Evolution of Technology-Enhanced Alternative Preparation for Special Education Teachers

Abstract

In this article, we describe the evolution of a statewide alternative teacher preparation program for teachers of students with disabilities and explain current processes to revise and expand the program to increase accessibility to teacher candidates in rural schools. We will identify important features of the program including (a) significant collaboration with Local Education Agencies, (b) the combination of synchronous and asynchronous course delivery to increase accessibility, and (c) embedded supports for alternative preparation teacher candidates completing a distance learning program, as well as describe the process and collaboration involved in revising the program to increase accessibility and efficiency, while retaining quality. Ongoing challenges to delivering effective alternative preparation programs that are accessible to individuals in rural schools and potential solutions to these challenges are provided.

Keywords

alternative teacher preparation rural teacher preparation online teacher preparation special education teacher preparation

Special education teacher preparation programs were among the early adopters of distance learning technologies, because the severe need for rural special educators led to the development of programs specifically designed to serve these areas (e.g., Collins, Baird, & Hager, 2009; Glomb, Midenhall, Mason, & Salzberg, 2009; Ludlow & Duff, 2009; Sebastian, Egan, & Mayhew, 2009). Special education for students with severe intellectual disabilities has been identified as a teacher shortage area as far back as 1990 (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). The shortage in Utah is severe enough that the state recently passed legislation qualifying special education teachers (along with math, science, and computer science teachers) for an annual salary supplement of US$4,100 (Utah Office of Administrative Rules, 2018). Hiring qualified teachers is particularly challenging in rural areas, and the four Utah districts reporting the lowest percentages of qualified teachers are all classified as rural (Utah State Office of Education, 2015). This same critical teacher shortage also led to the development of alternative teacher preparation (ATP) programs. Individual ATP programs vary a great deal, but in general, this approach provides a streamlined route to teacher certification for individuals who already have a bachelor’s degree and are serving as the teacher of record in a classroom (Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007). The most significant challenge of designing an ATP program is capitalizing on the experience the teachers are getting on-the-job in their classroom every day and thereby decreasing the length of the program, while still maintaining rigorous standards. The teachers must gain all the knowledge and skills expected of a traditionally trained and fully qualified beginning teacher, but if the program is too long, it may discourage potential teachers. This can be a difficult balance to strike in program development.

Utah State University (USU) has had several ATP programs over the last 25 years. The earliest programs were delivered in traditional face-to-face formats, but as technology made distance delivery more feasible, programs were delivered using interactive video conferencing. A new ATP program was created in 2017 to ease the shortage in rural areas of the state of teachers prepared to work with students with significant intellectual disabilities (Severe Alternative Teacher Preparation [SATP] Program). In this article, we describe the history of distance programs at USU, the rationale and structure of the current ATP program (including course content, course delivery, and field-based experiences), outcomes of this program, and efforts to revise the program to increase accessibility and capacity. Throughout this article, the students in the ATP programs will be referred to as teacher candidates.

USU has offered distance special education certification programs since the mid-1990s (Glomb et al., 2009). The distance programs were developed in response to the severe shortage in special education teachers in the rural areas of the state. One way to address the challenge of getting certified teachers to accept positions in rural schools is to train individuals who are already connected to those communities (Cegelka & Alvarado, 2000), and distance programs are well positioned to do so. Individuals interested in a teaching career do not need to leave their communities to obtain certification if programs are brought to their area via distance learning technology. Distance learning technology has advanced rapidly over the last two decades and currently enables high-quality options for both synchronous and asynchronous coursework. In synchronous courses, technology enables instructors and students to engage in learning activities together in real time, as they would in a traditional face-to-face class, even though they are not in the same physical location. In asynchronous courses, often called online courses, students work independently on the course activities; the instructors and students do not meet together as a class, so students may complete the work when and where they choose. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, as discussed below in the section “Use of Technology for Program Delivery.”

USU SATP Program Description

Rationale for Distance SATP

The USU SATP program was launched in fall 2017 in response to requests from school districts. Districts across the state were hiring individuals with bachelor’s degrees (in any field) to teach students with significant intellectual needs, because they could not find enough qualified teachers. These individuals were hired on Letters of Authorization (LoA) issued by the state, with the requirement they become fully certified within 3 years. Many of the individuals hired had no background in schools, but some had worked as substitute teachers or paraprofessionals. USU already offered distance certification programs to undergraduates, so the SATP program was designed to utilize the courses already being offered in those programs. An earlier ATP program for teachers of students with severe needs was site-based and did not serve rural areas; when the number of enrolled teachers decreased, it was phased out. A goal of the new program was to serve the remote areas of the state, and several students in the first two cohorts live and teach in towns with populations under 6,000. Integrating the new SATP program into the existing distance programs and offering it across the state were strategies to increase both the sustainability and the accessibility of the program.

