In the face of acute personnel shortages, large numbers of beginning special education teachers are abandoning their chosen careers. Under the best of conditions, novice special educators are both a valuable and fragile resource with even the most motivated and best prepared experiencing frustration, stress, and disillusionment. In this article we describe a model for providing individualized and comprehensive support for beginning special educators. The underlying assumption of the model is that support for beginning teachers must take into account the full series of dynamic interacting factors that are (a) specific to the individual and (b) specific to the teaching environment and tasks that are to be accomplished. After describing the interacting factors in the model, we provide recommendations for implementation of the beginning teacher support model.

Beginning Teachers in Special Education: A Model For Providing Individualized Support:

1. The educational outcomes sought for students with learning disabilities relate to the same questions that are asked about individuals without learning disabilities: Are they achieving, are they staying in school, are they prepared to enter the work force after school, are they participating in meaningful post-secondary education or training experiences, and are they prepared for adult life? 2. Significant progress has been made in the development of intervention procedures that enable these students to be successful. However, there are limited examples of systematic implementation of these validated procedures, as is evidenced by an alarmingly high dropout rate (as many as one-half of students fail to complete school). 3. The following elements have been found to be central to promoting positive outcomes for these students: (a) early identification; (b) availability of a continuum of services; (c) intensive, coordinated, and comprehensive instruction; (d) use of validated procedures; (e) emphasis on mastery of critical skills and strategies; (f) sufficient time for planning and collaboration among teachers; and (g) coordination of efforts across all stakeholders, including various agencies. 4. The following factors inhibit desired outcomes from being reached: (a) inadequate identification procedures, (b) educational faddism, (c) lack of instructional leadership, (d) inadequate teacher training, (e) lack of coordination within and across programs and agencies, (f) teacher isolation, (g) lack of felt responsib ility for students by general educators, (h) unstructured instructional programs, and (i) programs that emphasize coverage versus mastery. 5. Congress should improve the quality of services provided to these students by (a) giving direction relative to creating a "seamless web" of services through interagency coordination and (b) directing OSERS to create categorical funding initiatives related to learning disabilities for research, demonstration, and personnel preparation efforts. 6. OSERS should (a) fund specific research initiatives focusing on learning disabilities, (b) fund demonstration centers that embody validated intervention procedures, and (c) fund personnel preparation efforts that enhance the competence of teachers and administrators to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities. 7. State and local education agencies should (a) require local agencies to engage in a process of strategic planning when selecting new program components or emphases, (b) shift the focus of monitoring activities from basic compliance to program quality indicators, (c) direct that personnel preparation activities follow sound principles of staff development and focus on the mastery of validated interventions, and (d) require that local education agencies create and operationalize an interagency plan.1. What outcomes within the categorical area are recognized as important for students to obtain? The educational outcomes sought for individuals with learning disabilities should answer the same questions as are asked of students without learning disabilities: Are they achieving; are they staying in school; are they prepared to enter the work force after school; are they participating in meaningful post-secondary education or training experiences; and are they prepared for adult life? (National Council on Disability, 1989) Included among the important educational outcomes for students with learning disabilities are (a) having basic literacy and aca emic sk ills to enable them to benefit from educational and training experiences as well as to compete in the job market; (b) having basic social and interactive skills to enable them to function su cce sfully in academic, employment, community, and family situations; and (c) possessing, at a minimum, a standard high school diploma that makes available meaningful opportunities for post-secondary education or training experiences or gainful employment. Given the very unique and heterogeneous nature of the population of individuals with learning disabilities, individual outcomes will vary. Thus, pl acement and progra mming decisions need to be tailored to meet the individual needs of each student. Additionally, because the needs of individuals in this population are so great (their deficits are so encompassing), educational plans for these students need to incorporate sufficient accommodations for intensive instruction in targeted areas of difficulty in order to enable these individuals to meet the demands in mainstream environments in such a way as to achieve the desired outcomes. When programming is designed to coincide with their unique learning needs, individuals with learning disabilities can become successful in both academic and employment pursuits (Robinson & Deshler, 1995). 