Discussion 1: Shift to Deep Learning

Teacher Education and Special Education 2016, Vol. 39(2) 98 –120 © 2016 Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0888406416640634 tese.sagepub.com

Article

A deluge of competing demands and conflict- ing priorities have heightened challenges for special educators working in today’s schools. By definition, special education means spe- cially designed instruction, related services, and supplementary aids and services that are provided to meet the unique needs of children and youth with disabilities to help them achieve educational benefit (Bateman & Lin- den, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, 2010). Being knowledgeable and skilled at assessing, planning, collaborat- ing, and delivering effective interventions for the highly heterogeneous population of stu-

dents with a disability demands expertise, unique ability, and unwavering commitment (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson,

640634TESXXX10.1177/0888406416640634Teacher Education and Special EducationRock et al. research-article2016

1University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA 2University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA 3George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA 4University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA 5Auburn University, AL, USA 6University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA 7University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, USA 8University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA

Corresponding Author: Marcia L. Rock, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Room 424, School of Education Building, Greensboro, NC 27402, USA. Email: [email protected]

21st Century Change Drivers: Considerations for Constructing Transformative Models of Special Education Teacher Development

Marcia L. Rock1, Fred Spooner2, Sarah Nagro3, Eleazar Vasquez4, Cari Dunn5, Melinda Leko6, John Luckner7, Margaret Bausch8, Claire Donehower4, and Jennie L. Jones1

Abstract Contemporary challenges confronting special education teachers include, in part, workload, role ambiguity, evaluation, and shortages. Based on these and other challenges, the piece- meal fragmented approach to pre- and in-service training, which exists currently, needs to be replaced with 21st century models of special education teacher development that are seamless, technology enabled, comprehensive, cohesive, and career spanning. In this article, the authors briefly address persistent and unresolved challenges, identify contemporary change drivers, and discuss ways in which teacher education professionals could leverage the drivers to inform the development of 21st century models for special education teacher development aimed at improving outcomes for students with disabilities. Change drivers include the digital revolution, the diversity gap, the credibility factor, the demand for collective impact, and the culture of we. The authors conclude with a call to action.

Keywords contemporary challenges, special education teacher development, change drivers, 21st century, call to action

Rock et al. 99

2010; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Mills, 2011). Meeting the unique educational needs of these diverse pupils, who have often experienced chronic school failure (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003), requires educators to respond to a host of other contemporary workforce challenges, including but not limited to the special educator’s workload, role ambiguity, evaluation issues, and pipeline shortages (Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015). Thus, initial training and ongoing support are vital to securing and maintaining a robust workforce comprised of special educators who are knowledgeable, resilient, committed, capa- ble, and effective (Belknap & Taymans, 2015; Bishop, Brownell, Klingner, Leko, & Galman, 2010; Tait, 2008). In what follows, we briefly address persistent and unresolved challenges, identify contemporary change drivers, and dis- cuss ways in which teacher education profes- sionals could leverage the drivers to inform the creation of 21st century models for special education teacher development.

Persistent and Unresolved 21st Century Challenges

Special Education Teacher Workload

Currently, a variety of factors challenge spe- cial education teachers. Although employ- ment trends have varied recently, attracting and retaining professionals into the field of special education remains difficult (Boe et al., 2013). Unfortunately, yet understandably, many special education teachers have become dissatisfied with the scope of the job as well as the workplace conditions (Leko & Smith, 2010). Special educators need to have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to effectively teach core academic subjects to an increasingly culturally and linguistic- ally diverse student body. In addition, they must know federal, state, and local policy, as well as implementation practices; make decisions concerning instruction and interven- tion; use evidence-based practices (EBPs), such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS); know assessment theories

and practices to assist in determining eligibil- ity; and write individualized education pro- grams (IEPs) that include goals and objectives. They also are required to conduct and support progress monitoring; consult and collaborate with colleagues, administrators, families and community agencies; stay updated in EBPs, differentiation, and various assistive technol- ogy; gather information on various disabili- ties; and facilitate transition services (Dukes, Darling, & Doan, 2014). Concomitantly, they often have a large number of students on their caseloads, have limited planning time, and are required to spend large blocks of time com- pleting due process compliance paperwork and attending compliance-related meetings (e.g., Nance & Calabrese, 2009).

Special Education Teacher Role Ambiguity

Moreover, many special education teachers experience role ambiguity as a result of being required to (a) teach in a variety of settings such as self-contained classrooms or special schools, resource rooms, general education classrooms; (b) collaborate with diverse pro- fessionals in an assortment of roles, including co-teaching, team teaching, facilitation, and supervision of para educators; and (c) provide direct instruction to students with a variety of needs and disabilities across multiple grade levels and subject matter (academic and non- academic; McCall, McHatton, & Shealey, 2014). The uncertainties about the job expec- tations associated with being a special educa- tor are often magnified by a lack of administrative support (e.g., Prather-Jones, 2011) and/or the leadership needed to ensure that general and special education systems support one another.

