A University-School District Collaborative Project for Preparing Paraprofessionals to Become Special Educators

Epanchin, Betty; Wooley-Brown, Cathy

doi:10.1177/088840649301600203

Cited by 10 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the most sophisticated instances of collaboration, entire school faculties, and sometimes school district personnel, collaborated around the following activities: (a) planning the teacher education program, (b) identifying quality placements for teacher education students, (c) selecting students for the program, (d) mentoring students, (e) evaluating their progress in the classroom, (f) co-teaching courses in the teacher education program, and (g) participating in training to become a mentor teacher (e.g., Affleck & Lowenbraum, 1995;Emond, 1995;King-Sears, et al, 1992;May, et al, 1989;Hall, Reed, & McSwine, 1997). Clear examples of programs that demonstrate most of these features can be found at the University of South Florida (Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993) and at Johns Hopkins University (King-Sears, et al, 1992).…”

Section: Frequently Described Program Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approximately 40% of the teacher education programs descriptions indicated that faculty maintained more constructivist views of learning to teach (Affleck & Lowenbraum, 1995;Anderson & Baker, 1999;Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993;Hall, et al, 1997). Instead of teaching students to apply research-based methods and interventions, these programs employed a variety of pedagogical techniques to help teachers consider their beliefs about teaching and learning as well as the diverse needs of their students when planning for and evaluating instruction.…”

Section: Maintaining a Positivist Or Constructivist Orientation Towarmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exemplary programs in teacher education also placed heavy emphasis on subject matter pedagogy and its interface with educational theory and field experiences; special education programs tended to focus on more generic pedagogy (e.g., instructional methods, assessment, individualized education plans, collaboration). Only in the case of unified programs (e.g., see Affleck & Lowenbraum, 1995;Meyer, Mager, Yarger-Kane, Sarno, & Hext-Contreras, 1997;Norlander, Case, Reagan, Campbell, & Strauch, 1997;Ryan, et al, 1997) and a few special education programs (Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993;Giovani, Zide, & Banahoan, 1974;Lovingfoss, et al, 2001) did faculty focus on the integration of subject matter pedagogy with special education and classroom practice. Many of the programs accomplished this integration by infusing special education competencies into subject-specific pedagogical course work or teaching courses in integrated blocks.…”

Section: Commonalities and Differences Between The Two Literature Basesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These programs were preceded by one or two practicum experiences that lasted for a semester and involved considerable time in the classroom. Preservice programs with the most intense field components (e.g., Bay & LopezReyna, 1997;Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993;Keefe, Rossi, Valenzuela, & Howarth, 2000;Lovingfoss, Molloy, Harris, & Graham, 2001) required early field experiences, one or two practicum experiences, and a semester-or year-long student teaching placement. Programs with such extensive field experiences recognized the developmental nature of teaching.…”

Section: Frequently Described Program Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other programs attended to integration across courses by teaching courses in integrated blocks, weekly seminars, or both. Many programs used case-based approaches, portfolios, and weekly seminars to help students to reflect on what they were learning across courses and to discuss how they were applying knowledge and strategies in schools (Affleck & Lowenbraum, 1995;Bay & Lopez-Reyna, 1997;Burstein & Sears, 1998;Emond, 1995;Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993;Lovingfoss, et al, 2001;May, et al, 1989;Otis-Wilburn & Winn, 2000;Sobel, French, & Filbin, 1998). Interestingly, this integrative approach to fieldwork and course work often characterized programs focusing on cultural diversity or unification with general education.…”

Section: Frequently Described Program Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy and program decisions involve choices among different ways of preparing teachers. These choices are shrouded in increasingly contentious debates as teacher shortages reach crisis proportions. Yet, research on special education teacher education is almost nonexistent. Findings from comparative research documenting the characteristics of effective teacher education programs can inform these choices, but these findings should be grounded in what we know from previous research in general teacher education. To assist educators, we have analyzed literature in general and special teacher education toward two ends. First, we present a framework, derived from work in general education, for analyzing teacher education programs. Second, we use this framework to analyze practice in teacher education in special education. Specifically, we conducted an exhaustive review of special education program descriptions and evaluations. We conclude by describing steps necessary to improve the special education teacher education research base.

