Personnel Preparation in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education: An Overview of...

Personnel Preparation in Early Intervention and Early

Childhood Special Education: An Overview of Credentialing,

Training and Technical Assistance, and Provider

PerspectivesMary Beth Bruder, Ph.D.

University of Connecticut

Vicki Stayton, Ph.D.Western Kentucky UniversityCristina Mogro-Wilson, Ph.D.

University of ConnecticutBarbara J. Smith, Ph.D.

University of Colorado at DenverSylvia Dietrich, Ph.D.

Western Kentucky University

.

Information gathered will be utilized to identify critical gaps in current knowledge and design and conduct a program of research at the national, state, institutional and direct provider level to address these gaps. This program of research and policy formulation will yield information vital to developing policies and practices at all levels of government, including institutions of higher education.

The Center to Inform Personnel Preparation and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education

A five-year project established in January, 2003 and funded by the Office of Special Education Programs.

The Center’s Goals

To compile a comprehensive database of current licensure and certification standards for all EI/ECSE personnel.

To develop a comprehensive profile of current training programs for all types of personnel at the institutional, state, and national levels.

To describe the current and projected supply and demand for personnel.

To design and conduct a program of research to identify critical gaps in current knowledge regarding personnel preparation.

To develop and disseminate recommendations regarding personnel preparation policy and practice based on research findings.

The Center’s Purpose

The purpose of this Center is to collect, synthesize and analyze information related to: certification and licensure requirements for personnel working with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who have special needs and their families, the quality of training programs that prepare these professionals, and the supply and demand of professionals representing all disciplines who provide both ECSE and EI services.

The Center’s Projects Study I: The National Landscape of Early Intervention and Early

Childhood Special Education

Study II: The Higher Education Survey for Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Personnel Preparation

Study III: The Analysis of Federally Funded Doctoral Programs in Early Childhood Special Education

Study IV: The Impact of Credentials on Early Intervention Personnel Preparation (Credentialing Part C)

Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619)

Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators

Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers

Three Research Strands

Research Strand I: Preservice/ Higher Education

Research Strand II: Personnel Standards

Research Strand III: Inservice/ Ongoing Training

Research Strand I: Preservice/Higher EducationStatus Study II: Higher Education Profile

Study III: Doctoral Programs ProfileStudy IV: ECSE Programs

Child/Family Outcomes

Student Outcomes for ECSE Programs and Subsequent Practice OutcomesCollaborative Doctoral Program

Research Strand II:Personnel StandardsStatus Study I: Part C & 619 Profile

Study IV: Part C CredentialsStudy V: 619 ECSE Certification Requirements


Part C Credential/Outcomes

Research Strand III:Inservice/ Ongoing TrainingStatus Study VI: Profile of State Technical

Assistance and Training NetworksStudy VII: National Study of Competence and Confidence


Comparisons of Professional Development Models

Overview of Today’s Presentation Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance

Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators

Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers

Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619)

Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators

Background: Study VITraining and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C &

619 Coordinators

The status of state-level training and technical assistance (TA) systems for early intervention/early childhood providers has not been systematically collected or organized.

The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the current personnel preparation systems for EI/ECSE professionals in each state. Systems that provide and maintain effective and comprehensive personnel preparation and development will serve as models for national standards.

Methodology Part C and 619 coordinators were contacted to

complete the survey via phone with trained interviewers.

Survey consists of 31 discrete and open-ended questions about funding, delivery methods, content, needs assessment, quality assurance, and other areas pertaining to training and TA.

Target sample was all 50 states, D.C., Virgin Islands & Puerto Rico

Part C (n=51)

619 (n=45)

Definition of a Training System A systematic, sustainable approach to professional

development that has:1. dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-

item; 2. staffing; 3. a dedicated agency that is responsible for the

provision of the training; 4. policies or procedures for determining professional

development expectations;5. has training content; 6. quality assurance; 7. identifies and measures outcomes; 8. provides on-going, needs based professional

development that is provided over-time; 9. a structure for the delivery of content (training

modules, etc.), and 10. has work-place applicability.

Definition of Technical AssistanceA system of technical assistance include all components as applied to

TA: 1. dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-item; 2. staffing; 3. a dedicated agency that is responsible for the provision of the TA; 4. policies or procedures for determining professional development

expectations; 5. has TA content; 6. quality assurance; 7. identifies and measures outcomes; 8. has work-place applicability; 9. provides ongoing TA; and 10. individualized professional development and problem-solving

services to assist individuals, programs, and agencies in improving their services, management, policies, and/or outcomes.