Special Education Teacher Evaluation

Yet another issue affecting special educators is teacher evaluation. Some states have imple- mented systems wherein as much as 50% of the weight in teacher evaluation decisions is attributed to K-12 students’ scores on stan-

100 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

dardized tests (W. D. Lewis & Young, 2013). As noted above, students with a disability require specially designed instruction and sup- port in large part because their current level of performance is below that of their typical peers. In addition, students’ scores on stan- dardized tests are heavily influenced by socio- economic factors such as parents’ education, the home literacy environment, family resources, student health, family mobility, influence of peers, and school compositional effects (Berliner, 2014). Many special educa- tion teachers work with students with poor attendance or problems at home (Newman, 2005), or students who have become homeless (Losinski, Katsiyannis, & Ryan, 2013; National Center for Homeless Education, 2015). The pressure to raise student test scores, to the exclusion of other important goals, can dishearten effective teachers and provoke them to leave the profession, while simultane- ously prevent talented young professionals from entering the field (Baker et al., 2010).

Special Education Teacher Shortage

Special education teacher shortages and turn- over negatively affect the educational out- comes and post-school success of students who receive special education services. Annu- ally, nearly one million students with a dis- ability in the United States receive services from untrained or inadequately trained per- sonnel, or receive no services at all (T. A. Tyler & Brunner, 2014). Shortages and turn- over tend to occur more frequently in urban and rural communities (Menlove, Garnes, & Salzberg, 2004). Lack of prepared personnel also interferes with school reform efforts as well as the implementation of instructional programs (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Finally, school districts incur financial loss when teachers leave the field as a result of the money spent on recruitment, hiring, induc- tion, and professional development (Darling- Hammond, 2003). Although alternatives to attending a traditional teacher preparation program, such as Teach for America or the New Teacher Project, currently exist, the research on teacher effectiveness, student out-

comes, teacher attrition, and cost-effective- ness are mixed (Sindelar, Wasburn-Moses, Thomas, & Leko, 2014) and the challenges of recruiting and retaining skilled educators have not decreased. Consequently, a need exists to continue developing strategies and interven- tions to attract and retain well-prepared, effec- tive special education teachers.

The Need for Transformative Models: Preliminary Thoughts on Constructing Seamless Teacher Development Across the Career Span

We, as authors, recognize that the abovemen- tioned issues are complex and multifaceted, and by no means definitive of all those con- fronting the field. Because others have written extensively about the challenges to the profes- sion—from an overall perspective (e.g., Rock, Thead, Gable, Hardman, & VanAcker, 2006) as well as those specific to special education teacher education (e.g., Connelly & Rosen- berg, 2009; Dukes et al., 2014; Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2000)—we have highlighted only a few that appear to be the most pressing and widespread. Also important to note, through- out this article, we use the terms teacher edu- cation and teacher development synonymously to refer to pre- and in-service special educa- tion teacher training.

No doubt, resolving these and other long- standing issues will not be quick or easy. Key stakeholders, including special education teacher educators, as others have suggested (e.g., Connelly & Rosenberg, 2009; Rock & Billingsley, 2014, 2015; Rosenberg & Wal- ther-Thomas, 2014; Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2000), will need to come together in unprece- dented ways to examine their role in creating and maintaining the issues as well as to gener- ate innovative, impactful solutions for over- coming them. Moreover, these persistent and unresolved problems that are characterized perhaps most accurately as “wicked prob- lems”—which Rittel and Webber (1973) described as difficult to define, comprised of

Rock et al. 101

multiple causal linkages, and unsolvable through traditional, linear approaches— require new ways of thinking (Conklin, 2006). And that means, in part, that stakeholders must move forward with some uncertainty—simul- taneously studying and solving the problems.

Previous efforts to address the challenges in the field have varied. Some have offered solutions reactively, resulting in a handful of published survival guides for special educa- tors (see Billingsley, Brownell, Israel, & Kamman, 2013; Cohen, Gale, & Meyer, 1994; Martin & Hauth, 2015; Pierangelo, 2004). Although clearly well intended, we wonder what the need for “survival guides” communi- cates to professionals, politicians, and the general public about the state of the field. More specifically, we question how the need for “survival guides” adversely impacts recruitment and retention of special educa- tors. By that we mean, why would individuals be attracted to and wish to remain in a profes- sion that requires “survival guides”? By con- trast, others have suggested more proactive approaches, focusing on the need to create new models of special education teacher development, not only to better prepare spe- cial educators for the challenges they will undoubtedly face but also to support their suc- cess in the field as they encounter them (see Brownell et al., 2010; Connelly & Rosenberg, 2009; Leko et al., 2015; Sindelar & Rosen- berg, 2000). In what follows, we focus on sup- porting the latter. In doing so, we aim to bolster previous and current attempts to improve pre-service special education prepa- ration, advance in-service special education training, and elevate the profession.

Contrary to the oft-fragmented and piece- meal approach to teacher education that exists today, we see a need for visionaries and researchers to construct 21st century models of special education teacher development that are seamless, comprehensive, and cohesive across the various stages within a special edu- cator’s career span. When constructing new transformative models, we challenge special education teacher education visionaries, thought leaders, and researchers, referred to hereafter also as architects or developers, not

only to join in creating them but also to respond to the unique professional develop- ment needs and roles special educators have during their initial preparation, induction, and mid to late career. For example, during pre-service preparation, some models might focus on establishing and assessing teacher candidates’ proficiency in a set of core “high- leverage” practices (e.g., Ball & Forzani, 2009) that are known to positively influence the academic, behavioral, social, and emo- tional needs of students with disabilities and indicate that teachers are ready to enter the profession. Meanwhile, the career-spanning components of such models might include leadership training for veteran teachers who are highly skilled and would be ideal mentors or coaches for novices.