show abstract

Section: Frequently Described Program Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Maintaining a Positivist Or Constructivist Orientation Towarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Commonalities and Differences Between The Two Literature Basesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frequently Described Program Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frequently Described Program Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Taking the LEAP: a district-university partnership to address shortages in special education

Hedin,

Gerzel-Short,

Liberty

et al. 2024

PDSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeDistrict-university partners increasingly rely on “grow-your-own” licensure programs to address teacher shortages. Because vacancies in special education represent a chronic issue, our district-university partnership developed LEAP – the Licensed Educators’ Accelerated Pathway, successfully preparing 26 paraprofessionals as special education teachers (SEs). We describe a model university-district partnership in which we collaborated to design and implement paraprofessionals’ SE licensure program.Design/methodology/approachIn this general review, we describe a district-university partnership collaboration that resolved barriers experienced by paraprofessionals working toward licensure in special education (Essential #4, Reflection and Innovation). The specialized design and partnership solutions were grounded in SE preparation research literature.Findings25 (28 entered the program and 25 completed) paraprofessionals from one large urban and several regional districts completed special education licensure through LEAP. Slightly more than half of LEAP participants were Black or Hispanic (see Table 1), contributing to the diversification of SE workforce. University-district partnership was successful in designing and delivering a program that allowed participants: a) to remain employed, b) attend evening classes in their geographic region or online, c) complete all field experiences in sponsoring districts (Essential #2) and d) receive concierge advising from a “completion coach.” We describe solutions to barriers experienced by paraprofessionals and advocate for district-university collaboration to address chronic teacher shortages.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations include lack of data on success of program completers during their first year of teaching as they began this work in Fall 2023. Further, because the participating district was large and urban, generalization of program details for small and rural districts is difficult.Practical implicationsPractical tips for developing grow-your-own special education licensure programs are providing. Detailed descriptions of barriers candidates experienced and ways the district-university partners resolved these issues are included. Programs like the one described has the potential to positively impact teacher pipeline issues.Social implicationsThe program described provided highly-trained teachers to fill chronic vacancies in special education in three participating districts/agencies. Because students receiving special education services are at risk for school failure and are disproportionately impacted by teacher turnover, addressing this area through grow-your-own licensure programs represents a diversity, equity and inclusion initiative. Further, upskilling diverse paraprofessionals to licensed teacher roles represent an economic boost, which they might not otherwise have achieved.Originality/valueAvailable research literature signals alarm over persistent teacher shortages in hard-to-staff districts and lack of diversity in the teacher workforce, but few published accounts describe successful programs. Partner collaboration fostered a re-imagining of course formatting and delivery to accommodate adult learners, avoiding problems often reported with alternative programs.

show abstract

The Proliferation of Alternative Routes to Certification in Special Education

Rosenberg

Sindelar

2005

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we review research on alternative routes to certification (ARC) in special education. First, ARC is defined, and the confluence of factors that has hastened its growth and popularity, particularly in specialized, high-need areas such as special education, is discussed. Second, available research in the area of ARC in special education is summarized, with particular attention to the efficacy of the various approaches and programs and to the process and outcome variables used to assess program impact. Third, programmatic features associated with successful ARC programs are described, and what remains unknown about ARC programs is discussed. We conclude with a series of recommendations for policymakers and teacher educators.

show abstract

A University-School District Collaborative Project for Preparing Paraprofessionals to Become Special Educators

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation

Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation

Taking the LEAP: a district-university partnership to address shortages in special education

The Proliferation of Alternative Routes to Certification in Special Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About