Training and Technical Assistance by State: Part C When asked, 39 states reported having a training

system Based on the definition of training applied by

research staff to survey answers:20 states (39%) had a training system

When asked, 43 states reported having a technical assistance system

Based on the definition of technical assistance applied by research staff to survey answers:

12 states (23%) had a technical assistance system

Part C: States with No Training System

31 states did not have a training system based on the definition

23 states did not have quality assurance measures

21 states did not identify and measure outcomes of the training

8 did not have policies to identify professional development needs

Part C: States with No TA System 39 states did not have a technical assistance

system based on the definition

30 states did not have procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes

23 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance systems

Training and Technical Assistance by State: Section 619 When asked 35 reported having a training system

Based on the training system definition applied by research staff to survey questions

23 states (58%) had a training system

When asked, 23 reported having a technical assistance system

Based on the technical assistance system definition applied by research staff to survey questions20 states (42%) had a technical assistance system

Section 619: States with No Training System 22 states did not have a training system

based on the definition

13 states did not meet the qualifications of a training system because they did not have methods of identifying and measuring outcomes

11 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their training systems

7 states did not provide trainings overtime

Section 619: States with No TA System 25 states did not have a technical

assistance system based on the definition

17 of the states did not meet the qualifications of a system because they lacked procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes.

17 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance system

12 states lacked policies to identify technical assistance needs within their technical assistance system.

Conclusions Findings indicate the organizational structures within

states vary greatly. Systems tend to be accessible throughout the states

and target multiple disciplines. The most commonly offered training topics include

Federal Regulations and agency-specific policies and procedures, transition, inclusion, child and family outcome measurements, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.

The majority of training is provided through workshops and conferences; however, a growing number of states are using or developing distance learning methods.

Determining training/TA needs, evaluation, and quality assurance pose challenges for states.

Results indicate that there is a need for greater systemization of these processes.

Study VII: Competence & Confidence of Early Interventionist/Early

Childhood Special Educators

Background The purpose of this study was to conduct

research on the level of confidence and competence of personnel working with infants and toddlers with special needs and their families.

Methodology State coordinators of service providers were contacted and asked

to forward the link to the online survey to service providers working with children ages birth to 5 with disabilities. Approximately 27,700 e-mails were sent to direct providers A total of 1,819 individuals completed the survey Providers working with children birth to three: 1,084 in 44

states Providers working with children three to five: 735 in 38

states The survey consists of 47 questions to assess the competence and

confidence of service providers in the following areas: Family-Centered Practice Assessment and Evaluation IFSP Indicators Instructional Practice Natural Learning Environmental Collaboration and Teaming Early Literacy Learning

Factor Analysis A preliminary exploration of the Competence and

Confidence survey was performed using the principal component analysis (PCA) procedure. All survey items were considered, with the exception of

those related to early language and literacy. Four principal component analyses were run on six

items each. Three of the four scales produced single factor

solutions: competence and confidence regarding process items and competence regarding intervention items.

A single factor second order solution representing confidence regarding intervention items was produced.

Each of the four scales had good internal consistency, with Carmines Theta ranging from 0.6266 to 0.7952

Survey Participant CharacteristicsProviders Birth to Three Sample Size: n = 1,084 Demographics:

female (98%) white (93%) Age:

14% < 30 yrs. 26% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 30% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 31% > 51 yrs

Educational Attainment: BA 33% High School or AA 1% MA 63% PhD 3%

Providers Three to Five Sample Size: n = 735 Demographics:

female (97%) white (94%) Age:

13% < 30 yrs. 25% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 28% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 33% > 51 yrs

Educational Attainment: High School or AA 1% BA 26% MA 70% PhD 3%

Survey Participant Characteristics Most practitioners (80%) report not getting

the training they need to work with children with disabilities through higher education programs.

Only 50% of respondents report being required by their state to complete specialized training to work with children above and beyond their professional licensure/certification requirements.

