Archived Information

I. CONTEXT/ENVIRONMENT

Parent Involvement in Educating Children with Disabilities: Theory and
Practice

Providing Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students with
Disabilities

######## Developing a Highly Trained Teacher Workforce

**[Parent Involvement in Educating Children with Disabilities: Theory
and Practice]{.smallcaps}**

Increasing the involvement of parents[^1] in the education of their
children is a national goal for policy makers in both general and
special education. One of the National Education Goals states that, "By
the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase
parental involvement and participation in promoting the social,
emotional, and academic growth of children" (National Education Goals
Panel, 1994). In the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997 (IDEA), Congress emphasized the rights of parents to
participate in decisions about their children's education based on the
belief that "strengthening the role of parents and ensuring that
families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate
in the education of their children at school and at home" can improve
the education of children with disabilities (Section 601(c)(5)(B)).

IDEA delineates several levels of parental rights regarding involvement
in special education programs for students ages 3 through 21: consent,
notification, participation in educational decisions about their
children, and participation in policy making. For example, before
conducting an initial evaluation to decide if a child qualifies for
special education services, local education agencies (LEAs) must obtain
*parental consent* for the evaluation. LEAs must *notify* a child's
parents of evaluation procedures that the district proposes to conduct.
LEAs must give parents an opportunity to *participate* in the
development of their child's individualized education program (IEP);
parents must also be involved in decisions about the child's educational
placement. When there is a disagreement about identification,
evaluation, or placement of their child, parents (or the LEA) may
request a due process hearing. As an example of parent involvement in
*policy making,* IDEA requires that each State establish an advisory
panel for providing policy guidance with respect to special education
and related services for children with disabilities, and the panel must
include parents of children with disabilities.

The Part C program for infants and toddlers has an especially strong
emphasis on family-centered service delivery, recognizing the need to
provide services for all members of the family, not just the child with
a disability, to promote child development. IDEA requires that each
infant or toddler with a disability and his or her family receive a
multidisciplinary assessment of the child's unique strengths and needs
and the services appropriate to meet those needs; a family-directed
assessment of the resources, priorities, and concerns of the family;
supports and services

necessary to enhance the family's capacity to meet the infant or
toddler's developmental needs; and a written individualized family
service plan.

Despite legislative intent, parent involvement may not always reach
desired levels, and at times, educators and parents may perceive the
interests of the child differently, leading to conflict. What factors
affect the decision of some parents to become involved in their
children's education and others to avoid involvement? What types of
parent involvement are most beneficial for students with disabilities?
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) developed a five-level model to
describe the parent involvement process (see table I-1). The five levels
are: the decision to become involved in the child's education, the
decision to choose particular types of involvement, the mechanisms
through which involvement affects child-centered outcomes, the factors
mediating the benefits of involvement, and the outcomes of involvement
as they relate to the child.

This module summarizes literature on parent involvement in educating
children with disabilities. It uses Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler's model
of the parent involvement process as an organizing structure, reviewing
research within each of the five levels described. While the module
focuses on parent involvement in educating children with disabilities,
literature from general education has also been incorporated for
comparison. Parent involvement for school-aged children with
disabilities is the module's primary emphasis, although some information
on involvement in early intervention is included. The module concludes
with a list of recommendations drawn from the review of literature.

Influences on a Parent's Basic Involvement Decision

How involved are parents in their children's education? The first step
in the parent involvement process is the general decision of parents to
become involved in their child's schooling. This decision may be either
explicit or implicit. That is, some parents may make a deliberate
decision to become involved, while others may simply respond to external
pressures for involvement without consciously considering their
decision. Furthermore, parents may, at any point, decide to withdraw
their participation.

Data from the 1996 National Household Education Survey indicate that 89
percent of families participated in some school-based activity related
to the education of their preschoolers with disabilities such as
volunteering at school or meeting with teachers. The decision to
participate in school-based activities was even more common for parents
of children ages 6 through 11 with disabilities; 96 percent reported
such involvement. These rates were very similar to those for parents of

Table I-1

Model of the Parent Involvement Process

Source: Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (1995). Parental
involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference?
*Teachers College Record, 95*, 310-331.

nondisabled children (Westat, 1998). But how do parents become involved
in their children's education?

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) theorize that the decision for parents
to become involved in their children's education is influenced by a
number of factors, including their view of the parent role with regard
to involvement in education, their sense of efficacy in helping their
children succeed in school, and general invitations and demands for
involvement from either their child or the school. For example, some
parents may see involvement in schooling as central to their role, while
others may believe education is best left to school personnel. The
former are more likely to take an active part in their children's
education.

Special education offers many specific opportunities for parent
involvement, including participation in initial and subsequent
evaluations and annual IEP meetings. In fact, some studies document
differences in the level and types of involvement between parents of
students with and without disabilities, although this is inconsistent
across studies. One study found that mothers of children with
disabilities, regardless of the severity of the disability, were
"offered more opportunities to be involved \[in schooling\], were more
satisfied with their involvement, and felt more able to influence their
child's education" than mothers of children without disabilities
(Salisbury & Evans, 1988, p. 268).

Research suggests that school personnel's behavior may also influence
parent participation. This may be viewed as one form of what
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler refer to as demands for involvement. Many
local programs have demonstrated success in increasing the percentage of
parents involved in the education of their children with disabilities.
For example, factors found to enhance parent involvement included
establishing ongoing relationships among parents and school personnel,
providing professional development to familiarize service providers with
the techniques for and importance of involving families, teaching
families about their rights under IDEA, and using specific strategies to
encourage active parent involvement (Cheney, Manning, & Upham, 1997;
Salembier & Furney, 1997; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990). For example, after
participating in a year-long program of family support groups and
educational support teams, parents of middle school students with
emotional disturbance scored significantly higher on all three subscales
of the Family Empowerment Scale: attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors
(Cheney et al., 1997).

The behavior of school personnel may also inhibit parent involvement.
Salembier and Furney (1997) reported the following factors as inhibiting
parent participation: school personnel who did not appear to listen to
parents, failed to attend meetings, left meetings early, lacked relevant
information, failed to request parent input, did not express a clear
purpose for the meeting, or used overly technical language. School
personnel's behavior may be a particularly important influence on the
involvement of racial/ethnic minority parents. Kalyanpur and Rao (1991)
found that some educators exhibited disrespect for minority parents'
views, focused on racial/ethnic minority children's deficits, and
disregarded cultural differences that characterized parenting styles.
Harry, Allen, and McLaughlin (1995) reported diminishing levels of
involvement over time for African American parents with children in
early intervention programs. While these parents were initially
satisfied with preschool programs, they became increasingly concerned
about stigma, classroom environment, and curricular issues.

# Influences on a Parent's Choice of Involvement Forms

There are many different ways parents may participate in their
children's education once they make the decision to become involved. In
the broadest terms, parent involvement activities may be divided between
home-based activities, such as helping children with their homework,
reading to young children, discussing school events,

Table I-2

Types of Parent Involvement in Early Intervention Program

Source: Sontag, J.C., & Schacht, R. (1994). An ethnic comparison of
parent participation and information needs in early intervention.
*Exceptional Children, 60*, 422-433.

or talking with teachers by telephone, and school-based activities such
as chaperoning a field trip, volunteering at school, or attending
parent-teacher association (PTA) meetings.

Before discussing influences on parent's choices of involvement
activities, it is helpful to consider research findings on the extent to
which parents of children with disabilities participate in various
education-related functions. In one study, as shown in table I-2,
three-fourths of parents or more were involved in decisions about their
children's early intervention program, transported their children to
treatment, did some therapy for their children, and advocated for their
children's rights. More than half of all parents gave information and
support to other parents, coordinated their children's services, and
observed their children during therapy. Less common forms of parent
involvement included attending program planning meetings, volunteering,
fundraising, and serving on policy-making bodies (Sontag & Schacht,
1994).

In a similar study, Plunge and Kratochwill (1995) reported that parents
of children with disabilities in preschool through fourth grade also
exhibited high rates of participation. More than 85 percent of parents
were actively involved in the IEP meeting; that is, they understood the
purpose of the meeting, told school personnel about their child's
strengths and needs, listened to school personnel recommendations, told
school personnel what they wanted their children to learn, and signed
the IEP. More than 70 percent of parents indicated that they often
talked with the teacher about their child's progress in class, received
information about how to teach their child at home, and received
information about their legal rights. Fewer parents volunteered in class
(42 percent), had a home visit (30 percent), attended parent meetings
(22 percent), or helped evaluate the school's special education services
(19 percent). And, in a study of African American parents' involvement
in educating their children with disabilities, Harry and colleagues
(1995) reported high levels of participation in home-based activities,
including supervising homework and addressing behavioral issues
identified by the teacher.

Some evidence suggests that parents of children with and without
disabilities differ somewhat in the types of involvement activities they
engage in. Families of children ages 3 through 5 with disabilities were
more likely than families of children without disabilities to attend a
general school meeting or attend a meeting with a teacher. They were
less likely to attend class events, volunteer at school, or attend PTO
or PTA meetings. Families of children ages 6 through 11 with
disabilities were more likely to attend meetings with their children's
teacher but less likely than families of children without disabilities
to attend class events, volunteer at school, attend back-to-school
nights, or attend PTO or PTA meetings (see table I-3). These differences
may be explained by parent participation in meetings to determine
initial or ongoing special education eligibility or in annual IEP
meetings, which are special education activities parents are
specifically encouraged to attend. Families of children with
disabilities, however, were less likely than other families to
participate in general school functions such as back-to-school nights
and PTA meetings (Westat, 1998).

