need for diversity in the teaching force and Congress's efforts to address this issue. The Alliance 2000 Project* was a federal project created to provide technical assistance to the nation's minority colleges and universities to increase their access to personnel preparation funds available through the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs. Outcomes of the Project are provided.

The number of special education faculty vacancies in institutions of higher education (IHEs) has risen across the last decade (Dil, Geiger, Hoover, & Sindelar, 1993; Sindelar & Taylor, 1988; Smith & Lovett, 1987; Smith, Pierce & Keyes, 1988). In contrast, the number of doctoral graduates in special education decreased during the same period of time (Sindelar, Buck, Carpenter & Watanabe, 1993; Sindelar & Taylor, 1988). This supply/demand imbalance has plagued the field for years and warrants continued investigation. The present study surveyed 146 recent graduates from special education doctoral programs on issues including motivating factors for obtaining a doctoral degree, considerations when selecting initial careers, and the effects of marriage and family on those decisions. Factors which encouraged and discouraged employment in higher education were investigated, and recommendations for future research and practice are provided.

Predictions that the field of special education was going to face a shortage of faculty were made in the late 1980s, but no concentrated efforts were made to stave off this supply and demand imbalance. The result is a problem today and the likelihood of an even more substantial problem in the years to come. Simply put, the demand for the product (special education doctoral graduates) is in excess of the supply. Doctoral programs are producing fewer graduates, and more and more of those graduates do not seek careers as faculty members across the nation. There are many identified reasons for this situation, but not all of the factors contributing to this problem have been studied. Regardless, it is critical that the field come to understand the independent and compounding variables contributing to faculty shortages and begin to develop strategies, direct incentives, and initiatives that will solve the problem. This article provides a synthesis of the research conducted to-date, and outlines topics that must be studied so stakeholders can better understand the situation.

The supply of and demand for special education professionals in institutions of higher education (IHEs) has been studied since 1986, and the results of these studies indicate a great imbalance in the supply and demand for special education faculty. Because the field faces a substantial shortage, this research facused on the career choices of new special education doctoral graduates. Doctoral graduates from 3 year period were surveyed to determine their demographic make-up, where they took positions, and their relocation patterns to attend doctaral pragrams and to take their first positions We found that 42% of new graduates did not take positions in IHEs after completing their doctoral studies. Although 58% took jobs in IHEs, only 37% accepted positions as tenure-track faculty members. Also, new graduates did not change their career goals from their admission into their doctoral pragram, and those taking positions in IHEs were more likely to move to accept a position.

The purpose of this article is to explore the issues concerning the adaptation of school-based service delivery concepts for use in early childhood special education programs. The use of categorical labels for determining eligibility for preschool children is not required by law—and may be detrimental. The following concerns are discussed: (a) definitional issues in learning disabilities versus low achievement, (b) the dangers of labeling and low expectation sets, (c) repeated failure to demonstrate movement through a continuum of services (particularly to least restrictive environments), and (d) the efficacy of early intervention and school-based special services for those with mild or suspected developmental disabilities. Research is reviewed concerning definitional and assessment issues utilizing learning disabilities as a construct. Alternatives for describing the characteristics of young children who are significantly at risk or developmentally delayed are provided.

Since 1985, the Higber Education Consortium for Special education (HECSE) has followed the supply and demand needs of special education professionals at universities. A survey was developed and sent to all special education doctoral training programs. The survey yielded results that add to the existing data base on the continuing need for leadership personnel at the university level. Of particular note were the seemingly lower enrollments at IHEs as well as the growing number of doctoral graduates taking positions outside of higher education.

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the instructional methods in mathematics, in particular, as they pertain to students with learning disabilities (LDs). Mathematics represents an important area of instruction for all students. All students must demonstrate proficiency in mathematical skills and concepts that will enable them to function successfully beyond the classroom. They must be able to reason and problem solve using mathematical knowledge and to generalize this knowledge to real-life situations. For many students with LDs, mastery of these important skills occurs only after considerable and concentrated direct instruction. To comprehend numeration, students must develop an understanding of number concepts, number usage, number sense, and place value. This understanding can be developed by having students to manipulate physical objects and describe the represented numbers, to relate numbers to real-world experiences, and to experience numeration concepts in other areas of the curriculum, such as science and social studies.

Modeling through demonstration is a viable teaching strategy for helping students acquire a variety of skills. In the present study, modeling is examined as it relates to learning disabled students' acquisition and generalization of computational skills. Data from a number of learning disabled students in three research locations are presented and summarized to validate the effectiveness of this technique.

The influence of the classroom teacher reading orally before the child reads was investigated. The teacher read at a proficient rate (approximately 100 words per minute) from the child's basal reader. Three learning disabled students participated in the study, and in every case the correct and error rates for oral reading improved remarkably. The tactic selected — modeling — is inexpensive in teacher time and cost and is easily scheduled. The data indicate that modeling could be an appropriate intervention to select when children are not yet proficient in oral reading.