Method of Training

67%

63%

56%

49%

26%

26%

15%

7%

6%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

conferences

full day workshops

lectures/presentations

half-day workshops

courses

mentoring/coaching

web-based learning

clinical supervision

DVDs/Videos

readings

collaboration/training

Percent of Respondents

Survey Participant Characteristics

Type of licensure or certification Providers birth to three: Education 53%, therapy 40%, and other 22% Providers three to five: Education 84%, therapy 22%, and other 8%

13%

22%18%23% 24%

14%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Special Ed ECE SLP ECSE

Part C

Part B/ 619

Overview: Providers Birth to Five

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Family Centered

Assessment & Eval.

IFSP/ IEP

Instructional Practices

Natural Learning Eniv.

Collaboration & Teaming

Early Literacy

Confident

Competent

Family-Centered PracticeQuestion 0-3 3-

5I am able to get the families I work with to obtain supports and resources on their own

8 8

Families recognize and use their strengths to improve child outcomes because of how I work with them

25 16

Getting families to talk to me about what is important for them to accomplish comes easy to me

55 57

I am pretty sure that the families I work with will become more empowered because of my work with them

55 39

% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

Assessment & Evaluation Question 0-3 3-

5I am able to “hit the mark” every time in terms of identifying children’s strengths and needs

40 44

I am especially proficient at helping parents identify their children’s and families’ needs and concerns

42 49

I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning

62 59

I feel sure that my assessments of children’s capabilities are accurate

62 64% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

IFSP/IEPQuestion 0-3 3-

5The children with whom I work achieve the majority of their IFSP outcomes in six months or less

12 31

I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves

33 16

Writing IFSP outcomes that are functional and meaningful child behavior is a breeze

27 26

It is easy for me to know which child and parent IFSP outcomes are most important to the families I work with

53 45

% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

Instructional PracticesQuestion 0-3 3-

5Because of my efforts, parents and other caregivers are better able to use responsive instructional practices with their children

25 20

My efforts getting parents and other caregivers to promote child engagement with people and objects are very successful

28 45

It is easy for me to get parents and other caregivers to use prompting and prompt fading procedures with their children

15 58

It makes me feel good when I see parents using child-initiated and child-directed learning activities


Natural Learning EnvironmentsQuestion 0-3 3-

5I am able to get parents I work with to use everyday family and community activities as sources of child learning opportunities

25 36

I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning

31 24

I find parents’ use of natural child learning opportunities that we identified together professionally rewarding

66 56

I feel that the children I work with benefit a great deal from everyday informal learning opportunities


Collaboration & TeamingQuestion 0-3 3-

5I am able to successfully implement interdisciplinary interventions taught to me by professionals from other disciplines

49 53

Jointly planning and implementing interventions with other professionals insures that the children I work with get the right kind of practices

68 72

Helping other team members do what I do best (role release) makes me feel good about the interventions children and families receive

58 71

I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves


Early Literacy LearningQuestion 0-3 3-

5I make sure I help parents and other caregivers understand and use emergent literacy learning activities with their children

41 40

I am able to get parents to understand why parent/child sound and word games are important for children’s early literacy learning

26 22

I am pretty good at helping parents provide their children early literacy learning experiences

49 50

Including pre-reading and pre-writing outcomes on children’s IFSP/IEPs comes natural to me


Conclusions A more comprehensive training model

for personnel working with young children with disabilities

Using training methods that we know work for adult learners

Despite reported training needs, practitioners show many areas of strength in supporting children with disabilities and their families:

Family-Centered Practices Assessment & Evaluation Collaboration & Teaming Instructional Practices

Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators

State Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators

Research Questions1. What are the certification requirements

for Early childhood Special Educators?2. What factors influence the type of

certification that is developed?3. How is the content of certification

developed?4. What are the facilitators and barriers to

developing and implementing certification?

5. How do state’s certification requirements compare to national personnel standards?

Certification Definitions Certification – the set of regulated

requirements that lead to initial preparation in ECSE

Endorsement – the set of regulated requirements that are in addition to the requirements for a specific certification (e.g., ECE, SPE)

Blended ECE and ECSE – the set of regulated requirements that lead to initial preparation in both ECE and ECSE through a single certification

Methodology

Web searches Telephone interviews

Sample

Part B 619 coordinators 50 states District of Columbia

Response rate- Telephone interviews (n=37, 73%)- Certification tables (n=38, 75%)