In general, these studies indicate that large percentages of parents of
children with disabilities are at least somewhat involved in their
children's education. In the past, some researchers have raised
concerns, however, about the depths of parent involvement, classifying
participation as primarily passive (Lynch & Stein, 1982; Turnbull,
1983). Fiedler (1986) identified seven levels of parent involvement,
from least to most active. They include: attendance and approval of
teacher priorities, sharing information, suggesting goals, negotiating
goals, collaboratively analyzing and monitoring implementation, joint
programming, and independent programming. In a study done in the 1980s,
71 percent of parents reported that they were involved in the
development of their children's IEP. However, only 48 percent of parents
reported making any suggestion at the IEP meeting (Lynch & Stein, 1982).
In a similar study, 25 percent of parents of children with learning
disabilities did not recall the IEP document, and few of those who
remembered it could recall its contents (McKinney & Hocutt, 1982).
Although these studies are quite old, and parent involvement may be
qualitatively different from what it was 15 years ago, these findings do
raise the question about the depth of parent involvement. Recent
research has not addressed this issue.

Table I-3

Percentage of Children Whose Adult Family Members Participated in
Different School Activities

Source: Westat. (1998). *Report on findings of significant issues and
trends.* Rockville, MD: Author.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) delineate several factors that affect
parents' decision of how to participate. These include the specific
domains of parents' skills and knowledge, other demands placed on parent
time and energy, and specific invitations and demands for involvement
from their child or school. For example, for parents who work full-time
during the day, volunteering at school may not be an option. Instead,
they may choose to be involved through activities that do not conflict
with their work schedules. In fact, of several types of involvement,
parents were, in general, most likely to participate in back-to-school
night or general school meetings (Westat, 1998).

It is widely believed that children's age and competence affect the
level of parent involvement perhaps because, based on Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler's theory, parents' sense of efficacy in helping their children
succeed in school diminishes as invitations and demands for involvement
decline (Lareau, 1989; Mink & Nihira, 1986; Salisbury & Evans, 1988;
Stevenson & Baker, 1987; Yanok & Derubertis, 1989). In fact, one study
found that mothers of children without disabilities participated in
fewer school-related activities as their children aged, but mothers of
children with disabilities maintained a high level of participation as
their children grew older. However, the nature of the mother's
involvement did shift as children aged: Mothers primarily participated
in the IEP process when their children were younger but adopted an
advocacy role as children grew older (Salisbury & Evans, 1988).

In a study of parent involvement in early intervention programs,
Gavidia-Payne and Stoneman (1997) reported that maternal and paternal
perceptions of family functioning (problem solving, communication,
roles, affective involvement, and general functioning), marital
adjustment (consensus, satisfaction, cohesion, and affection), financial
security, level of education, and use of coping strategies (e.g., social
supports, religion) were positively associated with participation in
early intervention programs. Mothers who reported experiencing lower
levels of stress also exhibited higher levels of participation.

In a study of parents of children ages 7 and 8 with developmental
delays, informational resources (experience with child-related
professions, level of education, familiarity with school activities, and
amount of activity focused on how to help their child), beliefs about
schooling (definitions of educational activities and beliefs about the
responsibilities of schools), and a composite measure of resources
(time, social supports, and informational resources) were related to
both home-based and school-based parent involvement. The perceived
characteristics of the school (convenience of meeting times, value of
participation activities, and perception that parent's input was sought
and valued) were also related to home-based and school-based
involvement. Parent attitudes about school (confidence/comfort
participating at school, confidence in helping their children do well in
school, importance of school achievement) were correlated only with
school-based participation, and child status (IQ and impact on the
family due to behavioral, medical, or communication problems) was
related only to home-based levels of participation (Coots, 1998).

# Mechanisms Through Which Parent Involvement Influences Child Outcomes

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) identified three mechanisms at work as
parents participate in their children's education. They point out that
parent involvement is best characterized as an enabling and enhancing
variable in school performance rather than a necessary or sufficient
condition for success. First, parents may model appropriate behavior or
values. Parent behavior may communicate to children that schooling is
important (e.g., parents ask questions about the school day, review
homework, attend school meetings). Modeling theory predicts that
children will imitate adult behaviors held in high regard; that regard
is demonstrated through attention to school issues. Second, parents may
reinforce instruction introduced at school. By rewarding behaviors
needed for school success, parents enhance the likelihood that their
children will replicate those behaviors. Third, parents may provide
direct instruction to enhance their children's knowledge and skills. For
example, when parents provide positive, at-home academic experiences for
their children, neither disengaging from challenging work nor completing
the work for them, children may learn to approach difficult tasks more
willingly (Switzer, 1990).

For families raising children with disabilities, the additional support
provided at home may be particularly important. Research suggests that
parent reinforcement of desired behaviors originally taught in school
helps children with disabilities generalize and maintain those behaviors
in other environments (Cordisco & Laus, 1993).

In a study of the effectiveness of parent involvement in the homework
performance of students with disabilities and students at-risk of school
failure, Callahan, Rademacher, and Hildreth (1998) trained parents to
implement a home-based program of self-management and reinforcement.
Parents and students were taught components of a self-management
program, including (1) self-monitoring (students monitored and recorded
homework start and end times, total time spent, and whether assignments
were completed at the designated time and location), (2) self-recording
(students recorded the number of correct math problems), (3)
self-reinforcement (students determined and recorded the number of
points earned for accuracy in their self-monitoring by matching their
results with the results of their parents), and (4) self-instruction and
goal setting (students evaluated their homework performance and decided
whether to complete a supplemental form of the same assignment). Parents
and students jointly selected a variety of rewards for points earned in
self-monitoring. During the intervention, both homework completion and
homework quality increased significantly. Furthermore, the amount and
quality of parent involvement was paramount to program effectiveness.

Extensive research supports the efficacy of parents as providers of
direct instruction. Mullin, Oulton, and James (1995) found that mothers
who had been trained in social learning theory reported substantial
reduction in their children's problem behavior. Parents were taught to
identify and clearly define their children's problem behaviors based on
antecedents and consequences. Following the training, parents reported
decreases in the number and intensity of such behaviors. Robbins and
Dunlap (1992) documented several successful programs in which parents
learned to teach functional skills to their young children with autism.
Involvement in family-focused intervention programs has also been shown
to increase family members' self-efficacy and perceived self-control
(Trivette, Dunst, Boyd, & Hamby, 1995).

In a study of young children with severe behavior problems, McNeil,
Eyberg, Eisenstadt, Newcomb, and Funderburk (1991) found that
improvements in some types of behavior generalized to school settings
following home-based parent-child interaction therapy, contradicting two
earlier studies. Parents were taught specific communication and behavior
management skills to encourage appropriate behavior and discourage
inappropriate behavior. The successful intervention in a home-based
setting generalized to school settings for certain conduct and
oppositional behaviors such as teasing, hitting, and breaking school
rules. Generalization to school settings was not achieved in behaviors
tied to hyperactivity/inattention or peer relationships; examples of
such behaviors were not provided.

The transition from secondary school to adult life can be extremely
challenging for students with disabilities and their families. When the
case management, educational, and related services provided through IDEA
are no longer available, families frequently face an expanded role in
supporting young adults with disabilities. One way to support families
in this transition is to teach them effective strategies for instructing
and communicating with their children or their nondisabled siblings
(Brotherson, Berdine, & Sartini, 1993). In a qualitative study of family
involvement in the transition of students with disabilities from
secondary school to postsecondary roles, family members were extremely
important as informal role models for career and lifestyle choices.
However, few students described a formal process of transition planning
that involved parents or school personnel (Morningstar, Turnbull, &
Turnbull, 1996).

# Tempering and Mediating Variables

Not all parent involvement activities lead to improved student outcomes.
Rather, different types of involvement, if well implemented, yield
different, important results for students, teachers, and parents
(Epstein & Hollifield, 1996). A number of factors may temper or mediate
the potential benefits of parent involvement. For example, to be
effective in enhancing educational outcomes, parent involvement must be
developmentally appropriate. Furthermore, a good fit between parents'
type and level of involvement and the expectations of school staff may
contribute to positive school outcomes. If, however, families and school
personnel are working at cross purposes, parents' involvement in their
children's education may be less effective.

Because learning disabilities are often difficult to detect, prior to
their identification, families may exhibit intolerance with children's
behavior. Even after learning disabilities are identified, deficits in
children's academic and behavioral skills and unsatisfactory school
experiences may contribute to increased levels of parental stress
(Dyson, 1996). An inadequate understanding of their children's learning
disability may lead parents to believe their children's failure is due
to lack of ability, stubbornness, willfulness, or lack of effort
(Chapman & Moersma, as cited in Walther-Thomas et al., 1991; Meier, as
cited in Walther-Thomas et al., 1991; Siegel, as cited in Walther-Thomas
et al., 1991). Consequently, parents may develop inappropriate
expectations or overprotective or indulgent behaviors that could have a
negative impact on the child's success.

If schools and families have inconsistent expectations for parent
involvement, children may be placed in the position of negotiating
different sets of demands at different times of the day. The poorer the
fit between school and parent expectations for involvement, the more
time, energy, and skill required of the children, limiting the positive
benefits of parent involvement (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995).

# Child and Student Outcomes

A strong consensus has emerged that parent involvement in children's
education typically benefits learning and school performance even after
students' abilities and socioeconomic status are taken into account.
This finding is supported by numerous studies (Chavkin, 1993; Eccles &
Harold, 1993; Epstein, 1989, 1991, 1996; Henderson, 1987; Hess &
Halloway, 1984; Hobbs et al., 1984; U.S. Department of Education, 1994).
A recent study specifically documented the positive relationship between
the father's involvement and school success. Children were more likely
to get "As," to participate in extracurricular activities, to enjoy
school, and to be less likely to repeat a grade if their fathers were
involved in their schooling. This was true even after controlling for
the mother's involvement, parents' education, household income, and
race/ethnicity (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998).

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) describe two primary benefits that may
result from parents' involvement in their children's education. First,
children may acquire skills and knowledge beyond those attainable
through school experiences alone. Second, children may develop an
enhanced sense of efficacy for doing well in school. A third benefit of
parental involvement may also exist. Parents who understand their
children's rights and participate in securing those rights may have
greater success than unprepared, uninformed, or uninvolved parents in
securing an appropriate education for their children (Herr, 1983). This
may be particularly important for students with disabilities.