Collaboration With Districts

The SATP program requires close collaboration between the districts that hire the teachers on an LoA and the USU Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation (SPER). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is signed by the district, SPER, and the teacher candidate when the teacher on an LoA is admitted to the program (see Figure 1 for MOU). It specifies the responsibilities of each party. A primary responsibility of the district is to provide an instructional coach who will regularly observe the teacher candidate in the classroom and provide performance feedback. The instructional coaches are trained to implement the SPER observation system and data collection forms. The coaches are responsible for providing regular feedback and support regarding classroom management and academic instruction to the teacher candidates.

Figure 1.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Instructional coaches are certified teachers who have experience working with students with intellectual disabilities. Depending on district resources, this individual may be an administrator, a full-time instructional coach/teacher mentor (this is usually a larger district), or a classroom teacher. If the coach is a classroom teacher, a variety of strategies allow for the classroom observations: they may occur during preparation periods, the teaching day of the coach and the teacher candidate may not overlap completely (e.g., one has a start time of 7:45 a.m. and the other a start time of 9 a.m.), and/or the district provides coverage for the coach’s classroom during observations. Meetings to address the observations, discuss district policies/procedures, and provide guidance and support for instruction and behavior management typically occur before or after student hours.

The articulated expectation is to meet with the teacher candidate weekly, and the Local Education Agency (LEA) commits to freeing the coach from other district responsibilities to be available to the teacher candidate several hours a week. Instructional coaches watch a minimum of one lesson per visit. Lessons vary in length, so coaches may see more than one lesson per visit, as each observation is approximately an hour in length. During the observation, data are collected on the following instructional behaviors: signal sequences (e.g., cue/pause/signal for explicit instructional programs), error corrections, praise statements, and opportunities to respond. Lesson plans are reviewed and scored for completeness and adherence to an effective teaching cycle, and behavior expectations (support plans) and the implementation of these plans are rated (see Figure 2 for the data collection form coaches complete, and Figure 3 for the observation evaluation form).

Figure 2.

Data collection form.

Figure 3.

Observation evaluation form.

Scores on the first observation are often quite low, so the coaches prioritize providing support on the areas of most need. Teacher candidates receive a letter grade for the practicum experience, and the department’s policy is that students must pass all classes (including practicum classes) with a minimum grade of B– to continue in the program. The score for the first observation is not calculated into the course grade, but subsequent observation scores are, which ensures that teacher candidates are demonstrating effective instructional delivery skills in the classroom. The coaches submit the observation forms to the USU practicum instructor, who assigns the grade for the specific observation and also for other practicum assignments. The instructor informs the teacher candidate and the coach of the grade for each observation.

USU and the LEAs take the responsibility of training effective teachers very seriously. A well-prepared candidate who receives significant support from the district is more likely to be successful in the classroom and to stay in the classroom. When a candidate is not performing adequately in either coursework or the classroom, USU and the LEA schedule an Action Plan Meeting with the teacher to identify additional supports to provide and to document requirements the teacher must meet to remain in the program. Inadequate performance is defined as getting lower than a B– in any course or on any practicum observation after the first observation. The intent of the meeting is to provide support to a struggling teacher as soon as possible; see Figure 4 for an Action Plan template. Although the additional supports provided often resolve the issue, if the classroom performance is not adequate, the LEA may terminate the teacher’s employment, and if the teacher candidate’s grade is lower than a B– in any course, he or she is not allowed to continue in the program. In the two cohorts of the current program, the outcome of several Action Plan Meetings was positive and the teacher candidates were able to improve performance and successfully continue the program. A total of three teacher candidates (of 48) left the program due to either poor classroom performance or inadequate coursework performance.

Figure 4.

Action Plan template.

Instructional coaches are also responsible for ensuring that the teacher candidates have access to evidence-based curricula and other materials necessary for course/practica requirements. For example, teacher candidates are required to use an explicit instruction language curriculum (e.g., Language for Learning; National Institute for Direct Instruction, n.d.) for their language arts practicum. The MOU the LEA signs addresses the LEA’s responsibility to provide the teacher candidates with evidence-based curricula.