Exceptional children frequently encounter difficulty acquiring new skills. For these children, the learning process can prove frustrating for both themselves and their teachers. Regardless of the difficulty, however, it is important that children master various specific skills so as adults they might lead independent lives. It is apparent to educators that a relationship exists between the number of specific life skills an individual possesses and his ability to function in society. If persons are to successfully hold jobs, they must have mastered many different skills including ability to arrive at the job sites on time, perform jobs required, prepare or purchase lunches, cooperate with peers, and return home. Many related skills are necessary to complete this chain. For example, successful performance in a job situation often interlocks with the ability to drive a car or read bus schedules, tell time, handle money (deposit pay checks, budget expenditures, purchase items), and recognize survival words such as men, women, and danger. Most of these life skills, if systematically taught, most children can master.

The teaching of reading is one of the most frequently investigated curricular areas, but most studies have not contributed significantly to the ability of teachers to maximize the effectiveness of classroom instruction. Oral reading represents a particular problem area for classroom teachers. The failure of current findings to greatly enhance teaching of oral reading stems from several factors. A review of the literature revealed that, on the whole, insufficient information is provided with regard to such areas as initial assessment, pinpointing errors, curriculum readability factors, teaching strategies and the basis for selecting teaching strategies. These and related concerns are discussed, with recommendations for improving future efforts to teach oral reading.

Eight learning disabled boys participated in the study. All were seriously deficient in both their oral reading and comprehension performances. Through a series of multiple baseline and crossover designs, the relationships among enhanced correct reading rates and comprehension, decreased error reading rates and comprehension, and increased comprehension and oral reading were studied. Each time an intervention was scheduled, the desired changes were noted for the targeted variable. Improvement, however, in either correct rate or error rate scores produced only mild increases in comprehension. Interestingly, when comprehension was targeted, correct and error rate scores also were at desirable levels.

Faculty must be available to prepare sufficient numbers of new special educators. The supply of special education, doctoral-level faculty members who can prepare personnel to serve the nation's handicapped may, however, be insufficient to meet future needs. Surveys completed by special education department chairpersons and their faculties indicate that a considerable number of retirements will occur in the near future. The resulting openings, added to potential new positions created because of high demand for special education coursework, could result in many faculty vacancies, affecting in turn the preparation of personnel needed to provide quality services to the nation's handicapped children and youth and their families. The data collected in this pilot project justify efforts to amass a comprehensive data base on special education faculties and the personnel they train. In particular, data about special education doctoral level personnel, their numbers, and what roles they fill must be collected to determine whether the supply will meet future demands.

Many descriptions of subjects in research reports about learning disabled persons limit meaningful interpretation of the results because of their vagueness and inconsistency. Researchers are hampered in replicating or extending the research, and practitioners are uncertain about the application of the reported findings. In an effort to establish more universal standards in this area, the Council for Learning Disabilities' (CLD) Research Committee proposes a set of guidelines to be used for subject descriptions in LD research reports.

This research investigated the effects of reinforcement contingencies in two different arithmetic situations — acquisition and proficiency. Subjects were seven 8–11-year-old learning disabled boys. Two experiments were performed. In Experiment I, the boys were presented with arithmetic problems which they could not compute accurately. Contingent toy models were used unsuccessfully. In Experiment II, two types of reinforcement contingencies were applied — contingent free time and contingent toy models. In this experiment the boys' computational proficiency needed improvement and the reinforcement contingencies were effective. The studies demonstrate the importance of careful diagnosis of children's academic deficiencies. Once children's specific educational levels are determined, interventions must be selected which aim at specific types of performance. Many arithmetic interventions are effective with only certain types of performance. For example, in this research although reinforcement contingencies increased the children's computational proficiency, they were not effective in the acquisition situation.

This study reports the educational diagnosis, remediation, and followup of one child's writing reversal problem. By precisely examining the student's academic work, the experimenter discovered that his reversals were not pervasive but rather specific to two letters (b and d) in particular positions. Remediation tactics focused on the most frequent error: the initial d. Once this was corrected, there was no need to remediate written d in different positions or b in any position. In order to determine whether the learning of b and d carried over to other situations, two different conditions were presented to the child. Again, there was no need to remediate written b or d. A post-hoc analysis of this boy's writing revealed that for the remaining eight months of school he maintained a high rate of correctness (99%) in writing b and d.

The influence of a modeling technique on the acquisition of long division by eight students with learning disabilities was studied. The instructional intervention, which included demonstration, imitation, and key guide words, was found to be effective. Initial assessment scores of division problems were 0%. With the application of the intervention, students mastered (2 out of 3 days at 100) each long division skill in minimal time (ranging from 2 to 9 days).