State’s ParticipatingArizona Indiana Montana Tennessee

Arkansas Iowa Nebraska Vermont

California

Kentucky Nevada Virginia

Colorado Louisiana New Hampshire

Washington

Connecticut

Maine New Jersey West Virginia

Delaware

Maryland New York Wisconsin

Florida Massachusetts

North Dakota

Wyoming

Georgia Michigan Ohio

Hawaii Minnesota Oklahoma Idaho – table only

Illinois Mississippi

Oregon

Certification Models – States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%)

Certification Model n %

ECSE 13 50

ECSE endorsement 6 23

Blended ECE & ECSE 3 12

Special education 2 8

ECSE & Special Education Endorsement

1 4

ECE & Special Education Endorsement

1 4

Age Ranges – States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%)

Age Range n %

Birth – 5 years 8 30


3-5 years 4 15


Birth – grade 2 1 4

3-20 years 1 4



3 years – Grade 2 1 4



Content Requirements– States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%)

Content Requirements n %

Standards or Competencies

20 77

Course-Driven 3 11.5

None identified 3 11.5

Certification Models – States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=12, 32%)


Blended ECE & ECSE – 2 age ranges 2 17

ECSE; ECSE endorsement 2 17

Blended ECE & ECSE; 2 ECSE endorsements

1 8

Blended ECE & ECSE 2 age ranges; ECSE endorsement

1 8

ECSE; ECE 1 8

Certification Models – States with Multiple Certification Routes (Cont.)


ECSE, ECSE endorsement; Special Education

1 8

ECSE – 3 age ranges; ECSE endorsement - 2 age ranges; Special Education

1 8

ECSE; Special Education 1 8

Special Education-Severe/Profound; Special Education–Mild/Moderate

1 8

Age Ranges – States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=9 age ranges) Age Range n %

Birth – 5 years 8 893 - 8 years (grade 3) 5 56Birth – 8 years (grade 3) 5 56

P-grade 12 4 44

3 - 5 years 3 33



3 years – grade 5 1 11

5 – 21 years 1 11

Content Requirements– States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=12, 32%)

Content Requirement n %

Standards or Competencies 9 75

Standards or Competencies for 1 Model, None for 2 Models

1 8.3

Standards or Competencies for 4 Models, None for 2 Models

1 8.3

None Identified 1 8.3

Requirements for Induction to the Field (n=25, 66%)

Induction Requirements n %Mentorship - One year 12 32Mentorship – Two years 4 11

Mentorship – Three years 2 5

Mentorship – Years not specified 1 3

Mentorship–1 Yr, Courses, Seminars 1 3Mentorship and PD Plan 1 3

Mentorship, PD Plan, Portfolio 1 3

Individualized with LEA and IHE 1 3Pass state performance assessment 1 3None specified 1 3

Alternative Routes to Certification (n=20, 53%)

Coursework in a specified timeframe Collaborative program with IHE/LEA Coursework and supervised teaching Portfolio review PD plan with oral and written exams Certification exam 90 clock hours of training, one year

internship, relevant PRAXIS II

Certification Requirements and University Programs – Degree Level

Degree Level n %

Baccalaureate 35 92

Baccalaureate or Post-Baccalaureate (endorsements)

8 21

Post-Baccalaureate 4 11

Certification Requirements and University Programs – Admission Requirements (n=38)

Admission Requirement

n %

PRAXIS I exam 18 47None specified 8 21IHE determined 7 18State developed exam 5 13

Certification Requirements and University Programs – Certification Exams (n=27, 71%)

Certification Exam n %

PRAXIS II 17 45

State developed 9 24

PRAXIS II and state developed

1 3

Certification Requirements and University Programs – Accountability (n=38)

Accountability System/Process n %

State review and accreditation 15 39

National accreditation – NCATE 3 8

National and state accreditation 2 5

National or state accreditation 1 3

Informal meetings to discuss 2 5

Don’t know 4 11

No response 11 29

PRAXIS II Exams Required by States (17 states)

PRAXIS II Exam n *%

Special Education: Preschool/Early Childhood 5 29Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge 6 35Special Education: Knowledge-Based Core Principles 1 6Special Education: Application of Core Principles Across Categories of Disability (Exceptional Children 1-8)

2 12

Exceptional Needs: Mild Intervention 1 6Education of Young Children 3 18Early Childhood Education 2 12Elementary Education: Content Knowledge 3 18Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 2 12Reading Across the Curriculum: Elementary 1 6Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6 2 12