In a study of children with learning disabilities, at-risk children, and
typically performing children, Ames (1992) found that, for children with
learning disabilities, parental support or involvement had significant,
positive effects on the children's concept of their own academic
ability. For all three groups of students, parents' attention to
teachers' communications had a strong positive effect on parents'
perceptions of their children's motivation. Another study also supports
the relationship between parent involvement and enhanced efficacy for
their children. Children whose parents participated in their education
tended to view learning and school with more positive attitudes and
developed regular patterns for studying and completing homework
(Mundschenk & Foley, 1994).

# Summary and Recommendations Drawn From the Literature

This module synthesizes literature on parent involvement in educating
their children with disabilities using Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler's
(1995) model of the parent involvement process. The model includes five
levels\--the basic involvement decision, the form of involvement,
mechanisms for influencing children's outcomes, tempering or mediating
variables, and child-centered outcomes. Research indicates that the
overwhelming majority of parents of children with disabilities are
involved in their children's education through meetings with teachers,
volunteering at school, helping with homework, or other school- and
home-based activities. Educators may enhance levels of parent
involvement by establishing on-going relationships with parents,
teaching parents about their rights under IDEA, and using specific
strategies to promote involvement. Family-related factors, such as
children's age, parents' competence, and parents' access to resources
may also influence levels and types of parent involvement. By providing
direct instruction, reinforcing behaviors taught at school, and
improving homework performance, parents may improve children's skills
and knowledge and may enhance children's sense of self-efficacy for
doing well in school.

To support parent involvement, the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education Programs funds 76 Parent Training and Information
Centers and 10 Community Parent Resource Centers to provide training and
information to parents of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
disabilities and to the individuals working with these parents. The
programs provide assistance and support to thousands of parents and
families every year. Their goal is to empower parents to become
effective advocates for their children with disabilities. In 1998,
Congress appropriated over \$18.5 million for these efforts.

In addition to the Parent Training and Information Centers and Community
Parent Resource Centers, OSEP funds a number of model demonstration
projects and research institutes in the parent involvement field. One
example is the Beyond the Barriers project at the University of New
Hampshire Institute on Disability. This project explores new models of
community-initiated and family-centered approaches to meeting the needs
of young children with disabilities. Another example of OSEP's
investment in this area is Partners Plus, a model demonstration project
in Williamsburg, Virginia. This project involves families in the design,
implementation and evaluation of respite care services and will serve
children with disabilities from ages birth through 8.

The research summarized in this module documents the benefits of parent
involvement. However, not all parents participate in their children's
education. Some participate only at a superficial level, and barriers
that impede successful parent-school partnerships continue to exist.
Many researchers and educators (Finders & Lewis, 1994; Harry, 1992;
Sontag & Schacht, 1994; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996; U.S. Department of
Education, 1994; Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1998) have offered
recommendations and developed programs to help schools and teachers
address these barriers.

-   ***Improve communication among parents, teachers, and
    administrators.***

Researchers, advocates, parents, and educators make a number of
accommodations to enhance the extent and quality of interaction between
school personnel and parents of students with disabilities. In order to
maximize their level of involvement, parents may require more
information on the types of services that are available for their
children, their rights as parents, and school personnel's expectations
for parent involvement. Family resource centers and parent training
institutes may provide parents with information about special education,
community resources, parenting classes, and the like. Family resource
centers housed in school buildings may also provide parents with a
positive, nonthreatening school experience (U.S. Department of
Education, 1994). The Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers'
webpage is another valuable resource for parents. The Alliance's page
provides information on legislative issues, a newsletter for parents, a
list of Parent Training and Information Centers and Community Resource
Centers in the United States with links to their websites, a database of
useful information for parents, and other useful links and resources. By
providing such information to parents, school personnel may alter
parents' perceptions of their role with regard to their children's
education.

As described in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler's model (1997), extending
invitations to parents may also be critical for securing participation.
Parents reportedly want more information about opportunities for
participation (Finders & Lewis, 1994; Sontag & Schacht, 1994). For
example, in Ypsilanti, Michigan, the school district instituted National
African American Parent Involvement Day. Each year, parents are invited
to attend school with their children on the second Monday in February
(Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1998).

A critical aspect of school-family communication is cultural
sensitivity. Minority families report dissatisfaction with educators'
ability to appreciate and understand cultural differences (Harry, 1992;
Sontag & Schacht, 1994). Through appropriate, ongoing, and intensive
professional development, teachers may learn about local cultures,
recognize their own cultural stereotypes, and understand how cultural
traditions and beliefs affect interactions between parents and school
personnel (Sileo & Prater, 1998; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996). Through the
Alliance, discussed above, school personnel may access materials for
parents in languages other than English. Employing teachers from the
same racial/ethnic background as the school's parents and children may
also enhance communication.

-   ***Tap parents' expertise.***

Parent participation and outcomes for children with disabilities may be
enhanced if teachers accept and acknowledge parents' familiarity with
their children's strengths and needs. The view of school personnel as
the sole source of knowledge of children's characteristics and
instructional needs diminishes the role that parents can play and
inhibits school-family communication, which is necessary for providing
appropriate services. School personnel who encourage dialogues with
parents provide a forum for expressing opinions and concerns (Harry,
1992; Sontag & Schacht, 1994).

Vermont has adopted a collaborative model designed to enhance
collaboration between parents and school personnel in the development of
IEPs. IEP meetings are driven by three questions. "What do we know about
this child?" "What are we going to do to help this child receive an
appropriate education?" "How will we know if we are succeeding?" This
approach is intended to involve families more completely in the IEP
process by using open-ended questions and avoiding jargon (Hock &
Boltax, 1995)

Parents possess knowledge and skills that are valuable to the education
of their children and their children's classmates, as well as to service
providers. In addition to knowledge related to their own children's
strengths and needs, parents often possess valuable expertise in
specific occupational skills, cultural norms and beliefs, languages
other than English, and hobbies. Such expertise can be incorporated into
the curriculum or tapped to enhance access to the curriculum (Finders &
Lewis, 1994).

-   ***Involve families in community-based intervention/instruction.***

By inviting parents to participate in their children's education through
home-based intervention or instruction that is consistent with classroom
instruction, educators may empower parents and improve acquisition and
generalization of student skills.

Several States have adopted programs like Family Math and Family Science
to encourage parents to participate in their children's homework.
Programs that allow parents and their children to work collaboratively
on a project may extend the children's learning experiences and help
parents to model skills and instruct their children (U.S. Department of
Education, 1994).

In part, these recommendations reflect a changing conception of the
roles and relationships between parents of children with disabilities
and school personnel. Traditional concepts of school-based parent
involvement are being replaced by family-school partnerships, which
suggest individuals of equal standing working together to achieve common
goals.

# References

Ames, C. (1992). *Home and school cooperation in social and motivational
development*. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 629)

Brotherson, M.J., Berdine, W.H., & Sartini, V. (1993). Transition to
adult services: Support for ongoing parent participation. *Remedial and
Special Education, 14*, 44-51.

Callahan, K., Rademacher, J.A., & Hildreth, B.L. (1998). The effect of
parent participation in strategies to improve the homework performance
of students who are at risk. *Remedial and Special Education, 19*,
131-141.

Chavkin, N.F. (1993). *Families and schools in a pluralist society*.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Cheney, D., Manning, B., & Upham, D. (1997). Project DESTINY. *Teaching
Exceptional Children, 30*, 24-29.

Coots, J.J. (1998). Family resources and parent participation in
schooling activities for their children with developmental delays. *The
Journal of Special Education, 31*, 498-520.

Cordisco, L.K., & Laus, M.K. (1993). Individualized training in
behavioral strategies for parents of preschool children with
disabilities. *Teaching Exceptional Children, 25,* 43-46.

Dyson, L.L. (1996). The experiences of families of children with
learning disabilities: Parental stress, family functioning, and sibling
self-concept. *Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29*, 280-286.

Eccles, J.S., & Harold, R.D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during
the early adolescent years. *Teachers College Record, 94*, 568-587.

Epstein, J.L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy
for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J.F. Dunn
(Eds.), *Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes*
(pp. 209-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Epstein, J.L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers'
practices of parent involvement. In S.B. Silvern (Ed.), *Advances in
reading/language research: Vol. 5. Literacy through family, community,
and school interaction* (pp. 261-276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Epstein, J.L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A
developmental perspective. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), *Research on
motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions* (pp. 259-295).
New York: Academic Press.

Epstein, J.L., & Hollifield, J.H. (1996). Title I and
school-family-community partnerships: Using research to realize the
potential. *Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1,*
263-278.

Fiedler, C.R. (1986). Enhancing parent-school personnel partnerships.
*Focus on Autistic Behavior, 1*, 1-8.

Finders, M., & Lewis, C. (1994). Why some parents don't come to school.
*Educational Leadership, 51*, 50-53*.*

Gavidia-Payne, S., & Stoneman, Z. (1997). Family predictors of maternal
and paternal involvement in programs for young children with
disabilities. *Child Development, 68*, 701-717.

Harry, B. (1992). Restructuring the participation of African-American
parents in special education. *Exceptional Children, 59,* 123-131*.*

Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus
compliance: African-American parents' involvement in special education.
*Exceptional Children, 61*, 364-377.

Henderson, A. (1987). *The evidence continues to grow: Parent
involvement improves achievement*. Columbia, MD: National Committee for
Citizens in Education.

Herr, S.S. (1983). *Rights and advocacy for retarded people*. Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath.

Hess, R.D., & Halloway, S.D. (1984). Family and school as educational
institutions. In R.D. Parke (Ed.), *Review of child development
research: Vol. 7. The family* (pp. 179-222). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P.R., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Moroney, R.M., Shayne,
M.W., & Weeks, K.A. (1984). *Strengthening families: Strategies for
child care and parent education*. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hock, M., & Boltax, R. (1995). *Improved collaboration, less paperwork:
Vermont's new family-centered IEP process.* (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 387 877)

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (1997). Why do parents become
involved in their children's education? *Review of Education Research,
67,* 3-42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (1995). Parental involvement in
children's education: Why does it make a difference? *Teachers College
Record, 95*, 310-331.