The district also must agree to provide a representative to serve on the advisory board. The advisory board meets three to four times each semester, with members attending live or via technology. During the meetings, the program director and the program coordinator provide updates on the current courses and practica, and board members discuss ongoing program development issues and initiatives. Guest speakers are invited to present on topical issues such as loan forgiveness for teachers and descriptions of other USU programs designed to address the shortage of special educators (e.g., para-to-teacher programs). An example of program changes resulting from these meetings is the LEAs taking responsibility for teaching a 1-credit course on eligibility assessment. The teacher candidates still take an USU assessment course, but LEAs wanted to train them on the specific assessments generally used in their districts. The representatives worked with SPER faculty to develop a syllabus for the course and the candidates get university credit for completing it. These meetings provide a valuable opportunity for the districts and the university to collaborate on strategies to increase the number of qualified special education teachers and have provided a primary means of feedback on the effectiveness of the teacher candidate. Surveys are also completed by the LEAs and teacher candidates at the end of each cohort. Although both groups have indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the classroom performance of the graduates, they also consistently indicate that cost and time commitment are the main barriers to program completion.

Use of Technology for Program Delivery

The SATP program is a distance learning certification program that is offered across the state, thus technology is used throughout the program. Courses are offered via various distance learning technologies; communication between teacher candidates, program coordinators, advisors, instructors, and site mentors is conducted primarily via technology (e.g., text, phone, e-mail, and video-conference); and advisory board members may attend meetings via video conferences (e.g., Zoom; https://zoom.us). There are occasional face-to-face meetings, but the majority of instruction and communication is done through use of technology.

The SATP program utilizes synchronous and asynchronous coursework, and both formats rely on distance learning technology. Canvas (https://www.instructure.com), a learning management system (LMS), is the platform for all courses. The program is designed to maximize the benefits and minimize the disadvantages of each type of coursework delivery. Next, we describe the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Synchronous Courses

Synchronous courses are currently offered via interactive video conference (IVC). Teacher candidates travel to the closest regional campus site to attend these weekly live class sessions. The instructor broadcasts from the main campus simultaneously to multiple sites across the state. Because the instructor and the teacher candidates can see and hear each other, it is very similar to traditional face-to-face delivery, except that they are not all physically in the same room. The instructor can project notes, videos, or other materials during class, and teacher candidates can also share materials from their sites.

Advantages of synchronous courses include live interaction between instructors and students, as well as student-to-student interactions. Instructors are able to engage students in interactive lectures and discussions, and efficiently answer student questions and explain course assignments and activities to all students at the same time. Student advantages of the live courses include having opportunities for direct interaction with the instructor and other students. This is particularly important for distance students who do not have opportunities for informal interactions with instructors and fellow students that campus-based students frequently have. They are often more comfortable asking questions and asking for help after they establish a relationship with the instructor and other students in the live sessions. Another advantage of live classes is that the format is more familiar and therefore often more comfortable to both instructors and students than online learning.

Lack of flexibility and pacing issues are disadvantages of synchronous courses. They require both the instructor and the students to be in a specific place at a specific time each week. Because teacher candidates may travel up to an hour one-way to the regional campus sites, classes are offered once a week for 2½ hr to minimize the travel time. In addition, they typically take two 3-credit classes per semester. If both are synchronous (which is the case some semesters), they are scheduled back-to-back, so it is a long night of classes. Pacing can be another disadvantage of synchronous classes; everyone generally proceeds at the same pace. Teachers enrolled in the program have varying backgrounds, so they do not all need the same amount of time to master specific course content. It is difficult to differentiate and accommodate different learning rates in a synchronous course.

Group work can be a challenge of broadcast IVC courses. A small group of three to four teachers at each site is ideal, as they support each other and the instructor can have them work on applied activities together. Because the program is designed to serve rural and remote districts, however, it is not unusual to have only one teacher at a site, making partner or group work a challenge. One solution is to use Adobe Connect (a component of Canvas, the LMS used for both synchronous and asynchronous courses) for partner and small group work during classes. The instructor directs the teachers to log into their assigned Adobe room on their laptop or tablet to complete activities with peers during the class. They quickly become comfortable switching back and forth between the whole class and small groups in the Adobe room. The instructor can move easily between the various Adobe rooms to answer questions and ensure teachers are successfully engaged in the activity.