Also, when constructing the foundation that supports comprehensive transformative models of special education teacher develop- ment, we encourage visionaries, thought lead- ers, and researchers to turn to the literature when exploring potential solutions to such questions that include, but are not limited to, the following: What role should the theory play in serving as the bedrock for new career- spanning models? What would a seamless career-spanning curriculum of special educa- tion teacher development include? What con- tent and pedagogy should be emphasized during initial preparation, induction, and early, mid, and late career? How should new transformative models be evaluated? What criteria should be used to support model eval- uation? Where should new models of special education teacher development be housed? How will new transformative models help to elevate the profession? What about inputs and outputs—what roles do they play in new, seamless models? How will teacher education professionals convince others (e.g., key stake- holders) that new, transformative models are effective? Clearly, these questions are not exhaustive in scope and scale; however, we think exploring these and other relevant ques- tions would go a long way toward informing the development of new models.

Although constructing comprehensive, cohesive, and research informed teacher

102 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

development models would certainly disrupt the status quo of policy and practice, we fear that without substantial transformation, criti- cisms waged against Schools and Colleges of Education (SOEs/COEs) and formal teacher preparation (e.g., criticisms levied by the National Center on Teacher Quality [NCTQ], 2010) will continue unremittingly, thereby jeopardizing the field’s mission of preparing and supporting teachers who are skilled in helping students with disabilities experience academic, behavioral, social, and emotional success. Despite apparent challenges, we join with others (see Brownell et al., 2010; Con- nelly & Rosenberg, 2009; Leko et al., 2015; Rock & Billingsley, 2015; Sindelar & Rosen- berg, 2000) in suggesting that a need exists for constructing transformative 21st century models, in part, because they play a vital role in alleviating many of the long-standing issues plaguing the field. And, as authors, we extend the extant literature by suggesting, in accord with Fullan (2011), that transformative mod- els may be created and realized by leveraging several powerful change drivers. Thus, we offer a new approach to analyzing and pre- senting the complex set of challenges that confront the field of teacher development by describing how such change drivers could serve as foundations for re-visioning teacher development in special education.

21st Century Drivers of Change

Constructing transformative models and miti- gating the long-standing challenges facing pre- and in-service special education teacher education requires change fueled by dynamic, comprehensive, and multifaceted drivers. Four premises underscore such an approach. First, the unique role the federal government has played in special education teacher devel- opment should be preserved (Kleinhammer- Tramill, Tramill, & Brace, 2010; Kleinhammer-Tramill, Tramill, & Westbrook, 2009). Second, teacher educators should embrace a much-needed shift from 20th cen- tury to 21st century teacher development practices (Brownell et al., 2010; Dukes et al.,

2014; Rock & Billingsley, 2015; Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2000). Third, the complexities and challenges currently confronting the spe- cial education workforce call for a vision of the future based on full professional standing and higher standards (Connelly & Rosenberg, 2009; Leko et al., 2015), consistent approaches to assessing teacher readiness and perfor- mance not only initially but also across the career span (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2012; McCall et al., 2014), ongoing research (Rock & Billingsley, 2014; Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010), and increased investment on the part of the federal govern- ment (Burke et al., 2013). Fourth, special edu- cation teacher educators and visionaries should strategically and systematically lever- age 21st century driving forces (referred to synonymously hereafter as “drivers”) of change and innovation to make transforma- tive models a reality (Fullan, 2011).

Conceptual Framework for the 21st Century Drivers

Using Tichy’s (1983) seminal framework, TPC Theory (technical, political, and cultural dynamics), we organize relevant change driv- ers into three overarching categories or domains—technical, political, and cultural. In brief, Tichy developed TPC Theory as a framework for overcoming organizational problems, proposing that technical, political, and cultural factors must be addressed sys- tematically and simultaneously to mitigate challenges and to achieve change. That said, we agree with the assertion made by Frohman (1997) and Kemelgor, Johnson, and Sriniva- san (2000) that individuals within any field are critical in achieving substantive change and innovation. Nonetheless, although inter- pretations vary as to which drivers are the most salient, the role they play in fostering change and innovation across a variety of important interdisciplinary topics, such as improving cancer care (Callahan & Darzi, 2015), enhancing Business School enrollment (Kemelgor et al., 2000), increasing access to science-based substance abuse treatment (Rieckmann, Abraham, Zwick, Rasplica, &

Rock et al. 103

McCarty, 2015), and addressing energy secu- rity as well as climate change (Bang, 2010), cannot be denied.

In general, we think Tichy’s (1983) frame- work helps teacher educators conceptualize the three overarching dynamics—cultural, technical, and political—needed to surmount professional challenges and propel organiza- tional change. However, because we are pro- posing that transformative models of teacher development in special education are needed to allay many of the long-standing challenges, we also draw on the four drivers Fullan (2011) described as “right” and necessary for achiev- ing reform in education—specifically, capac- ity building (professional learning), group work (high expectations, leadership), peda- gogy (effective instruction), and systemness (systemic synergy). When viewed within Tichy’s overarching framework, two of Ful- lan’s drivers are technical (i.e., pedagogy, capacity building), one is cultural (i.e., group work), and one is political (i.e., systemness).