Kalyanpur, M., & Rao, S. (1991). Empowering low-income black families of
handicapped children. *American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61*,
523-532.

Lareau, A.P. (1989). *Home advantage: Social class and parental
intervention in elementary education*. New York: The Falmer Press.

Lynch, E.W., & Stein, R. (1982). Perspectives on parent participation in
special education. *Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3*, 56-63.

McKinney, J.D., & Hocutt, A.M. (1982). Public school involvement of
parents of learning-disabled children and average achievers.
*Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3*, 64-73.

McNeil, C.D., Eyberg, S., Eisenstadt, T.H., Newcomb, K., & Funderburk,
B. (1991). Parent-child interaction therapy with behavior problem
children: Generalization of treatment effects to the school setting*.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20*, 140-151.

Mink, I.T., & Nihira, K. (1986). Family life-styles and child behaviors:
A study of direction of efforts. *Developmental Psychology, 22*,
610-616.

Morningstar, M.E., Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, N.R. (1996). What do
students with disabilities tell us about the importance of family
involvement in the transition from school to adult life? *Exceptional
Children, 62*, 249-260.

Mullin, E., Oulton, K., & James, T. (1995). Skills and training with
parents of physically disabled persons. *International Journal of
Rehabilitation Research, 18,* 142-145*.*

Mundschenk, N.A., & Foley, R.M. (1994). Collaborative relationships
between school and home: Implications for service delivery. *Preventing
School Failure, 39, 16-20.*

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). *Students do better
when their fathers are involved in school* \[On-line\]. Available:
nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98121.html

National Education Goals Panel. (1994). *The national education goals
report*. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Plunge, M.M., & Kratochwill, T.R. (1995). Parental knowledge,
involvement, and satisfaction with their child's special education
services. *Special Services in the Schools, 10,* 113-138.

Robbins, F.R., & Dunlap, G. (1992). Effects of task difficulty on parent
teaching skills and behavior problems of young children with autism.
*American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96*, 631-643.

Salembier, G., & Furney, K.S. (1997). Facilitating participation:
Parents' perceptions of their involvement in the IEP/transition planning
process. *Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 20*, 29-41.

Salisbury, C., & Evans, I.M. (1988). Comparison of parental involvement
in regular and special education. *Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13,* 268-272.

Sileo, T.W., & Prater, M.A. (1998). Preparing professionals for
partnerships with parents of students with disabilities: Textbook
considerations regarding cultural diversity. *Exceptional Children, 64,*
513-528.

Sontag, J.C., & Schacht, R. (1994). An ethnic comparison of parent
participation and information needs in early intervention. *Exceptional
Children, 60,* 422-433.

Stevenson, H.W., & Baker, D.P. (1987). The family-school relation and
the child's school performance. *Child Development, 58,* 1348-1357.

Switzer, L.S. (1990). Family factors associated with academic progress
for children with learning disabilities. *Elementary School Guidance and
Counseling, 24,* 200-206.

Trivette, C.M., Dunst, C.J., Boyd, K., & Hamby, D.W. (1995).
Family-oriented program models, helpgiving practices, and parental
control appraisals. *Exceptional Children, 62*, 237-248.

Turnbull, A.P. (1983). Parental participation in the IEP process. In
J.A. Mulick & S.M. Pueschel (Eds.), *Parent-professional participation
in developmental disabilities services: Foundations and prospects* (pp.
107-123). Cambridge, MA: The Ware Press.

Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (1996). *Families, professionals, and
exceptionality: A special partnership* (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Merrill.

Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (1990). *Families, professionals, and
exceptionality: A special partnership.* Columbus, OH: Merrill.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). *Strong families, strong school:
Building community partnerships for learning*. Washington, DC: Author.

Walther-Thomas, C., Hazel, J.S., Schumaker, J.B., Vernon, S., &
Deschler, D.D. (1991). In M. Fine (Ed.), *Collaboration with parents of
exceptional children*. Brandon, VT: CPPC.

Westat. (1998). *Report on findings of significant issues and trends.*
Rockville, MD: Author.

Yanok, J., & Derubertis, D. (1989). Comparative study of parental
participation in regular and special education programs. *Exceptional
Children, 56*, 195-199.

Ypsilanti Public Schools. (1998). *National African American parent
involvement day*. \[On-line\]. Available: http//scnc.yps.k12.mi.us

Providing Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students with
Disabilities

The passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975 focused the attention of educators on
policy and practice related to the access of students with disabilities
to an education\--an individually designed, free appropriate public
education provided in the least restrictive environment. This focus on
access has provided a generation of children with disabilities with the
initial preparation needed for successful adult life in the community
and workforce.

However, for a growing number of students with disabilities, special
education today is not preparing them for increasingly rigorous
graduation requirements and career skills that are based on problem
solving, collaboration, and technology. Why is this? Special education
has typically been viewed as an intervention of remediation. As students
with disabilities demonstrate difficulty in academic skills, they are
provided intensive instruction on the basic foundation skills which are
considered to be prerequisites to higher level, abstract reasoning and
problem-solving skills. While they receive remediation intervention,
their peers without disabilities refine their foundation skills through
application in more complex activities (Gersten, 1998).

The gap between students with and without disabilities continues to
widen. Students in special education have lower school completion rates
than their nondisabled peers; as adults, they are the largest unemployed
group of Americans; they experience higher arrest rates; they are less
likely to live independently in the community (Blackorby & Wagner,
1996). As we approach the 21^st^ century, the challenge for educators is
to provide students with disabilities meaningful access to instruction
that is aligned with high-level standards and supported by special
education interventions. This module presents Federal legislation
related to providing access to the general education curriculum and
discusses difficulties involved in doing so. The module also presents
strategies for enhancing access to the general education curriculum for
students with disabilities.

# What Does It Mean To Access the General Education Curriculum?

Perhaps the first question to ask is: What is the general education
curriculum? On first glance, the answer is clear: It is the curriculum
designed to prepare students for adult life and, more specifically, for
the high school diploma. Frequently, the general education curriculum
contains both academic (e.g., literacy, science, math, social studies)
and nonacademic (e.g., career/vocational, arts, healthful living,
practical living skills, citizenship) domains; however, student
performance is assessed primarily in academics. As pressures mount for
teachers to cover the content of the assessed curriculum, less attention
and instructional time are devoted to the nonassessed areas. Thus, it is
not uncommon for portions of the general education curriculum to receive
limited attention\--or to not be addressed at all (Warren, 1997). The
result is a lack of consistency in how the general education curriculum
is defined and taught.

# Federal Legislation Relating To Providing Access to the General Education Curriculum

This lack of consistency is not limited to special education. In its
1983 report, *A Nation at Risk*, the National Commission on Excellence
in Education called for the adoption of "more rigorous and measurable
standards . . ." (p. 27) which will require ". . . more effective use of
the existing school day" (p. 29). This bold recommendation has resulted
in the current focus on standards-based education and more specifically
on issues of equity: ensuring that all students have equal access to
common standards, challenging assessments, and enhanced accountability
for student performance (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997). Such
issues have been addressed in recent Federal legislation (e.g., the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act, the Improving America's Schools Act, and the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act). Each of these laws contains provisions requiring the
development of challenging common standards and the reporting of *all*
students' performance on progress in meeting the standards. Together,
these are intended to satisfy the national need to produce highly
skilled graduates to maintain this country's place in a technological,
sophisticated, global market place.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of
1997 contain several provisions directed at providing students with
disabilities greater access to the general education curriculum. This
concept of access is addressed in several areas of the legislation via
policy, planning, student instruction, and evaluation.

## *State Performance Goals*

Each State wishing to receive IDEA Part B funds must identify goals for
the performance of students with disabilities. To the maximum extent
possible, State goals are to be consistent with other goals and
standards for all children established by the State, including those
established under other Federal programs.

## *State Improvement Plans* 

Developed through broad-based stakeholder input, the State Improvement
Plan is to identify critical aspects of early intervention, general
education, and special education programs that must be improved to meet
the performance goals the State has identified for Part B. One of the
indicators that must be considered is the performance (including
performance on State assessment) and participation (including dropout
and graduation rates) of students with disabilities.

## *Program Funding*

Coordination between special education and other Federal resources
(e.g., schoolwide Title I projects) is encouraged. Additionally, Part B
special education funds and related services may be used in general
education classrooms to support children with disabilities while
providing nondisabled students with incidental benefits from these
supports. Funds can be used to increase the skills of general educators
to facilitate enhanced participation of students with disabilities in
general education classrooms.

## *Individualized Education Programs*

The general education curriculum is to be considered throughout the
development and implementation of the individualized education program
(IEP). Initial assessments and development of the student's Present
Level of Performance are to reflect the student's ability to access
instruction aligned with the general education curriculum and standards.
General educators are to participate in IEP meetings and provide
strategies for aligning IEP goals with standards. Aids and supports are
to be provided to facilitate instruction in the general education
environment. Parents are to receive regular reports on their child's
progress in meeting the IEP goals.

## *Assessing Student Performance*

All students with disabilities are to be included in State and district
assessment systems. To the greatest extent possible, students with
disabilities are to participate in the large-scale assessments that are
aligned with the general education curriculum and standards. Individual
accommodations are to be identified and implemented during instruction
and assessment activities. Alternate assessments are to be administered
to those students who cannot participate in state- and district-wide
assessment programs.

## *Reporting Student Performance*

The performance of students with disabilities is to be publicly reported
in the same frequency and detail as the performance of nondisabled
students. Such reporting is to reflect performance on large-scale
assessments as well as alternate assessments.