Asynchronous Courses

In these courses, all materials (e.g., readings, recorded lectures, videos, case studies, and assignments) are provided in Canvas for the teacher candidates to access independently. A primary advantage of this approach is flexibility; teachers can work on their courses wherever and whenever they choose (Hall & Villareal, 2015). Due to individual preference and/or other demands on their time (e.g., work and family), some may work very early in the morning and others late at night. Asynchronous courses accommodate any schedule. They also free the instructor up from having to be in class on a specific day/time.

Asynchronous courses also address the issue of pacing. Students may go very quickly through some content, but take more time with other content. Within the framework of course due dates and deadlines, students can set their own pace. The asynchronous approach also enables the instructor to post multiple examples, problems, case studies, and so on, and students can work through as many as they need, to master the content. If the instructor video-records lectures to explain course content or directions for assignments, students may view the recordings more than once, and/or go back over specific parts until they are comfortable with the information.

Potential drawbacks of asynchronous courses include feelings of isolation for both instructors and students, issues of time management for students, and challenges with a changing role for instructors (Phirangee, 2016). Some students and faculty will miss the social interaction of meeting in live classes. This can be particularly challenging for students in rural areas, who may feel isolated as they work alone through entire courses. For individuals used to traditional face-to-face instruction, asynchronous courses may not feel like “real” classes. Also, students may be more reluctant to contact an instructor they have not met in person with questions about course content or to ask for help. Specific supports incorporated into the SATP program to address these challenges for teacher candidates, including providing instructional coaches, hiring mentors, and scheduling at least one synchronous class each semester, are described in the section “Support for Teacher Candidates.”

Instructors may also struggle with the transition to asynchronous teaching, particularly if their background is teaching traditional face-to-face classes. In addition, the development process is quite different and time-consuming, as much of it must be done before the class begins and may require learning new technologies.

Schedule

The SATP program is five semesters: four semesters of coursework and practica (two fall and two spring semesters; no summer courses), and one (fall) semester of student teaching. Teacher candidates take two to three courses and/or practica each semester. The six synchronous courses are delivered once a week in a 2½-hr class. The five asynchronous courses have weekly deadlines for assignments, but students work on them on their own schedule. All the courses in the program are important for beginning teachers, but foundational courses in instruction and classroom management were prioritized for the first semesters. There are many other important components to the preparation program (e.g., Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and special education law, assessment, and use of technology), but the SPER faculty identified basic instructional and behavior management knowledge and skills as the most critical to support the teacher candidates in effectively setting up their classrooms. LEAs are aware of the content sequence and that they need to provide support for content areas not yet addressed (e.g., the teacher candidates do not initially have knowledge/skills for writing IEPs). In addition, prior to the start of their first year in the classroom, the teacher candidates take Running Start, an online bootcamp of critical instructional and behavior management information and skills to get them started in their classrooms. Running Start was developed by SPER faculty and addresses schedules, routines, instructional strategies, behavior management, working with paraeducators, and professionalism (see Table 1). The intent of Running Start was to provide basic skills and strategies to start the school year, with the coursework that follows in subsequent semesters building on this foundation. At the end of Running Start, the teacher candidates have (a) identified their classroom rules, (b) identified consequences to reinforce desired behaviors, (c) developed plans for teaching the rules and general classroom routines, (d) created a draft daily schedule, and (e) written example lesson plans. All practica and student teaching are conducted in the teacher candidate’s own classroom, as they are teaching full time. See Table 2 for the course titles and schedule.

Table 1.

Severe Alternative Teacher Preparation Running Start Critical Content for Beginning Teachers.

Content area	Description
Daily schedules	Create a daily schedule that maximizes instructional time
Routines	Develop routines, procedures, behavior management plan
Reinforcement	Develop systematic reinforcement plan: preference assessments, rates of reinforcement, token systems, classwide reinforcement
Instruction: Individual	Develop and deliver discrete trial lessons
Instruction: Small group	Develop and deliver small group lessons
Instructional strategies	Demonstrate development and use of effective lesson cycle, task analyses, prompting strategies, progress monitoring data collection system
Paraeducators	Training, supervising, providing feedback
Professionalism	Confidentiality, collaboration, communication

Table 2.

Course Titles and Schedule.