Finally, based on careful review of Marx’s (2014) “Twenty-One Trends for the 21st Cen- tury,” we identified the five driving forces we found most closely aligned with the field of special education and the topic of teacher development and therefore the most likely to influence it. The five drivers we selected were technology (i.e., the digital revolution), diver- sity (i.e., the diversity gap), authority (i.e., the credibility factor), continuous improvement (i.e., the demand for collective impact), and ingenuity (i.e., the culture of we). Similar to Fullan’s (2011) four, when Marx’s five driv- ing forces are viewed within Tichy’s (1983)

overarching framework, two are technical (i.e., the digital revolution, the credibility fac- tor), two are cultural (i.e., the diversity gap, the culture of we), and one is political (i.e., the demand for collective impact).

Taken together, these three conceptual frameworks combine to capture the complexi- ties needed to advance change and to support development, acceptance, and widespread adoption of comprehensive 21st century mod- els of teacher development that bring anti- quated, unfounded practices out of the industrial age and into the digital age. Table 1 includes an illustration of how the Tichy (1983), Fullan (2011), and Marx (2014) frameworks align, as well as how they support the five drivers we propose.

Driver 1: The Digital Revolution

Without question, in the 21st century, ubiqui- tous, interactive technologies have and will continue to create seismic shifts in our per- sonal and professional lives (Marx, 2014). Thus, it is easy to understand how technology, which is constantly emerging, can be viewed as a technical driver within Tichy’s (1983) model. That said, as Fullan (2011) argued, technology in and of itself cannot drive change. As such, when viewed in isolation, technology is the “wrong” driver. Instead, the power of technology is harnessed when it is used to support effective instruction, or in Ful- lan’s words, when the “right learning is embedded in the technology” (p. 15). In this way, he viewed technology as a means for

Table 1. Conceptual Frameworks: 21st Century Drivers of Change.

Special education teacher development change drivers

“Twenty-one trends for the 21st century” (Marx, 2014)

TPC theory (Tichy, 1983)

The right drivers for whole system reform (Fullan, 2011)

The digital revolution Technology Technical Capacity building The credibility factor Authority Pedagogy The demand for collective

impact Continuous improvement Political Systemness

The diversity gap Diversity Cultural Group work The culture of we Ingenuity

Note. TPC = technical, political, and cultural dynamics.

104 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

capacity building, which he considered one of the “right” drivers for achieving whole system change. Specifically, we think Fullan’s notion of building capacity through technology holds promise for overcoming many of the work- load demands discussed previously.

The need to leverage technology to support learning and to build professional capacity is echoed in the 2016 National Education Tech- nology Plan, titled Future Ready Learning: Rei- magining the Role of Technology in Education, which addresses not only K-12 student learning but also pre- and in-service technology–enabled teacher training. This flagship plan aligns with the Activities to Support the Effective Use of Technology (Title IV A) of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), calling on teacher educa- tors to use technology to rethink teacher prepa- ration and to foster ongoing professional learning. That said, when considering how transformative models could be supported and strengthened through technology, developers should proceed with caution to ensure that it is embedded thoughtfully, enabling special educa- tion teacher educators to work more effectively and efficiently. Otherwise, technology could inadvertently exacerbate workload demands and increase stress levels.

Technology Enabled Pre- and In- Service Teacher Development

As model developers ponder how to prepare special and general education teachers to meet the needs of students in 21st century class- rooms, it is imperative that they consider how to embed technology throughout coursework and clinical experiences (An, Wilder, & Lim, 2011). Two frameworks, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and technological pedagogi- cal content knowledge (TPACK), are especially noteworthy and should be consid- ered to help teacher educators conceptualize the integration of technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL focuses on using multiple means of represen- tation, expression, and engagement to design instructional experiences that are accessible for all learners (Rose & Meyer, 2002) and TPACK outlines the thoughtful and meaningful

intersection of a teacher’s technological, ped- agogical, and content knowledge to maximize student learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). By merging these two frameworks and help- ing pre-service teachers to view TPACK through the lens of UDL, they are more likely to enter the classroom with a strong theoreti- cal background and practical knowledge on how to use technology enabled instruction to benefit diverse learners (Benton-Borghi, 2013) as well as how to evaluate its use in accord with prevailing privacy and security standards (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2016).

Also, in the 21st century, because special education teachers need to be able to move past the “surface” application of technology (e.g., drill and practice activities, educational games), it is vital that the architects of new models consider how embedding innovative, up to date technologies throughout the curric- ulum in meaningful and enriching ways could build pre-service teachers’ content and peda- gogical knowledge and provide them with opportunities for deliberate practice with expert feedback within the TPACK frame- work. For example, how could content acqui- sition podcasts (CAPs) be included to facilitate pre-service special educators’ development of knowledge in literacy, PBIS, and other critical content areas (Kennedy, Driver, Pullen, Ely, & Cole, 2013)? How could mixed reality sim- ulations, such as TEACH LivE™ (e.g., Dieker et al., 2014), be incorporated to support pre- service special educators’ acquisition of spe- cific knowledge skills, and behaviors that impact student achievement, including higher order questioning, strategy instruction, wait time, and PBIS? How could gaming and fully immersive virtual simulation technologies be used to engage pre-service teachers in collab- orative problem-based learning thereby enabling them to build mental models that support principles of effective teaching (Mahon, Bryant, Brown, & Kim, 2010)? How could video models, video annotations, and digital exhibitions be put to use to provide pre-service special educators with models of best practice (Hatch & Grossman, 2009) and with opportunities for change and reflection

Rock et al. 105

(Tripp & Rich, 2012)? How could technol- ogy-enabled observation, supervision, and coaching (Rock et al., 2014) be institutional- ized to provide pre-service special education teachers with opportunities to unobtrusively observe, interact, practice, and apply newly acquired teaching and learning knowledge, skills, and dispositions in clinical settings, from early field experience through student teaching, and to provide models support, guidance, and companionship as they apply what they have learned in university course- work to real world classrooms? Finally, how could makerspace environments be created to engage pre-service teachers in deeper content, pedagogical, and technological learning through questioning and hands on exploration (Kurti, Kurti, & Fleming, 2014)?