# Tensions Involved in Providing Access to the General Education Curriculum

Virtually every State has developed standards in at least one academic
content area; however, there is no "standard" for the State standards
(McDonnell et al., 1997). They differ in what they are called (e.g.,
goals, benchmarks, expectations, frameworks) as well as in subject areas
and levels of specificity. While there are variations in levels of
expectation for student demonstration of proficiency, there is an
increasing trend to assess the student's ability to apply or demonstrate
the use of skills in higher order thinking or problem-solving
activities. As noted earlier, academic standards are typically included
in large-scale assessments, while nonacademic standards are rarely
included.

Another tension involves the balance between academic and vocational
education. The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) suggests
that students with disabilities who had paid employment experience in
high school were more likely to stay in high school and graduate with an
employment outcome. How will the increased emphasis on academics balance
with effective vocational and other nonacademic educational strategies?

Special educators are rarely involved in the development of the general
education curricular standards. Instead, they are typically called upon
to identify instructional strategies or curriculum modifications (Goertz
& Friedman, 1996). However, these adaptations are typically focused on
groups of students and rarely on the specific needs of individual
students in the class (Vaughn & Schumm, as cited in Orkwis & McLane,
1998). This means that general and special educators are forced to
decide when to modify a standard, when to provide instructional
accommodations, how and when to plan collaboratively, and how to find
instructional time to cover the content (McLaughlin, Henderson, & Rhim,
1997). The need to develop curricular frameworks that are relevant to
all students and to identify effective strategies that support access to
the curriculum is common throughout elementary and secondary schools.
Our challenge is to strike a balance between emphasizing the potential
and performance of each individual student and ability to provide
individual resources to facilitate full participation of all students
(Benz & Kochhar, 1996). The concept of universal design is one strategy
that offers promising solutions to this dilemma.

# Universal Design of Curricular Frameworks

To increase access to the general education curriculum, needs of all
students must be considered when curricula and standards are developed.
This is known as universal design, which is based on the premise that
curricula and standards are flexible in order to include students with a
wide variety of cultural, linguistic, and learning styles\--including
students with disabilities (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). Ideally, effective
universal design does not result in lowered expectations or watered-down
instruction. Rather, it calls for multiple ways of expressing competency
in regard to a given standard.

Universal design also results in blending of different types of
standards. It allows students who are working toward mastery of the
basic or foundation skills to apply their existing knowledge across
multiple environments or to engage in complex applications. This
requires teachers to integrate standards from multiple grade levels in
order to facilitate access to a variety of educational opportunities.
Such experiences will enhance the participation of students who
typically are exempted from large-scale assessments that require
collaborative and/or higher level analysis.

Because most districts or States already have curricula in place, the
effectiveness and accessibility of those frameworks should be evaluated.
It is important to consider a number of questions when evaluating the
effectiveness of existing curricula:

1.  Is a wide range of parents and other community members involved in
    the review of the curriculum?

2.  What is the approved curriculum? Does it include examples of
    adaptations that may be used with students with disabilities,
    including those with significant disabilities?

3.  Are instructional methods and materials used that are responsive to
    the needs of a heterogeneous student population? What types of
    instructional priorities and goals have been established to support
    the progress of all students in meeting the standards?

4.  Are standards broad or do they reflect only academic outcomes?

5.  Are performance standards appropriate for students with
    disabilities? Can they be demonstrated in a variety of ways?
    (Jorgensen, 1997)

While these are important considerations for curriculum developers at
district and State levels, most general and special educators are not
involved in curriculum development on a regular basis. However, they are
regularly involved in committees charged with the selection of curricula
for implementation throughout a district or school. Three considerations
can guide the selection of curricula:

-   ***Does the curriculum provide multiple means of presentation of
    content?*** A universally designed curriculum will offer a variety
    of presentation modes, including text at multiple reading levels,
    auditory versions, and digital formats (allowing transformation from
    one presentation mode to another).

-   ***Does the curriculum provide multiple and flexible means of
    student engagement or participation?*** Aligning instruction with
    student learning styles will facilitate understanding of the
    content. Aspects to consider include finding the right balance
    between supporting and challenging a student, basing instruction on
    familiar versus novel concepts, and expanding concepts to reflect a
    variety of developmental and cultural interests.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Does the curriculum provide multiple means of student
    response?*** Students should be offered flexibility in their choice
    of response modes. Such flexibility should be based on their
    preferred communication mode and on technological supports needed
    (Orkwis & McLane, 1998).

A curriculum that addresses each of these three areas is considered to
use the principles of universal design and will be accessible to
virtually all students.

# Strategies That Support Access to the Curriculum

Effective access to the general education curriculum requires more than
common standards and universal design. It is also dependent on
pedagogically skilled educators, instructional materials that are
accessible to students, and effective instructional strategies.

## *Pedagogically Skilled Educators*

All too often, students with disabilities receive their instruction in a
given academic content area from special educators who have not been
trained in that content area. If students are to have increased access,
then all of their teachers must possess content expertise and
pedagogically sound instructional skills. Preservice and professional
development for general and special educators need to address content
knowledge, universal design principles, and pedagogical skills to become
proficient in a given content area. Support for this is being provided
by the OSEP-funded project INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and
Support Consortium), which is developing standards for general and
special educators to promote cohesiveness in licensure and preparation,
clarifying distinctions in teacher responsibilities, and developing
common policies for licensing for general and special educators.

In addition, some OSEP-funded State Improvement Grants (SIGs) seek ways
to provide general and special educators with the competencies needed to
effectively address the educational needs of all students.

## *Instructional Materials*

Typically, instructional materials are aligned with curricular standards
and intended for use by students with corresponding reading and
comprehension skills. If a student lacks the requisite literacy skills,
the instructional materials will be inaccessible and so too the
curriculum. Once again, universal design is a critical factor in
accessibility. Similarly, instructional materials should be available in
a variety of formats. For example, video presentations need to be
supplemented by video description and captioning if they are to be
accessible to students with hearing impairments or to English-language
learners.

However, alternative presentation modes may not be sufficient for
students with cognitive impairments. For these students, multiple
presentation modes should be supplemented with alternative (i.e., less
abstract) descriptions, special instructions, or organizational tips for
approaching an activity or problem.

## *Instructional Strategies* 

While universally designed curricula and instructional materials and
knowledgeable educators are critical to the successful access of a
curriculum, students with disabilities also require access to
instruction that is individually referenced, intense, frequent, and
explicit.

### *Individually Referenced Instruction* 

Effective instruction is premised on instructional decision making that
is individually referenced. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 are clear in the
intent for IEP goals to be aligned with the general education
curriculum. At the same time, the amendments continue the commitment to
individually referenced planning and instruction. The thoughtful
identification and implementation of individually focused instructional
accommodations facilitate instruction that is both aligned with the
general education curriculum and relevant to the individual student's
needs.

### *Intense and Frequent Instruction* 

Students with disabilities require intense and frequent instruction of
basic and higher level concepts. Although it may include one-on-one
instruction, intense instruction refers to a broader set of features,
including careful matching of instruction with student skill levels;
frequent opportunities for student responses; instructional cues,
prompts, and fading to facilitate correct responses; and detailed
task-focused feedback.

### *Explicit Instruction* 

An increasing body of evidence supports the need for students with
disabilities to be directly taught the processes and concepts that
nondisabled children tend to learn naturally through experiences.
Gersten (1998) has identified five principles of explicit instruction:

1.  Providing students with an adequate range of examples to exemplify a
    concept or problem-solving strategy.

2.  Providing models of proficient performance, including step-by-step
    strategies (as needed) or broad, generic questions and guidelines
    that focus attention and prompt deep processing.

3.  Providing experiences where students explain how and why they make
    decisions.

4.  Providing frequent feedback on quality of performance and support so
    that students persist in activities.

5.  Providing adequate practice and activities that are interesting and
    engaging.

While a variety of approaches to explicit instruction exist, they all
have a similar focus: directly teaching thinking and problem-solving
strategies to students who have difficulty acquiring such skills in a
seemingly natural manner. One of the most common strategies is the use
of scaffolding, which entails the teacher's presentation of a series of
frameworks (e.g., questions or outlines) that facilitate a student's
study of the instructional content (Harris & Pressley, 1991, as cited in
Gersten, 1998; MacArthur, Schwartz, Graham, Molloy, & Harris, as cited
in Gersten, 1998). As students become familiar with the frameworks, they
are encouraged to adapt the specific components to support their review
of the material.

Another example of explicit instruction is anchored instruction (Bottge
& Hasselbring, 1993; Hollingsworth & Woodward, 1993). In this practice,
students are taught key vocabulary, measurements, procedures, or
concepts prior to the introduction of a problem-solving activity. As a
result, their ability to participate in the analysis is enhanced through
the initial instruction, which serves as an anchor for the more complex
activities. Additional strategies that strengthen this approach include
decreases in writing demands (e.g., completing sentences rather than
writing short essays) and memory demands (e.g., following written
procedures rather than relying on memory) (Mastropieri, Scruggs, &
Chung, 1997).

Students appear to benefit from instruction in its component parts
(e.g., phonological awareness, word recognition, written expression)
when instruction is hierarchical with an initial focus on basic skills
as a prerequisite for higher order, problem-solving applications.
However, care must be taken to ensure that students are not placed in a
long-term status of "not yet ready" for higher order activities.
Instead, their educational experiences need to include a blend of
experiences so they are able to demonstrate knowledge in multiple ways
(Orkwis & McLane, 1998).

# Summary

Federal education policy is clear in its intent for all students to be
active participants in the general education curriculum. The IDEA
Amendments of 1997 call for a broader focus in educational planning. The
reference point for IEP development is now the student's participation
in the general education curriculum and the supports needed to
accomplish this goal.

Although this is unchartered territory, students can benefit from an
emerging body of research that emphasizes the importance of universal
design of curricula and instructional materials and of strategies that
support access to the general education curriculum. Special educators
must possess content knowledge necessary for delivering instruction;
students need access to instruction that is individually referenced,
intense, frequent, and explicit.