Semester	Course title	Delivery mode
Fall 1	Foundations of Effective Assessment and Instruction	Synchronous
Fall 1	Curriculum for Students with Severe Disabilities	Asynchronous
Spring 1	ABA 1: Principles, Assessment, and Analysis	Synchronous
	Policies and Procedures in Special Education	Synchronous
	Practicum: Instruction in Academic Skills	Asynchronous
Fall 2	ABA 2: Educational Applications of Behavior Analysis	Synchronous
	Curriculum for Secondary-Level Students with Severe Disabilities	Asynchronous
	Assessment of Persons with Severe Disabilities	Asynchronous
Spring 2	Consulting with Parents and Teachers	Synchronous
	Technology for Teaching Exceptional Learners	Synchronous
	Practicum: Instruction in Daily Living Skills	Asynchronous
Fall 3	Student Teaching in Special Education

Note. ABA = Applied Behavior Analysis.

Support for Teacher Candidates

All of the teachers who apply to the SATP program have been hired on an LoA, so they are teaching full-time while completing the program. The first two cohorts enrolled a total of 48 teacher candidates, with a variety of employment backgrounds, including working in schools (as paraprofessionals or substitute teachers), business, and construction. Their ages range from those in their 20s to a few in their 50s, and most have family responsibilities. It is essential to support them as they manage all the demands of home, work, and school. Strategies for both academic and emotional support are described below.

Instructional coach

As described above, each teacher candidate is assigned a district-based instructional coach. The coach typically visits the teacher’s classroom weekly to conduct an observation and provide feedback. In addition to conducting observations, the coaches help with day-to-day problem-solving and with practical course assignments the teachers complete in their classrooms (e.g., instructional programs, IEPs, and functional behavior assessments).

Advisor and coordinator

The SATP advisor and the SATP program coordinator maintain contact with the teacher candidates and their district’s personnel throughout the program. The initial contact may come from a district interested in hiring an individual on an LoA or from the individual interested in working on an LoA. In either case, the advisor or program coordinator meets with the individual to explain the program requirements, length, cost, and so on. The program coordinator meets with the district special education director or the district instructional coach to explain the collaboration requirements. The coordinator is the liaison with the district throughout the teacher’s program. The advisor develops the course schedule and meets with the teacher at least once a semester throughout the program. The program coordinator and the advisor maintain frequent contact, thus are able to refer the teacher to university supports as needed (e.g., financial aid counselors, academic supports, and mental health services). USU has worked to increase access to student supports for all distance students, and most services are available at the regional campus sites.

Because the SATP program is offered to individuals across the state, much of the communication is done via technology—e-mail, phone calls, and video conferences. Face-to-face meetings are arranged as needed, and the advisor conducts an annual statewide road trip to meet with teachers individually.

Site mentors

USU hires site mentors to provide individual academic and emotional support to the teachers in the SATP program. We recruit USU SPER graduates who are currently teaching for this role. As distance program graduates, they understand the stresses involved in completing an alternative program. The mentor initiates contact frequently, and while teacher candidates are not required to meet with them on a specific schedule, they are encouraged to maintain consistent contact. Site mentors provide various supports to both the teachers and the program instructors. They often attend class at the regional campus sites to check in with the teachers. They coordinate study groups and meet with the teacher candidates to help them prepare for exams and challenging course assignments. They support instructors by testing the teacher candidates on applied skills (e.g., letter sounds in the reading course and vocabulary in the applied behavior analysis course) and coordinating activities such as IEP meeting role-plays. Because the site mentors do not have any supervision or grading role, teacher candidates often feel more comfortable confiding in their site mentor than a course instructor or the program coordinator, so the site mentors also function as liaisons between the teacher candidates and university personnel. The site mentors meet monthly via video conference with the program coordinator to ensure questions or concerns are shared with program staff. As with the advisor and program coordinator, much of the site mentor contact is via technology, but most of the mentors attend classes at the regional campus sites at least a few times each semester, and this provides the opportunity for face-to-face meetings.

Program Revisions and Future Directions: Challenges and Potential Solutions

The USU ATP programs continue to evolve to meet ongoing university, district, and teacher candidate needs. The SATP program was incorporated into the existing distance program as a way to support sustainability, but that approach came with its own challenges. The needs of the teacher candidates were not always met because the program was not specifically designed for those already in the classroom. For example, some critical content came later in the program and candidates were frustrated with assignments that they felt did not apply to their classrooms (e.g., case studies). The experience they were getting every day in their classrooms was not leveraged well in the coursework. In addition, the late nights attending class at a regional campus site placed a high demand on already overcommitted teacher candidates. Given these issues, the continuing requests from LEAs for better support for teachers on LoAs, and issues of limited resources, a revised program is launching in fall 2019.