Extending the technology-enabled pre-ser- vice component of transformative models requires staff developers to use the innovative technologies described previously as the foundation for in-service teacher training and as a means of ongoing support across the career span. For example, in new, seamless models, when studying theory and practice, practicing special and general education teachers could continue accessing free online Iris Modules (https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt. edu/) to refine their knowledge of classroom and behavior management and Twitter chats to engage in professional dialogue with others from around the globe, regarding the specific topic at hand (e.g., #pbischat @ https://twitter. com/pbischat). When observing one another using PBIS during classroom instruction, in- place professionals could continue using FaceTime through iPads or Skype via a desk- top computer, or while engaged in simulated mixed realty practice through TEACH LivE™. For discreet, live, one on one, eCoaching of PBIS during classroom instruc- tion, they could rely on Bluetooth earpieces, which may be purchased for under US$100, in conjunction with no or low cost Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Group coaching to solve problems of practice stemming from real world application of PBIS could take place via online videoconferencing at no expense using Google Hangouts or ooVoo:

Video Chat. These, of course, are only a few examples. As was the case with pre-service teacher training, model developers should consider how these technologies could be lev- eraged to build professional capacity more effectively and efficiently so that practicing special educators are better equipped not only to overcome the workload challenges they encounter, but also to meet the unique aca- demic and behavioral needs of the students they serve.

Driver 2: The Diversity Gap

Rapidly changing demographics are reshap- ing society and education in the United States (Marx, 2014). Recognizing this shift, in addi- tion to offering grants through the newly authorized ESSA to support initiatives aimed at increasing diversity in the teaching work- force, members of Congress called recently for a White House summit on Diversity in the Education Workforce. Based on a report from the Albert Shanker Institute (2015), Summit members cited a number of troubling statis- tics. Between 2002 and 2012, the number of African American teachers dropped signifi- cantly in nine of America’s largest cities; Latino children are almost one in four stu- dents in our country’s public elementary and secondary schools, yet Hispanics represent only 8% of the teacher workforce; and less than 2% of teachers identify as Asian Ameri- can Pacific Islander. Moreover, data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2012) confirmed that currently only 17.5% of teachers are of color; whereas, 45% of the K-12 population is of color (American Asso- ciation of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2013). Thus, one of the two cultur- ally specific driving forces of change (Tichy, 1983) and innovation in 21st century special education teacher development relates to strengthening previous efforts to diversify the workforce.

Increasing diversity potentially amelio- rates workforce issues, such as special educa- tion teacher shortages, attrition rates, and frequent turnovers in high-needs schools—all of which hinder students with disabilities’

106 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

capacity to achieve academically (Hymes, Karr, & Pudelski, 2014). From Fullan’s (2011) point of view, diversifying the workforce enriches social capital, which includes the “relationships among teachers and between teachers and principals” (p. 11). Social capi- tal, he maintains, is the “right” driver when coupled with human capital and combined with capacity building because it generates greater success and greater accountability.

When constructing 21st century transforma- tive models, we encourage architects to turn to research as a starting point for recruiting and retaining diverse pre- and in-service special education teachers, for narrowing the diversity gap, and for cultivating “culturally sensitive” social capacity in the workforce that more accu- rately reflects the demographics of students with disabilities. Moreover, because complexi- ties abound, when generating solutions to increasing diversity in the special education workforce, we encourage model architects to forge new pathways for collaboration and rela- tionship building across school systems, institu- tions of higher education, state and national regulators, and minority communities (Mead, Aldeman, Chuong, & Obbard, 2015).

Pre-Service Special Education Teacher Recruitment and Retention

A challenge to increasing diversity in the workforce is highlighted by researchers sug- gesting that persons of color may harbor nega- tive perceptions about the teaching field and its loss of respect in American society (Palaich et al., 2014). As a result, students of color who do attend college typically choose to enter other fields that have higher salaries and greater respect (Palaich et al., 2014). Thus, efforts to recruit a diverse workforce should likely center on creating multiple pools of potential special education teachers, provid- ing opportunities that encourage K-12 stu- dents and local community members to consider teaching (Mead et al., 2015) and using effective outreach strategies (Ellis & Epstein, 2015). Specifically, recruitment strat- egies in 21st century models should (a) target the specific populations of interest, reaching

out to organizations and media that have a higher likelihood of reaching non-Whites, and (b) involve diverse individuals (Ellis & Epstein, 2015). Also, recruitment programs should be aimed at attracting current middle and high school students, community mem- bers, paraprofessionals, and returning military and peace corps volunteers into the teaching field (e.g., teacher cadet programs, pre-col- lege outreach and early college programs, and “grow your own” programs; Dadisman, Grav- elle, Farmer, & Petrin, 2010; Mead et al., 2015; White, 2004). Financial incentives, too, such as scholarships and forgivable loans, should be considered to attract diverse indi- viduals (Billingsley, Crocket, & Kamman, 2014). To the greatest extent possible, model builders should consider how to incorporate flexible training options (e.g., distance educa- tion, part-time study) in consideration of the circumstances (e.g., working, location, family responsibilities) of potential teachers of color. Finally, passing government mandates requir- ing IHEs to undertake actions that support diversity (White, 2004) should be considered.