Enhancing access to the general education curriculum requires a new
approach to collaboration between general and special education. Joint
participation and leadership in curriculum and standards development,
professional development, resource allocation, and instruction are
critical factors in helping students with disabilities access the
general education curriculum and acquire skills that will better prepare
them for life after school.

# References

Benz, M., & Kochhar, C. (1996). School-to-work opportunities for all
students: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and
Transition. *Career Development for Exceptional Individuals*, *19*,
31-48.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of
youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal
Transition Study. *Exceptional Children, 62*, 399-413.

Bottge, B., & Hasselbring, T. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for
teaching complex, authentic mathematical problems to adolescents in
remedial math classes. *Exceptional Children*, *59*, 556-566.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for
students with learning disabilities: An overview. *Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 13*, 162-170.

Goertz, M., & Friedman, D. (1996, March). *State education reform and
students with disabilities: A preliminary analysis* (Year 1 Technical
Report). Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of
General and Special Education Reform, National Association of State
Boards of Education.

Hollingsworth, M., & Woodward, J. (1993). Integrated learning: Explicit
strategies and their role in problem-solving instruction for students
with learning disabilities. *Exceptional Children*, *59*, 444-455.

Jorgensen, C. (1997, July)*. Curriculum and its impact on inclusion and
the achievement of students with disabilities.* Issue Brief 2(2).
Pittsburgh, PA: Consortium on Inclusive School Practices, Allegheny
University of the Health Sciences.

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Chung, S. (1997, April).
*Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science
teaching*. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

McDonnell, L., McLaughlin, M., & Morison, P. (1997). *Educating one and
all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform.* Washington,
DC: National Research Council.

McLaughlin, M., Henderson, K., & Rhim, L. (1997, March). *Reform for
all? General and special education reforms in five local school
districts.* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). *A nation at
risk: The imperative for educational reform*. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998, Summer). *A curriculum every student can
use: Design principles for student access.* Reston, VA: ERIC/OSEP
Special Project, Council for Exceptional Children.

Warren, S. (1997, April). *Building school-based capacity to sustain
change in special education practices.* Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Developing a Highly Trained Teacher Workforce

# 

# Introduction

> America's future depends now, as never before, on our ability to
> teach. If every citizen is to be prepared for a democratic society
> whose major product is knowledge, every teacher must know how to teach
> students in ways that help them reach high levels of intellectual and
> social competence. Every school must be organized to support powerful
> teaching and learning. Every school district must be able to find and
> keep good teachers. And every community must be focused on preparing
> students to become competent citizens and workers in a pluralistic,
> technological society (National Commission on Teaching & America's
> Future, 1996, p. 3).

This urgent call for effective teachers reflects lessons learned from
more than a decade of education reform efforts that have left the
preparation of teachers virtually unchanged. Although the
professionalization of teaching was added to the reform agenda in the
late 1980s (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986), initial
attempts to improve the quality of teaching focused on structural and
organizational components, using approaches such as increased salaries,
career ladders, and merit pay (Hawley, 1988). Those failed attempts at
improving teaching and learning led to the inevitable conclusion that
improvements in the quality of America's schools would require changes
to existing systems for recruiting, preparing, and supporting America's
teachers (e.g., Association of Teacher Educators, 1991; Goodlad, 1994;
National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996; Pugach,
Barnes, & Beckum, 1991; U.S. Department of Education, 1997). That
conclusion was bolstered by mounting research evidence that indicated
the critical link between teaching practice and student achievement
(e.g., Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1993; Elmore, Peterson, &
McCarthey, 1996; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996). As noted by Terry Dozier,
former National Teacher of the Year and Special Advisor to the Secretary
of Education: "The highest standards in the world, the best facilities,
and the strongest accountability measures will do little good if we do
not have talented, dedicated, and well-prepared teachers in every
classroom. . . . Our Nation's goals in education will not be achieved
without the development of an excellent teacher workforce" (Dozier,
1997, p. 1).

The importance of workforce quality was given heightened priority by the
release of data indicating that, overall, about a quarter of newly hired
teachers lack the qualifications required for their jobs, with 75
percent of urban districts hiring teachers who lack proper credentials
(National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996). Some
evidence suggests that inadequate teacher preparation is even more
common among special educators than in the general teacher workforce.
Boe, Cook, Bobbitt, and Terhanian (1998) report, for example, that in
1990-91, about 10 percent of special education teachers were not fully
certified in their primary teaching assignment, compared to 6 percent of
general education teachers who were not fully certified. More recent
data reported by States to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) shows that for the 1995-96 school
year, about 8.7 percent of special education teachers were not fully
certified (U.S. Department of Education, 1998c).

These research findings, as well as national efforts to raise awareness
of the importance of a highly trained workforce, most notably those of
the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future[^2], have
mobilized a variety of programs and strategies at the Federal, State,
and local levels for investing in the teaching profession. For example,
the Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI) funds two research and development initiatives
focused on teaching and policy\--the National Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, housed at the University of Washington with the
collaboration of other major universities, and the National Partnership
for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching at the University of
Maryland, a collaboration among several major universities and
professional associations that work in partnership to engage in efforts
aimed at improving the quality of teaching.

As the ability to address teacher quality will rely on a commitment to
implement reforms at both State and local levels, the National
Commission on Teaching & America's Future is working in partnership with
governors, State education departments, legislators, and business
leaders in 12 States to design and implement improvement strategies that
respond to local needs. Further, the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education, which sets standards for teacher education; the
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), which
addresses beginning teacher licensure issues; and the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), which provides advanced
certification to qualified veteran teachers, have joined to develop a
coherent set of standards to guide preservice education of teachers,
entry into the field, and continued professional development (National
Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1997).

In addition to these efforts, the Department of Education has made a
strong commitment to support States and local school districts in
efforts to improve the quality of the teacher workforce. This section of
the report outlines the activities of the Department, with a particular
focus on OSEP activities that are designed to address needs of personnel
who work with students with disabilities.

# Department of Education Professional Development Activities

"A talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom in America" is a
major objective of the Department of Education (U.S. Department of
Education, 1997). As set forth in the Department's *Strategic Plan for
1998-2002*, six core strategies are planned for meeting this objective:

-   improving the quality and retention of new teachers;

-   financial support and interagency coordination to implement
    professional development strategies that will increase the skills of
    current teachers;

-   support of States' efforts to align licensing and certification
    requirements with content and performance standards;

-   teacher recognition and accountability through efforts such as the
    NBPTS;

-   research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of
    research-based strategies for improving teacher quality; and

-   a biennial national report card on teacher quality.

A variety of existing Federal programs both directly and indirectly
support these strategies, including the newly established Comprehensive
School Reform Demonstration program, the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Adult Education Act, the
Higher Education Act, the Perkins Vocational and Applied Technical
Education Act, and the School to Work Opportunities Act. Some of these
programs are intended to benefit special populations of students (e.g.,
students with disabilities, students who are limited-English
proficient). The use of Federal funds specifically to support
professional development activities that improve the quality of the
workforce must be consistent with the overall purposes and requirements
of each program. Goals 2000 funds, for example, can be used to support
professional development activities that familiarize teachers with State
standards and support teacher knowledge and skills that are aligned to
student expectations within the context of statewide standards. About 60
percent of Goals 2000 funds are used to support teacher preservice and
professional development activities (U.S. Department of Education,
1998a).

Two Federal programs, Title II of ESEA and Part D of IDEA, are designed
specifically to support the professional development of educators. The
Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program (Title II of
ESEA), with a fiscal year (FY) 1998 appropriation of \$335 million, is
the largest source of Federal funding for such activities. This formula
grant program provides funds to State education agencies (SEAs) and
State agencies of higher education (SAHEs) to support high-quality,
sustained, and intensive professional development activities in core
academic subjects, particularly math and science. The funds tend to
support teacher improvement efforts at the district and school levels
based on a comprehensive review of their professional development needs.
Funds also assist institutions of higher education (IHEs) and others to
develop their capacity to offer high-quality professional development
activities. Local education agencies (LEAs) apply to the State for
subgrants, with about 95 percent of all LEAs participating in the
program. Colleges and universities submit grant applications to the
SAHE. Three suggested uses of the Eisenhower funds include: (1)
professional development in the effective use of technology as a
classroom tool, (2) the formation of professional development networks
that allow educators to exchange information on advances in content and
pedagogy, and (3) peer training and mentoring programs for teachers and
administrators. The annual performance reports for the grants require
grantees to report on how Eisenhower funds are used to help meet the
needs of diverse groups of students, including students with
disabilities. Activities supported under Part D of IDEA to address the
professional development of educators who work with students with
disabilities are described in the following section, which discusses
more broadly OSEP's efforts to address the need for a highly trained
workforce.

# OSEP Professional Development Activities

It is a priority for OSEP to assemble a highly trained workforce to
provide services to students with disabilities. A major objective for
the use of discretionary funds available under the IDEA Amendments of
1997 is to "ensure an adequate supply of highly qualified personnel"
(U.S. Department of Education, 1998b). The five performance indicators
of this objective as delineated by OSEP include:

-   ***Supply of qualified personnel*.** OSEP intends to obtain these
    data from State reports to track whether an increasing number of
    States are meeting their identified needs for qualified personnel.

-   ***Research-validated effective practices*.** Beginning with FY
    1999, OSEP plans to review funded award and institutional practices
    to ensure that an increasing percentage of training programs will
    incorporate research-validated practices into program curricula.
    Grant selection criteria that promote the use of research-validated
    effective program content and pedagogy and an identification of
    research-validated effective practices are two strategies that will
    support this indicator.