A small group of faculty members engaged in a series of meetings to develop the approaches for a new program: Online Practical Teacher Training (OPTT). It was clear that the program needed to be available statewide and accessible to working adults. This led to designing an online (asynchronous) program, but retaining a shorter weekly synchronous class meeting for each course. Based on needs expressed by LEAs and the Utah Board of Education, the recruitment targets for OPTT are special education teachers working on LoAs and special education paraprofessionals. OPTT is designed specifically for individuals working at least half-time in special education classrooms and will enroll only candidates currently working in special education classrooms. Components that are included to take advantage of their daily experience in schools are described below, along with ongoing challenges and potential solutions to these challenges.

The two biggest challenges for the teacher candidates are accessibility and cost. The primary challenges for the university include the cost of providing the program statewide and allocating limited resources across multiple programs. For districts, the main challenge is finding enough teachers to work on an LoA and supporting them until they acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully manage their classrooms on their own.

Teacher Candidates

Most teacher candidates are cautious of taking on student loans for their new career. They are nontraditional students, and many have families to support while they are in the program. Although some of the teacher candidates qualify for loan forgiveness, they still have to take out the loans to pay tuition each semester, and not all qualify for loan forgiveness. One strategy we are pursuing is working with the state legislature to fund tuition grants for individuals who commit to completing a special education certification program and then teaching in the state for a set number of years. The Utah Board of Education annually awards grants to Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) for special education teacher preparation (from Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] funds). In our application, we requested funds to distribute to teacher candidates to substantially reduce their tuition costs. In addition, we work individually with teacher candidates to identify any scholarships for which they may qualify.

Accessibility of the program continues to be a challenge. We are able to offer the program at many sites across the state, but teacher candidates in the more remote areas may still need to travel an hour each way to a regional campus site and attend classes scheduled late into the evening. To address this issue, all future courses will be blended (Helms, 2014) and synchronous sessions will be moved to Web-based delivery beginning in fall 2019. Web-based delivery involves using a platform such as Adobe Connect (which is available in our LMS, Canvas) to deliver courses. Teacher candidates will attend class from their own school classroom or their home—anywhere they have a strong Internet connection. It is preferable, though not strictly necessary, that they also have a camera on their computer.

Content delivery will be primarily asynchronous, but all courses will have a 60- to 90-min weekly synchronous session. The synchronous sessions will be reserved for applied activities and problem-solving focused on day-to-day issues in the teacher candidates’ classrooms. The primary purposes of the synchronous sessions are to build relationships with and among the teacher candidates and to provide support to these beginning teachers by connecting the course content to their current classrooms and providing an opportunity to access timely support and advice for current issues in their classrooms. The lecture/explanation of content will be provided through recordings, videos, online modules, and activities that the students access and complete before class. Providing high-quality asynchronous instruction is critical, so instructor-developed modules are being created with Adobe Captivate (www.adobe.com) to provide an interactive experience for the teacher candidates and assessment information to the instructor. Captivate supports response opportunities in multiple formats (e.g., multiple choice and short answer) and has the capability to direct students back to content they have not mastered before they are allowed to proceed in the module.

Additional revisions to the coursework include streamlining the courses to provide content in a relevant context. For example, the revised set of courses does not include a separate course on collaboration and communication. Instead, the content for these areas is embedded into several courses, for example, collaboration strategies will be taught in the context of collaborating with families, related service providers, and community agencies in the transition class. Providing high-quality asynchronous and blended courses are critical components of increasing accessibility while maintaining the quality of our programs.

University

The primary challenge for the university is providing multiple sustainable high-quality special education certification programs, particularly those serving individuals in rural areas. Delivering programs across the state is resource intensive in terms of money, faculty (instructors and supervisors), technology, and administration. Combining administration across programs is one strategy to reduce the necessary resources, so the coursework approach described above is part of the revised program (OPTT) that provides common coursework to teacher candidates preparing to work with young children (i.e., birth-to-five) with disabilities, K–12 children with mild/moderate disabilities, and K–12 children with significant disabilities. Using the asynchronous format for content delivery allows us to deliver some course content to candidates in all of these areas, while also including modules that are specific to a specialization area, all within the same course. For example, a single course may include some modules that all teacher candidates complete, and some that only those in the program for birth-to-five complete.