When it comes to retaining diverse stu- dents in pre-service training, we encourage architects of 21st century special education teacher education programs to include tutor- ing programs, academic advising, university mentoring, and test preparation programs (e.g., PRAXIS) to support academic success (N. Tyler, Yzquierdo, Lopez-Reyna, & Flip- pin, 2002). Also, we suggest model develop- ers consider ways of offering financial supports that include paid internships and assistance with other education-related expenses (e.g., test fees; Ellis & Epstein, 2015), and commit to retaining more faculty of color to serve as mentors in special educa- tion teacher education programs.

In-Service Special Education Teacher Retention

Although diversity in the teacher workforce can be improved, in part, by improving the working conditions and status associated with special education (e.g., increasing salaries, decreasing workload), the architects of a seam-

Rock et al. 107

less 21st century transformative model should consider adopting retention strategies related specifically to in-service teacher development, namely, academic, financial, and social sup- ports, which also include ongoing job-embed- ded professional development (Berry, Petrin, Gravelle, & Farmer, 2012; Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion, 2010) as well as racial and gender awareness training for administrators (Bristol, 2015). Through the recently authorized ESSA, which makes resources available to states, we wonder how state education agency (SEA) and local educa- tion agency (LEA) partners could join in offer- ing newly developed and improved induction and mentoring programs (e.g., Coles, 2011). Because novice teachers of color encounter additional challenges that might not be sup- ported in ways that recognize, respect, foster, and affirm their cultural practices, we wonder, too, how teacher education professionals could ensure that all new teacher support/mentoring programs are designed and carried out to nur- ture and promote the cultural assets of new teachers of color in the classroom (Achinstein, Ogawa, Johnson, & Freitas, 2009).

Driver 3: The Credibility Factor

Another important technical driver (Tichy, 1983) pertains to the evidence base of instruc- tion that has been developing in the field of special education. Individualized research, evidence-based, and promising practices serve as the field’s foundation and drive the work of practicing special educators. Taken together, effective use of these practices with students with unique learning, social, emo- tional, and behavioral needs, establishes much of what we consider to be special about spe- cial education. In this way, EBPs in low and high incidence disabilities contribute to form- ing the core of pre- and in-service special edu- cation teachers’ unique knowledge and practice base, which Marx (2014) deemed credibility and authority. Both are harbingers of professional change in the 21st century.

Moreover, Title II, Part A of The ESSA, like its predecessor, The No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2002), champions effec- tive instruction through the use of evidence- based and place-based interventions to teach academic skills, to foster college and career readiness, to enhance student outcomes, and to support school improvement. Fullan (2011) viewed effective instruction (i.e., pedagogy) as one of the “right” drivers of whole system change, so much so that he claims “the heart of the matter is instructional improvement linked to student learning” (p. 13).

Special Education Teacher Knowledge of EBPs

The term evidence-based practice comes from the field of medicine. Sackett, Rosen- berg, Gray, Haynes, and Richardson (1996) defined evidence-based medicine as the inte- gration of individual clinical expertise and external clinical evidence from systematic research. Two major components are essential to determine EBPs: the quantity of available evidence and the quality of that evidence. Within special education, there have been at least four overarching endeavors to describe, delineate, and validate EBPs (Cook & Odom, 2013; Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009; Graham, 2005; Spooner, 2003). Consequently, when constructing new transformative models of teacher development, architects need to consider how pre- and in-service special edu- cators will develop knowledge and use of EBPs in two critical areas—low incidence disabilities and/or high incidence disabilities.

EBPs in Pre-Service Special Education Teacher Development

Similar to identifying EBPs that contribute to the ever-growing body of special education knowledge, identifying EBPs for special edu- cation teacher development is important. Spe- cifically, when constructing new transformative models, architects will need to draw on work that has been done to identify EBPs in teacher development (e.g., perfor- mance feedback, Fallon, Collier-Meek, Maggin, Sanetti, & Johnson, 2015; video analysis, Nagro & Cornelius, 2013), while

108 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

also working to identify additional EBPs in teacher development in an effort to differenti- ate which types of preparation programs (e.g., traditional vs. alternative routes, see deBetten- court & Howard, 2004) result in special edu- cation teachers who are profession ready.

In some models, special education teacher educators have moved toward documenting the use of validated practices for teacher edu- cation to prepare special educators to imple- ment EBPs regardless of job placement (e.g., Oyler, 2011). Accordingly, when developing new models, architects will need to look to Innovation Configurations (ICs) as a guiding tool for program development and evaluation that ensures best practices are reflected in pro- gram standards, coursework, and classroom practice. ICs define essential components of a practice within special education and include examples and non-examples of implementa- tion. Currently, close to 20 ICs are available, ranging from reading instruction (i.e., Smartt & Reschly, 2007) to transition planning (i.e., Morningstar & Mazzotti, 2014). Specifically, we encourage architects of new transforma- tive models to consider how to promote wide- spread integration of ICs not only to develop and evaluate course syllabi (e.g., Roy & Hord, 2004) but also to guide program evaluation and improvement.