Rationale for ECSE Certification - Themes

National and state policies Changes or trends in the field Depth of content knowledge and

skills for adequate preparation

Rationale for ECSE Endorsement - Themes

Legislative mandates

Political climate in the state

Rationale for Blended ECE and ECSE Certification - Themes Inclusion/least restrictive

environment

Collaboration

Professionalism

Rationale for Special Education Certification - Theme

Supply and demand- Rural states- Primarily itinerant model of services- Maintaining the status quo

Rationale for Two Endorsements (ECSE or ECE and Special Education)- Themes

Inclusion

Adequate preparation to teach

preschool

Rationale for Multiple Models of Certification - Theme

Flexibility in staffing within

community programs

Certification Development Process - Themes

Committees with representation from relevant stakeholder groups

Statewide input into the proposal Articulation between 2 & 4 year

IHEs Too long ago to “remember”

Development of Certification Content - Themes Review of professional standards

and recommended practices of professional organizations

Review of other states’ standards Review of other certification &

regulations specific to ECE programs

Review of research and literature

Certification Development: Facilitators and Supports - Themes Financial support

Legislative mandates

Systemic supports

Demand from the field

Higher education support

Certification Development: Barriers - Themes

Systemic barriers

Philosophical barriers

Supply and demand

Programmatic concerns

Certification Implementation: Facilitators and Supports - Themes

Financial supports

Systemic supports

Professionalization of the field

Certification Implementation: Barriers - Themes Systemic barriers

Programmatic barriers

IHE related barriers

Comparison of State Standards with National Standards

Conducted policy analysis of states’ standards Sample: 17 states that represent all 5

certification models Inter rater reliability: 3 senior investigators

compared 3 state policies to national standards with inter rater reliability of .64 (range .53-.70)

Method: 1 senior investigator compared States’ certification standards to CEC (common core and early childhood special education) and NAEYC standards

Comparison of State Standards with National Standards – Issues

Limited use of national standards (4 out of 18 sets of standards met 80% or better)

Lack of specificity in wording – open to interpretation of reader

Inconsistency in depth of wording specific to ECE and ECSE

Identification of and access to the necessary documents

Potential for inconsistent application of national (e.g. CEC, DEC, NAEYC, NCATE) standards in IHE program

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State#1

State#2

State#3

State#4

State#5

State#6

State#7

State#8

State#9

State#10

State#11

State#12a

State#13

State#12b

State#14

State#15

State#16

State#17

Percentage of CEC Standards Met by State

(Coded 1-17)

Percent of CEC Standards Met by Each State

(Arranged by Certification Model)

Blended ECSE and EC

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State #10 State #12a State #13 State #12b State #15

States (Coded)

Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State #2 State #5 State #6 State #9

States (Coded)

ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg Ed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State #1 State #3 State #4

States (Coded)

ECSE Endorsement on SPED

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


States (Coded)

Special Education (SPED)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


States (Coded)

ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg Ed Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE)

Special Education (SPED)

Blended ECSE and EC ECSE Endorsement on SPED

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sta

te #

1

State

#2

State

#3

State

#4

State

#5

State

#7

State

#6

State

#8

State

#9

State

#11

State

#12

a

State

#14

State

#12

b

State

#13

State

#10

State

#15

State

#16

State

#17

Percentage of CC Standards Met

Percentage of EC Standards Met

Percentage of CEC Common Core and Early Childhood Standards Met by Each State

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State #1 State #10 State #13 State #12a State #12b State #15

Percentage of NAEYC Standards Met by States (Coded)Percentage of NAEYC Standards Met by States

(Coded)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State #1

Blended

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State #10 State #13 State #12a State #12b State #15

States (Coded)

Percent of NAEYC Standards Met by Each State (Arranged by Certification Model)


Blended

More Information

http://www.uconnucedd.org/

http://www.uconnucedd.org/per_prep_center/publications.html

Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service

University of Connecticut Health Center263 Farmington Ave, MC-6222

Farmington, CT 06030(860) 679-1500

Contact Information Mary Beth Bruder

[email protected]

Vicki [email protected]

Cristina [email protected]

Barbara [email protected]

Sylvia [email protected]

Personnel Preparation in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education: An Overview of...

Documents

Transcript of Personnel Preparation in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education: An Overview of...