Flexibility is also a feature of the synchronous delivery approach, as some sessions can be delivered to candidates in all the specializations, whereas others are provided for only a specific group. Some content areas (e.g., curriculum courses) will be delivered separately to each specialization, rather than in combined classes, but content such as special education law, assessment, and behavior management will be delivered to all groups together. In addition to being efficient, this provides all the teacher candidates with access to a broader set of examples and applications. This is important because in rural schools they are more likely to serve a broader range of students.

We used a similar approach of providing content concurrently to more than one program area when we combined the undergraduate distance students and the ATP teacher candidates. By doing so within only the ATP programs, however, it gives us the opportunity to incorporate the teachers’ classroom experience into course assignments, assessments, practica, and into the applied activities and discussions in the synchronous sessions. This strategy increases the relevance of the coursework to their current classrooms. The synchronous sessions are a critical component of the revised program, as they are specifically designed to meet the needs of the teacher candidates, with a focus on problem-solving issues they are currently facing in their classrooms, as opposed to delivering lectures based on the course content. In addition, paraprofessionals will be encouraged to enroll in these courses. Because they are also in a special education classroom daily, they will also benefit from a program designed to take advantage of that classroom experience. Providing an accessible route to certification for paraprofessionals is an important strategy in addressing the special education teacher shortage. Attrition from the USU ATP programs is higher than it is in our traditional undergraduate programs, averaging approximately 20% per cohort. Some attrition is due to candidates who decide that special education is not the field for them. Paraprofessionals already have a good idea of what teaching in special education requires and their experience may make it more likely for them to successfully complete the program. In addition, as paraprofessionals, they have less responsibility in the classroom and can devote more time to their coursework and other responsibilities, also contributing to the likelihood of successfully completing the program. An additional benefit of enrolling paraprofessionals in the program is that LEAs needing an additional teacher could hire one of their paraprofessionals who has completed Year 1 of the program, as opposed to a candidate on an LoA who has no prior training.

Collaborating with districts is another way to reduce the program costs. For example, having districts provide instructional coaches to provide supervision and feedback to the teacher candidates has been a significant cost-saving strategy. We plan to extend this approach to all candidates in the combined ATP programs, including the paraprofessionals who enroll in the program. One admission requirement is to work (either as a teacher or paraprofessional) in an LEA that agrees to collaborate with USU. We have been piloting the use of GoReact (www.goreact.com) to observe our undergraduate students in practica and student teaching, and there are benefits to incorporating this approach into the ATP programs. GoReact is a user-friendly online video-feedback platform. We direct our students in practica or student teaching to video-record their lessons and upload them to the secure site. Supervisors and/or teachers can then provide time-stamped comments. This approach also allows the supervisor and teacher to observe the performance together, if they choose. It is very helpful for the teachers to be able to watch their own performance while supervisors direct their attention to specific moments in the lesson. This system could also enable us share supervision and feedback responsibilities with the districts without having to pay mileage and travel time for our department supervisors.

Teacher candidates complete many assignments for courses and practica in their classrooms. With a rigorous training program, it may be possible to have the instructional coaches assume responsibility not only for assisting the teachers with these assignments but also grading them. This has the added benefit of district input into the assignments the teacher candidates complete, which ensures the program is meeting district needs in the preparation of teachers. We have had success with this type of collaboration with the LEAs taking responsibility for providing the eligibility assessment course and the teacher candidates receiving university credit for it. The syllabus was collaboratively developed and has some flexibility to account for district practices built into it. The revised program extends this strategy to the programs for those preparing to teach young children with disabilities and those preparing to teach students with significant intellectual disabilities.

Technology to deliver a distance learning program is also costly, as we currently use specially equipped university classrooms that are set up with broadcast capabilities. Moving to Web-based delivery using the video-conferencing system embedded in the LMS we already use will provide some cost savings, as well as increasing accessibility for the teacher candidates. As more departments begin to use various technologies to enhance their course delivery, the college or university can purchase a site license at a better rate than a department can purchase individual accounts. For example, when our college purchased a site license for GoReact, it made it feasible to use it for supervision and feedback for practica and student teaching. Purchasing it on a per-student rate was too costly for our department.