2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years? The application of IDEA to improve the outcomes of individuals with learning disabilities has had mixed results. On the one hand, the law has contributed significantly to the field's knowledge base concerning effective instructional procedures for individuals with learning disabilities. For example, when instruction is systematic, intensive, and tailored to the individual needs of students with learning disabilities, it can favorably impact their performance in the classroom and the workplace (e.g., Carnine, 1994b; Mercer & M iller, 1992; Talbott, Lloyd, & Tankersley, 1994). Unfortunately, instances of appropriate and widespread application of these known principles of instruction are very limited (Carnine, 1993). Perhaps related to this reality is the mounting evidence that the outcomes specified in Question #1 are not being met for a large percentage of individuals with learning disabilities. Specifically, the dropout rate for students with learning disabilities is alarmingly high. Varying estimates indicate that as many as one-half of students with learning disabilities fail to complete school (Edgar, 1987; Wagner, 1991; Zigmond & Thornton, 1985). Inasmuch as individuals with learning disabilities do not generally have s upported living alternatives in their post-school lives (like many individuals with developmental disabilities), these figures are especially discouraging in terms of the grave consequences that they foreshadow as these individuals move into adulthood. Even for those students who do remain in school, however, there is evidence that their educational programs may be insufficient to adequately prepare them for the demanding rigors of core curriculum offerings (Deshler & Schumaker, 1993) or meaningful employment options after school (Halpren, 1993). Indeed, evidence suggests that these students enter secondary school reading and writing at the fourth-grade level (Schumaker, Deshler, Alley, & Warner, 1983). Because of this large gap between their sk ills and what they are expected to do in secondary school, most of these students receive fa iling or barely passing grades in core subject courses (Donahoe & Zigmond, 1990). In order for these students to be able to achieve the desired outcomes (in and outside of school), educational systems need to be optimally equipped to meet the needs of this heterogeneous population. Currently, schools do not provide a complete range of programming alternatives that are sufficiently broad in scope and yet sensitive enough to be responsive to unique nuances and variations of student learning patterns and needs. As a result, the majority of the desired outcomes have not been realized by individuals with learning disabilities. 3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes? The educational programs that are most effective for enabling students with learning disabilities to achieve educational outcomes comparable to those of their peers have several features. First, they provide for the early identification of children who are at risk and ensure that those children receive appropriate and effective services immediately. Second, they include a continuum of services that are tailored to meet individual student needs across the grades and beyond school. This continuum of services ranges from intensive one-to-one or self-contained instruction for students with severe learning disabilities to the full inclusion of students who have mastered the skills and strategies n ecessary for success in mainstream settings. Third, instruction is intensive, comprehensive, and coordinated. That is, sufficient time and resources are devoted to targeted areas of difficulty such that the students' learning and performance are systematically addressed across settings and time. Fourth, the instructional methods that are used are those that have been validated for individuals with learning disabilities. Fifth, there is an emphasis on mastering skills and strategies as well as information within an age-appropriate curriculum. Sixth, teachers who provide services to students have sufficient time to regularly plan and solve problems together. Seventh, parents, teachers, other support personnel, and the student work together to create an individual plan for the student that ensures progress and a successful transition to post-secondary life. Finally, there is evidence of interagency cooperation relative to programming for students across the age continuum. Within these effective programs, there are two instructional foci. First, instruction focuses on the necessary skills and strategies that students need to su cceed across ages in a variety of educational and work-related settings. As students mature, the demands of the curriculum become more complex, and students need to be able to meet these demands if they are to earn average or above-average grades in required courses and remain in school. (Typically, students who earn lower grades are prime candidates for dropping out.) Second, instruction is delivered in such a way as to improve the understanding and

/pdf/improving-the-implementation-of-the-individuals-with-2xwu63efik.pdf

Improving the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Making Schools Work for All of America's Children.

An Integrated Undergraduate Program in Mental Retardation.

Multi-Level Preparation of Special Education Personnel.

Teacher Education: A Proposed Practicum for Training Teachers of the Mentally Retarded.

The purpose of this study was to compare and corttrast from 1970 to 1990 the typical course of study for students preparing to be teachers of pupils with mental retardation. Twenty institutions of higher education were selected for examination. An analysis of program and course descraptions from the catalogs of these institutions indicated, among other findings, the following changes from 1970 to 1990: (a) little change in the high percentage of programs offering a separate course on the characteristics of mental retardation; (b) an increase in the percentage of programs offering cross-categorical courses, options to study multiple areas of disability, and coursework on severe disabilities; and (c) a decrease in the percentage of programs that require joint preparation in special and general education. A brief review of past issues in special education teacher preparation and trends for the future are presented.

Rita M. Brusca

Papers

Preparing Teachers of Pupils with Mental Retardation: Changes in Course Offerings from 1970 to 1990