-   ***Personnel employed with certification*.** State-reported data for
    1996-97 reveal that across all funded positions for special
    education teachers and related services personnel, 8.6 percent were
    not fully certified. The range across categories was quite wide,
    with a low of 1.2 percent for SEA supervisors and administrators to
    a high of 15.7 percent for interpreters. Other categories with a
    higher than average proportion of noncertified personnel include
    teachers for 3- through 5-year-olds (10.7 percent), teacher aides
    (14.1 percent), and recreation and therapeutic recreation
    specialists (10.2 percent) (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a). In
    the future, OSEP also will use data from the National Center for
    Education Statistics (NCES) Schools and Staffing Survey to track its
    goal of an increasing percentage of special education teachers and
    related services personnel with appropriate certification.

-   ***Special education training for regular education teachers*.**
    Although, as noted above, the Department of Education provides a
    variety of funding streams to support professional development of
    teachers based on State and local needs, these programs do not
    necessarily support activities that would increase the capacity of
    regular education teachers to address the needs of students with
    disabilities. New requirements resulting from the IDEA Amendments of
    1997 will require general educators to become increasingly skilled
    at meeting the needs of students with disabilities. These
    requirements include, for example, that general educators be
    included in individualized education program (IEP) meetings, that
    students with disabilities be provided access to the general
    education curriculum, and that students with disabilities
    participate in State and local assessment programs. OSEP intends to
    use data from the NCES Schools and Staffing Survey to determine if
    an increasing percentage of general education teachers and community
    service providers are receiving preservice and inservice training in
    special education and developmentally appropriate practices. OSEP
    will also support preparation programs for regular education
    personnel to work with students with disabilities.

-   ***Effective personnel*.** As one measure of personnel quality, OSEP
    plans to conduct surveys of teachers, parents, and students
    regarding personnel knowledge and skills as well as self-efficacy
    surveys of personnel. These survey data will be used to determine if
    an increasing percentage of special and regular education teachers
    and early intervention personnel have the knowledge and skills to
    improve educational results for children with disabilities.

Although these performance indicators are new to OSEP, the idea of
supporting personnel preparation activities for educators who work with
students with disabilities is not. Under Part D of IDEA, OSEP currently
administers more than \$83 million in grants to help address
State-identified needs for qualified personnel to work with students
with disabilities. During FY 1997, these funds supported over 600
preservice and inservice training programs for special education,
related services, early intervention, and leadership personnel. Grants
were awarded across 14 priorities to IHEs, SEAs, and other nonprofit
agencies. The personnel preparation priorities address a wide variety of
areas, not just teacher preparation. The 14 priority areas include the
preparation of personnel for careers in special education; preparation
of related services personnel; preparation of personnel to serve
infants, toddlers, and preschoolers; grants for preservice personnel
training; preparation of educational interpreters; leadership personnel;
special projects\--multiple topics; special projects\--national
initiatives; preparation of personnel to serve children with
low-incidence disabilities; preparation of personnel for careers in
special education\--emotional disturbance; early childhood model
inservice training projects; preparation of minority personnel; SEA
programs; and model standards for beginning teachers.

Addressing the priority area of preservice personnel training, for
example, 48 new and 50 continuation grants were awarded to support the
preservice preparation of personnel in three areas: special education
teachers, related services personnel, and early intervention and
preschool personnel. Under this priority, grantees can develop new
programs or improve existing programs that will increase the capacity
and quality of preservice programs in one, two, or all three of these
areas. Prior to FY 1996, these preservice priorities were funded under
separate competitions. Recently funded projects include, for example, a
Northern Illinois University training program for master's level
students who will become elementary teachers for students with emotional
disturbance, an interdisciplinary graduate program at Allegheny
University of the Health Sciences to prepare already licensed physical
therapists and occupational therapists to demonstrate competencies that
promote the full inclusion of students with disabilities in educational
settings, and a project at California State University, Northridge, to
promote the early completion of a new credential program for early
childhood special education teachers who reflect the increasing cultural
and linguistic diversity of the population to prepare them to support
students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

Under a special projects priority that addresses multiple topics, 18 new
and 45 continuation grants were awarded during FY 1997 to support
initiatives designed to develop and demonstrate new approaches for the
preservice and inservice training of personnel for careers in special
education and early intervention; to develop materials and approaches to
prepare personnel; and to develop other projects of national
significance for the preparation of personnel needed to serve infants,
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. One of the projects
funded under this priority is at the University of New Mexico at
Albuquerque, where project staff are developing and evaluating a new
personnel training model for regular educators, special educators,
parents, and related services personnel in the process of
individualizing educational programs for children with autism. The
special project at the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in
Education and Related Services at the City University of New York is
developing, evaluating, and producing competency-based instructional
materials to prepare paraeducators to work with children and youth with
disabilities and other special needs that place them at risk for school
failure. At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a special
projects grant is supporting the identification and organization or
competencies needed by secondary-level teachers and rehabilitation
personnel relevant to planning and delivering transition services for
youth with disabilities. That project will also develop and evaluate a
conceptual model of transition-related competencies and disseminate the
model nationally.

During FY 1997, OSEP also funded two new special projects of national
significance focused on improving the quality of the teacher workforce.
At the University of Kansas in Lawrence, grant funds are being used to
develop an academy linking teacher education to advances in research,
particularly in the areas of improving reading instruction for students
with learning disabilities, the use of technology to enhance educational
results for students with disabilities, and the use of positive
behavioral supports to teach children with disabilities who exhibit
challenging behaviors. The goals of the project are to improve
instruction by infusing research-based interventions into the teacher
education curriculum and making these interventions available to
practicing teachers. A second project funded under this priority is at
the Council for Exceptional Children, where project staff are working
with a national advisory board and other key stakeholders to address
issues in the recruitment and preparation of personnel for teaching
students who have low vision or are blind.

OSEP also awarded a 2-year personnel preparation grant to the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to craft model State licensing
standards for all beginning teachers (both general and special
educators) to better reflect what teachers need to know and be able to
do to teach students with disabilities. This project, coordinated by
INTASC, will simultaneously develop and implement standards for general
and special education teachers that promise to promote complementary
preparation and licensure, clarify distinctions in responsibilities
among general and special educators, and allow States to collectively
agree upon a common policy for licensing general and special education
teachers. Currently, 31 SEAs and independent professional standards
boards are working with CCSSO on this project.

As described in the following historical overview of the personnel
preparation program, these types of activities have been funded for 40
years with relatively minor changes. A subsequent section of this module
discusses major changes to the OSEP-supported professional development
enterprise resulting from the IDEA Amendments of 1997, and some of
OSEP's plans for the future in response to those changes.

## *Historical Overview of OSEP Personnel Preparation*

Federal grant funds for the preparation of personnel to meet the needs
of students with disabilities have been available since 1958 when P.L.
85-926, the Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act, authorized
\$2,500 grants to IHEs for training leadership personnel in the program
area of mental retardation (Kleinhammer-Tramill, Gallagher, & Earley,
1998). By 1970, funding had increased to \$29.7 million to support a
highly categorical professional development program. "Funds for
personnel preparation were earmarked by category, and universities
submitted categorical grants to receive funding. . . ."
(Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 1998, p. 3). Just prior to enactment of
P.L. 94-142 (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) in 1976,
however, personnel preparation funds were awarded as Program Assistance
Grants (PAGs) or "block grants" to special education departments, which
allowed IHEs to develop noncategorical training programs with a great
deal of flexibility.

With the implementation of P.L. 94-142, a mandate to increase available
services to previously unserved and underserved populations resulted in
a need to focus on the preparation of teachers to meet the needs of
specific student populations, such as students with low-incidence
disabilities, students residing in rural areas, or students with
emotional disturbance. Consequently, by 1980, funding streams were again
awarded categorically. These programs provided less flexibility than the
PAGs and encouraged the use of stipend support for students, resulting
in few attempts to address program improvement, administration, or
infrastructure, all of which would enhance the quality of professional
development activities (Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 1998).

This approach to Federal personnel preparation funding was relatively
consistent until 1995, when priorities for the grant program resulted in
a three-component application that combined funds for related services,
early childhood, and training personnel for careers in special education
into a single competition. Grants were intended to support training of
personnel for both low- and high-incidence disabilities. In making this
change, OSEP intended to encourage interprofessional, multidisciplinary
approaches to the education of students with disabilities. As detailed
in the following section, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 made several major
changes to OSEP's support of professional development activities.

## *Changes in Personnel Preparation Programs*

With enactment of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 came both a renewed focus
on and a shift in the approach to OSEP's support of professional
development programs. In amending IDEA, Congress recognized that "an
effective educational system now and in the future must promote
comprehensive programs of professional development to ensure that the
persons responsible for the education or transition of children with
disabilities possess the skills and knowledge necessary to address the
educational and related needs of those children." (§651(a)(6)(F))

The amendments combined the 14 discretionary projects previously
supported under Part D of IDEA, including the personnel preparation
grants to IHEs, into seven authorities under two subparts of Part D,
National Activities to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities.
Support for addressing professional development is now included under
both Subpart 1, State Program Improvement Grants for Children with
Disabilities, and Subpart 2, Coordinated Research, Personnel
Preparation, Technical Assistance, Support and Dissemination of Part D.
One of the major changes is that under Subpart 1, federally supported
personnel training activities that historically have been the domain of
IHEs now include SEAs. A competitive application process for the funds
is based on a State Improvement Plan (SIP) for special education, which
must be included in an application for a State Improvement Grant (SIG).
Awards are based on State population, State need, and available
resources (§655). The types of activities proposed by the State are also
a funding consideration.

SIGs are intended to promote systemic reforms that will improve results
for children with disabilities. They must be based on a four-pronged
needs analysis that considers "those critical aspects of early
intervention, general education, and special education programs
(including professional development, based on an assessment of State and
local needs) that must be improved to enable children with disabilities
to meet the goals established by the State under section 612(a)(16)."
(§653(b)(1)) The SIGs are to be implemented through a partnership that
must include the SEA, LEAs, and other State agencies providing services
to students with disabilities and include a variety of other
stakeholders such as parents of children with disabilities, professional
organizations, and IHEs.