EBPs in In-Service Special Education Teacher Development

Because new knowledge is produced at an unprecedented rate, remaining credible and effective in the 21st century means that prac- ticing special educators must continually update their knowledge and use of EBPs. How will visionaries and architects of new transformative models support these efforts across the career span? In part, we encourage consideration of implementation science (see C. Lewis, 2015), based on four discernable stages (e.g., exploration, installation, initial implementation, and full implementation; see Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Considering fidelity to these stages is vital to achieving initial and long-term suc- cess; how will model architects ensure, during

in-service teacher development, that members of building or district level teams systemati- cally guide specific activities associated with implementation science? Housed at The Uni- versity of North Carolina, the National Imple- mentation Research Network (NIRN) offers a wealth of online resources (http://nirn.fpg. unc.edu/) to assist teams in carrying out implementation science. Specifically, we encourage model architects to consider how implementation science could be infused to support in-service special educators as they carry out, improve, and sustain EBPs with fidelity in real-world classrooms to improve K-12 student outcomes. Considering the com- plexities inherent in transferring EBPs to classroom use coupled with the known chal- lenges special educators face (Greenwood & Abbott, 2001), in our view, any in-service teacher development devoid of implementa- tion science seems poised to fail.

Driver 4: The Demand for Collective Impact

Without question, the demand for collective impact forms a powerful political driver (Tichy, 1983) that shapes the transformation of 21st century special education teacher edu- cation. Marx (2014) identified continuous improvement as a 21st century force that chal- lenges the status quo and underscores the need for reasoned progress. This trend is clearly evident in the U.S. Department of Education’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan that includes a com- mitment to creating a culture of continuous improvement, in which educational research- ers, practitioners, and policy makers work together to achieve benefit for all students. Specifically, Goal Two of the plan emphasizes the need to prepare effective teachers and strong leaders who can improve K-12 student outcomes and close long-standing achieve- ment gaps (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Fullan (2011), however, argued that achieving these ambitious aims will not be accomplished through the fragmented, piece- meal efforts of the past. Instead, cohesive sys- temness is needed. Ergo, in new transformative models, in an effort to fully realize collective

Rock et al. 109

impact, we encourage architects to consider how special education teacher educators could promote higher standards for the entire pro- fession that include, but are not limited to, assessing teacher readiness and performance across the career span. Also, we encourage model architects to consider how teacher edu- cation researchers could feasibly conduct rig- orous investigations to continually inform the model.

ESSA

As noted previously, the ESSA became the newest law to replace NCLB (Skinner & Kue- nzi, 2015). Although many provisions in the ESSA remain similar to the previous law, ESSA shifts the former federal focus to states by granting them more decision-making authority regarding teacher evaluations and teacher certification (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Much of the controversy for those concerned about teacher preparation and student achievement centers on ESSA’s provisions which were taken from the Great Teacher and Leading for Great Schools (GREAT) Act (H. R. 848, 2015) that allow states to use federal funds to sponsor creden- tialing “academies” for teachers, principals, and school leaders (Sawchuck, 2015). Although ESSA provides Title II funds to pro- mote innovation and improvement in teacher development that are needed, many teacher educators, researchers, and organizations object to the provisions for privatized fast- track teacher preparation—primarily through non-traditional, non-university programs that are exempt from “unnecessary restrictions on the methods of the academy” and that result in a certificate of completion that states may rec- ognize as “at least the equivalent of a master’s degree in education for the purpose of hiring, retention, compensation, and promotion in the state” (see Zeichner, 2015). Like Zeichner (2015) and Darling-Hammond (2006), we wonder what role these alternative, privatized, piece-meal approaches play in reducing standards, watering down teacher develop- ment practices, undermining pre- and in-ser- vice general and special education teacher

effectiveness, widening inequities, and dimin- ishing the potential impact of the profession.

Special Education Teacher Licensure

Despite current policy efforts aimed at pro- moting alternative approaches into the special education teaching profession, architects of transformative models will need to consider whether to embrace multiple pathways to ini- tial licensure and whether the common prac- tice of allowing teachers who are still preparing to be teachers to serve as teachers of record is advised. At present, although find- ings differ (see Bastian & Henry, 2015; Con- stantine et al., 2009), the science simply does not appear compelling enough to support it. In fact, based on results obtained through their recent study, Ronfeldt, Schwartz, and Jacob (2014) concluded they found “some of the best suggestive evidence to date that teacher education programs, and certification policies that influence them, can improve teachers’ preparedness and persistence by increasing requirements for practice teaching and meth- ods-related coursework” (p. 2). Ingersoll, Merrill, and May (2014) reported, too, that beginning teachers who received more peda- gogical training were far less likely to leave after their first year in the classroom. Thus, model architects will need to consider how watered down approaches could prepare spe- cial education teachers to overcome the heightened challenges they will undoubtedly face in the 21st century workplace.

Pre- and In-Service Special Education Teacher Evaluation

Architects of transformative models will also need to consider how special education teacher educators could best determine pre- service special education teachers’ readiness to enter the workforce, using the most valid and reliable knowledge (e.g., PRAXIS) and performance-based (e.g., edTPA) assessments available. Also, in accord with recommenda- tions put forth by the National Academy of Education, we encourage model architects to consider how to build in evaluation of the

110 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

effectiveness of preparation programs using multiple attributes, such as admissions and recruitment data, quality and substance of instruction, quality of clinical experiences, faculty qualifications, effectiveness in prepar- ing new teachers who are employed and retained in the workforce, and success in pre- paring effective special education teachers (Feuer, Floden, Chudowsky, & Ahn, 2013). Taking this holistic, interconnected approach to evaluation that assesses not only individual special education teachers but also program effectiveness will bolster model architects’ efforts to promote greater competence and build greater accountability.

