Changing Paradigms: A New Teacher Education Model for Rural Hawaii

Abstract

The Hawaii Department of Education anticipates a need for approximately 400 new special education teachers in each of the next three years. This critical need for special education teachers is compounded by an approximate 50% attrition rate every two-year period. Furthermore, individuals who are not certified special education teachers and are working under emergency credentials occupy over 50% of the special education teaching positions. Recently passed state legislation suggests that they may not be eligible for rehire. The Hawaii Department of Education, in an effort to address their shortage of public school teachers, a shortage particularly acute in rural areas, invited Gonzaga University to design a masters level preservice teacher preparation program to be delivered in on the Island of Oahu. The innovative special education teacher preparation program described in this article is based on Gonzaga University's campus based Masters of Initial Teaching program. Components of the modified initial certification program delivered in Hawaii are described, including adjustments to the fieldwork requirements. An overwhelming majority of the participants indicated a desire to continue teaching in the rural Wai'anae community on the island of Oahu.

Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs: Examination Through a Marketing Lens

“…Only two programs had been designed to be completed in less than 2 years (Esposito & Lal, 2005; Snell, Martin, & Orelove, 1997) and neither targeted rural areas. Five programs had been designed to take 2 years to complete (Bargerhuff et al, 2007; Cegelka & Alvarado, 2000; Jameson & Mcdonnell, 2007; Larwood, 2005; McLaren & Rutland, 2013), whereas six programs were to be completed in more than 2 years (Andrews, Miller, Evans, & Smith, 2003; Childre, 2014; Jordan et al, 1999; Knapczyk, Chapman, Rodes, & Chung, 2001; Lemke & Harrison, 2000; Rooks-Ellis, 2017). Most programs used a cohort model ( n = 12, 71%) and held courses outside of the typical school day.…”

“…Most ATP programs had been developed to specifically target licensure categories of disability or level ( n = 12, 71%). Remaining articles did not specify a specific licensure or category of disability (Cegelka & Alvarado, 2000; Esposito & Lal, 2005; Lemke & Harrison, 2000; Salend et al, 2003; White, 2004). Nine programs targeted disability category(s) with five targeting high-incidence disabilities (Andrews et al, 2003; Bargerhuff et al, 2007; Jensen, Churchill, & Davis, 2001; Jordan et al, 1999; Kurtts, Cooper, & Boyles, 2007), three targeting low-incidence disabilities (Jameson & Mcdonnell, 2007; Larwood, 2005; Snell et al, 1997), and one targeting both high- and low-incidence disabilities (Knapczyk et al, 2001).…”

“…Most programs were developed for rural communities ( n = 10, 59%) as only two were developed specifically for urban communities (Andrews et al, 2003; Esposito & Lal, 2005). Almost half of the ATP programs delivered the program face-to-face, whether on campus or at alternate sites (Andrews et al, 2003; Cegelka & Alvarado, 2000; Esposito & Lal, 2005; Kurtts et al, 2007; J. Lemke & Harrison, 2000; Salend et al, 2003; Snell et al, 1997; White, 2004).…”

“…Processes include supports in navigating prospects from inquiry through graduation. A total of 10 programs (59%) had specific personnel to support prospects and teacher candidates (Andrews et al, 2003; Childre, 2014; Esposito & Lal, 2005; Jensen et al, 2001; Jordan et al, 1999; Kurtts et al, 2007; Larwood, 2005; Lemke & Harrison, 2000; Salend et al, 2003; White, 2004). Only six ATP programs (35%) provided specific course sequences to help prospects understand expectations based on courseload and timeline (Andrews et al, 2003; Childre, 2014; Jameson & Mcdonnell, 2007; Knapczyk et al, 2001; McLaren & Rutland, 2013; Salend et al, 2003).…”

“…Instead, these programs included a partnership between the primary institution and either branch campuses or community colleges. Three programs built a partnership with a specific local 2000 school for developing the ATP program (Esposito & Lal, 2005;Jensen et al, 2001;Lemke & Harrison, 2000). In addition to utilization of partnerships with other institutions, agencies, or schools, programs described the importance of specific personnel involved in program delivery.…”