LEAs

The biggest challenge for districts is simply finding enough teachers. Not only is there an inadequate supply of qualified teachers, they often have difficulty finding enough individuals willing to take a classroom position and enroll in a certification program. Many districts continue the search until and even after the school year begins in the fall. Even fully qualified new special education teachers need a great deal of support during their first years, and ATP teachers even more so, if they are to stay in the field (Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004). Thus, districts that are already stretched thin must allocate the time of veteran teachers and/or administrators to support the ATP teachers. Providing this support in the short term, however, makes it more likely the teachers will stay in their classrooms.

Both the Utah Board of Education and LEAs express strong support for paraprofessional-to-teacher routes. A primary advantage of recruiting paraprofessionals into preparation programs is their experience in the classroom—they already have a clear picture of what teaching in special education involves. It also has the advantage for districts of being able to identify individuals who have shown promise in the classroom, support them through the program, and then hire a fully qualified teacher who already has experience in their district. These advantages prompted the inclusion of paraprofessionals into the revised program. Just as the ATP teacher candidates have to remain employed in a classroom to continue in the program, the paraprofessionals will need to do so. This is because all the coursework is predicated on the teacher candidates having access to students for applied assignments throughout the program. In addition to supporting the important strategy of a paraprofessional-to-teacher pipeline, it is another way to reduce costs for the university, by eliminating the need to make practicum placements.

Conclusion

The special education teacher shortage shows no sign of abating, but creative problem-solving and collaboration between IHEs, districts, and state departments of education hold the most promise for increasing the number of qualified special educators. The ATP programs described in this article are recent iterations, but follow in the footsteps of earlier USU ATP programs that prepared teachers to work with students with significant intellectual disabilities, mild/moderate disabilities, and young children with disabilities. They were created in response to district needs, with grant support from the Utah Board of Education, and developed to be as sustainable as possible without sacrificing quality. With funding sources becoming scarcer each year, we will continue to implement strategies to maintain rigor and quality, while reducing the required resources.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The SATP program was supported, in part, by a grant from the Utah State Board of Education.

References

Brownell

M. T.

Hirsch

Seo

(2004). Meeting the demand for highly qualified special education teachers during severe shortages: What should policy makers consider? The Journal of Special Education, 38, 56–61. doi:10.1177/00224669040380010501

Cegelka

P. A.

Alvarado

J. L.

(2000). A best practices model for preparation of rural special education teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(3), 30–40. doi:10.1177/8756870500019003-403

Collins

B. C.

Baird

C. M.

Hager

K. D.

(2009). The University of Kentucky distance education program in moderate and severe disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(3), 30–40. doi:10.1177/875687050902800307

Glomb

Midenhall

Mason

Salzberg

(2009). Reducing isolation through regional mentors and learning communities: A way to support rural learners. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 31–35. doi:10.1177/875687050902800405

Hall

Villareal

(2015). The hybrid advantage: Graduate student perspectives of hybrid education courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27, 69–80.

Helms

S. A.

(2014). Blended/hybrid courses: A review of the literature and recommendations for instructional designers and educators. Interactive Learning Environments, 22, 804–810. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.745420

Ludlow

B. L.

Duff

M. C.

(2009). Evolution of distance education at West Virginia University: Past accomplishments, present activities, and future plans. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(3), 9–17. doi:10.1177/875687050902800304

National Institute for Direct Instruction. (n.d.). Language for learning. Retrieved from https://www.nifdi.org/programs/writing-and-language/language-for-learning

Phirangee

(2016). Students’ perceptions of learner-learner interactions that weaken a sense of community in an online learning environment. Online Learning, 20(4), 12–33. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i4.1053

10.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Boyer

K. L.

Sindelar

P. T.

Misra

S. K.

(2007). Alternative route programs for certification in special education: Program infrastructure, instructional delivery, and participant characteristics. Exceptional Children, 73, 224–241. doi:10.1177/001440290707300206

11.

Sebastian

J. P.

Egan

W. M.

Mayhew

J. C.

(2009). From two-way television to the Internet: The evolution of a rural distance education program. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(3), 5–8. doi:10.1177/875687050902800303

12.

Utah Office of Administrative Rules. (2018). Rule R277-523. Teacher Salary Supplement Program [Web page]. Retrieved from https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-523.htm

13.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). National teacher shortages 1990-2017. Washington, DC: Education Publication Center, U.S. Department of Education.

14.

Utah State Office of Education. (2015). STATE’s plan to ensure equitable access to excellent educators. Salt Lake City: Utah State Office of Education.