A substantial proportion (50-75 percent) of the SIGs must be used to
support preservice and inservice professional development activities
based on identified needs of States as set forth in the SIP. The
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) also required under
IDEA must be implemented regardless of whether a SIG is awarded. As
required previously, the CSPD is to be designed to ensure an adequate
supply of qualified special education, regular education, related
services, and early intervention personnel; the CSPD can meet the
personnel development requirements of the SIG. In fact, "it may serve as
the framework for the State's personnel development part of a SIG grant
application" (U.S. Department of Education, 1998d).

Since the implementation of these grants with the IDEA Amendments of
1997, States have used SIG funds to:

-   broker changes in IHE preservice and inservice offerings to ensure
    that special education instruction aligns with new State standards
    and educational reform efforts;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   broker changes in IHE preservice and inservice offerings to ensure
    that general and special education teachers learn to modify and
    accommodate instructional practices to meet the needs of all
    students;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   assist IHEs to expand their capacity to produce special education
    teachers and early intervention providers;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   implement career ladders whereby paraprofessionals pursue special
    education teacher certification;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   provide stipends, with payback clauses, on a preservice and
    inservice level to address personnel shortages in LEAs; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   develop training systems based on distance learning principles to
    address personnel shortages.

As noted by Kleinhammer-Tramill et al. (1998), with these changes, there
has been a significant shift in the distribution of funding and locus of
control over professional development activities from IHEs to the
States. Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, Part D, Subpart 2, IHEs are
still eligible to apply for personnel preparation grants similar to
those that have been funded in prior years. Still, significant changes
were made to this discretionary program. Personnel preparation grants to
IHEs are currently authorized to meet the training needs of: (1)
personnel to serve students with low-incidence disabilities, (2)
leadership personnel, and (3) personnel to serve students with
high-incidence disabilities. A fourth type of grant will address
projects of national significance, such as the use of technology to
enhance educational results for students with disabilities or the
establishment of personnel preparation standards. LEAs and other
entities are also eligible to apply for these grants, in addition to
IHEs, which now will be expected, based on OSEP priorities, to become
active partners with other entities in the delivery of professional
development services. In another major change, the IDEA Amendments of
1997 require that students receiving stipend support from a Part D
personnel preparation grant must agree to a 2-year service commitment
for every year for which assistance was received or repay all or part of
the assistance.

## *Future Directions and Prior Results*

The changes to the long-standing personnel preparation program as a
result of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 represent a new understanding of
the importance of how personnel are prepared to work with students with
disabilities and acknowledge the important roles played by entities
other than IHEs to ensure an adequate supply of quality teachers. In
recognition of this shift, OSEP is in the process of expanding its
planning and evaluation functions as they relate to personnel
preparation. OSEP is establishing a comprehensive planning process for
discretionary activities which will use a broad-based group of
stakeholders to develop program agendas, including an agenda for
professional development (Danielson, 1997). OSEP is also in the process
of preparing descriptive historical documentation of its support of
professional development activities which can help it shape that agenda.
Finally, OSEP will fund a study on unmet needs for high-quality
personnel to serve students with disabilities. It will address: (1)
shortages in the number and quality of personnel serving students with
disabilities, (2) variations in patterns of numerical shortages and
quality in the work force, and (3) factors that influence identified
variations.

These planned activities also represent a change in OSEP's approach to
professional development activities. Despite the fact that Federal
special education training grants have been available since 1958 as
discussed above, little information has been collected on the success of
the training programs in meeting the overall goals of increasing the
quantity and quality of the special education workforce. In prior years,
State-reported data on the supply and demand of special education
personnel represented one of the only sources of information on
personnel employed and needed to educate students with disabilities. In
addition, IHEs that received a Part D training grant were also required
to report the number of students "trained" under the grant. Neither data
source provided an indication of the adequacy with which individuals
were prepared or their quality in meeting the needs of students with
disabilities.

Only one recent study has evaluated the success of an OSEP-funded
personnel preparation endeavor. That study evaluated the use of
professional development partnership (PDP) projects awarded to five
sites as a strategy for reform of existing personnel preparation systems
(O'Reilly, 1998). Major findings indicated that the partnerships were
very successful in building personnel capacity and that specific types
of partnerships (i.e., collaborations) showed great promise of systems
change and sustainability of project impacts. Three elements necessary
for successful partnerships were identified, including broad stakeholder
involvement, a respected leader, and shared mission among partnership
participants. The partnerships required under the IDEA Amendments of
1997 for implementation of the SIPs are very similar to the partnerships
established by the five PDP projects.

# Conclusions

The Department of Education has focused considerable effort and
resources on improving the quality of our Nation's teacher workforce.
These efforts are supported and have been encouraged by Congress and by
researchers, policy makers, professional organizations, foundations,
parents, students, and community members in recognition that better
results for students depend on a better prepared teacher workforce.
During public meetings leading up to reauthorization of IDEA, personnel
development was a consistent high-priority concern of special education
stakeholders. OSEP has been involved in promoting professional
development of personnel who work with students with disabilities for
the past four decades. In the future, OSEP will continue to support such
activities with a slightly different focus that will result in greater
involvement of States and local communities in professional development
endeavors. This shift has resulted in part from the research-based
knowledge that has developed from the Federal government's substantial
investment into research on teachers and teaching (National Center for
the Study of Teaching and Policy, 1998) that indicates the critical role
of classroom practice in improving student achievement and in part from
recognition that IHEs were not always meeting State's personnel needs.

The ability of the Department of Education and OSEP to meet their
objectives of a highly trained teacher workforce for our schools will be
seriously challenged by a number of conditions. First, an anticipated
need to hire more than 2 million teachers over the next decade due to
increasing retirements of an aging workforce and a concomitant
enrollment surge will require a focus on policies that increase both the
quality and *quantity* of classroom recruits (National Commission on
Teaching & America's Future, 1997). Other challenges include an
increasing diversity of the student population that is not reflected in
the teacher workforce, a robust economy that attracts talented
individuals into higher paying employment sectors, an increased emphasis
on the use of technology in the provision of educational services, and
high-stakes accountability systems which are placing heavier demands on
teachers.

With most students with disabilities spending the majority of their
school day in a regular classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 1997),
issues of ensuring a quality workforce to meet the needs of students
with disabilities are compounded. Despite recent efforts to increase the
quality of the teacher workforce, general educators receive little or no
preparation in addressing the needs of students with disabilities.
OSEP-supported professional development activities are the only
federally funded activities that specifically acknowledge this need and
encourage grantees to address it.

As reflected in the Department of Education's strategies for developing
a highly trained workforce, addressing these challenges will require
changes in all stages of personnel preparation, including recruitment,
preservice and inservice training, and induction of new teachers into
schools. These challenges and the radical shifts in the support of
professional development activities resulting from the IDEA Amendments
of 1997 suggest that it will be more important than ever to evaluate the
effectiveness and impact of Federal efforts to address professional
development needs over the next few years.

# References

Association of Teacher Educators. (1991). *Restructuring the education
of teachers*. *Report of the Commission on the Education of Teachers
into the 21st Century*. Reston, VA: Author.

Boe, E.E., Cook, L.H., Bobbitt, S.A., & Terhanian, G. (1998). The
shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education.
*Teacher Education and Special Education*, *21,* 1-21.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). *A nation prepared:
Teachers for the 21st century*. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Cohen, C.K., McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.T. (Eds.). (1993). *Teaching
for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice*. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Danielson, L. (July 2, 1997). *Letter to colleagues on discretionary
programs of IDEA*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education Programs.

Dozier, T. (1997). *Statement by Terry Dozier, Special Advisor to the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education before the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education,
Training, and Lifelong Learning*. Washington, DC: Author.

Elmore, R.F., Peterson, P.L., & McCarthey, S.J. (1996). *Restructuring
in the classroom: Teaching, learning & school organization.* San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass*.*

Ferguson, R., & Ladd, H.F. (1996). How and why money matters: An
analysis of Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), *Holding schools
accountable* (pp. 265-298*).* Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

Goodlad, J. (1994). *Educational renewal: Better teachers, better
schools*. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hawley, W. (1988). Missing pieces of the educational reform agenda: Or,
why the first and second waves may miss the boat. *Educational
Administration Quarterly, 24,* 416-437.

Kleinhammer-Tramill, P.J., Gallagher, K.S., & Earley, P. (1998).
*Changes in part D of IDEA: An initial analysis of benchmark policy
changes and their relationships to the 1997 reauthorization*.
Unpublished manuscript.

National Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. (1998). *Federal
research investment and the improvement of teaching, 1980-1997.*
University of Washington: Author.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future (1997). *Doing what
matters most: Investing in quality teaching*. New York: Author.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). *What
matters most: Teaching for America's future.* New York: Author.

O'Reilly, F. (1998). *Working together: Partnerships and collaborations
for systems change. An evaluation of professional development
partnerships*. Prepared for the Academy of Educational Development,
Washington, DC.

Pugach, M.C., Barnes, H.L., & Beckum, L.C. (1991). *Changing the
practice of teacher education: The role of the knowledge base*.
Washington, DC: Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998a). *FY 1999 annual plan, volume 2*.
Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998b). *Goals 2000: Reforming education
to improve student achievement*. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
(1998c). Data Analysis System. \[Integrated software system\].
Rockville, MD: Westat.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
(1998d). *OSEP memorandum 98-4: Guidance related to state program
improvement grants to improve education for children with disabilities*.
Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). *The seven priorities of the U.S.
Department of Education*. Washington, DC: Author.

[^1]: Although the contents of this module are relevant to both parents
    and legal guardians of children with disabilities, for the sake of
    brevity we will use the term "parents" throughout the module.

[^2]: The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future is a
    bipartisan blue-ribbon panel of 26 public officials, business and
    community leaders, and educators. The commission was formed in 1994
    to develop an agenda for improving the quality of America's
    teachers. It was funded originally through foundation grants, and it
    continues to be supported by a variety of foundations. More
    recently, OERI has supported some of the efforts of the commission.