Moreover, we encourage the architects of transformative models to consider valid and reliable ways to establish the relationship between special education teacher preparation programs and K-12 student outcomes. To date, although there is no agreed upon empiri- cal model to link K-12 student outcomes to teacher preparation programs (Mihaley, McCaffrey, Sass, & Lockwood, 2012), sev- eral researchers have used Value-Added Mod- eling (VAM, see Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013; Mihaley et al., 2012). And, although many state and school district pro- fessionals employ VAM to aid general and special education teacher evaluation, the American Statistical Association (ASA; 2014) and the American Educational Research Asso- ciation (AERA, see Goldhaber, 2015) cau- tioned that the complexity, imprecision, and inadequacy associated with it create cause for concern. Thus, until more high quality VAM research is conducted, we encourage model architects to consider incorporating multiple indicators, including but not limited to sys- tematic observations, artifacts evidencing K-12 student learning, and professional contributions (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2015), to assess special education teacher perfor- mance over the career span. We suggest that model developers consider this approach because doing so reflects best practices in 21st century special education teacher evaluation by maintaining high standards, supporting improvement, documenting impact, and pro- viding evidence for future action (Darling-

Hammond, 2015). Finally, in light of recent findings by Stine-Morrow, Hussey, and Ng (2015), confirming the promise of education in facilitating lifelong cognitive and behav- ioral health, we encourage special education teacher education researchers and thought leaders to partner with colleagues in schools and colleges of public health to extend under- standing of value added beyond students’ aca- demic achievement.

Special Education Teacher Development Research

No doubt, as Tulbert, Sindelar, Correa, and La Porte (1996) recognized, “teacher education research is hard to do well” (p. 261). In 2004, Cochran-Smith also acknowledged the com- plexities associated with conducting teacher education research, in part, because teacher development is embedded in the unpredict- able context of local institutions and subjected to interpretation by individuals and groups with differing perceptions. Most recently, Wiens (2012) described special education teacher development research as an “extremely complicated endeavor” (p. 250).

Because complexities and complications abound when conducting general and special education teacher education research, estab- lishing a causal relationship between pre- and/ or in-service teacher development and K-12 student learning remains problematic. To do so, researchers must employ randomized con- trol trials (RCTs), which constitute the gold standard in educational research (Odom et al., 2005). Nonetheless, RCTs as a research meth- odology may not capture the complexities, nor overcome the complications, inherent in special education teacher development research. For instance, although pre-service teachers could be randomly assigned to some variables, such as courses or hours in the field, they cannot be randomly assigned to indepen- dent variables, such as traditional versus alter- native preparation programs, which is where important differences are likely to exist (Sin- delar et al., 2010). Consequently, we encour- age architects of transformative models to consider including alternative methodologies,

Rock et al. 111

such as quasi-experimental research (Odom et al., 2005), single-case design (Gast & Led- ford, 2014; Kratochwill et al., 2013), qualita- tive inquires (e.g., Creswell, 2013), and mixed methods research (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), to capture the complexities, to overcome known complications, to further inform 21st century models, to determine col- lective impact, and to expand the corpus of reputable research on special education teacher development.

Driver 5: The Culture of We

In the 21st century, collaboration has become a driver in all aspects of a complex and tech- nologically sophisticated society. Business, agency, and school professionals now under- stand that there are simply too many problems to be identified and solved and that most require the coordinated contributions of many talented people. When teams collaborate effectively, the group work, which Fullan (2011) considered one of the “right” drivers needed for whole system change, is based on the strengths and skills of everyone involved (Fullan, 2011).

Since the landmark passage of the Educa- tion of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] (20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.), teaming has been the bedrock of special education; thus, collaboration is the second cultural driver (Tichy, 1983) that aids in the transformation of 21st century special educa- tion teacher education. In accord, we encour- age architects of transformative models of teacher development to consider how pre- and in-service special educators could learn to use collaboration to release ingenuity and creativ- ity (Marx, 2014) in other team members thereby improving special education service provision and enhancing student outcomes. Specifically, we encourage model architects to consider how to foster a shared responsibil- ity (i.e., culture of we) among key stakehold- ers (e.g., administrators, IHE faculty, teachers, parents, related services personnel, legisla- tors, community agencies, and the general public) for improving teacher development

and increasing K-12 educational outcomes for students with disabilities that begins with pre- service development and continues across the career span through in-service support. For example, in a pioneering large-scale study, Nurudeen et al. (2015) explored how multi- source assessments and feedback could be used effectively to improve surgeons’ team- work skills. We see great utility in investigat- ing and advancing similar approaches within the context of special and general teacher development.

We hope, too, model developers consider the value of a seamless career-spanning approach in promoting a collaborative approach—especially as although many spe- cial educators hold teamwork in generally favorable regard and tout its benefits, many report being ill prepared for it (Malone & Gal- lagher, 2010). Acknowledging the vital roles group work and team decision making play in improving results for students, including those with disabilities, the newly authorized ESSA further upholds the need for a compre- hensive approach. Specifically, at the in-ser- vice level, the ESSA allows districts to use funds to enhance collaboration and teacher- led professional development in accord with K-12 students’ learning needs. Moreover, with the shift back to states, collaboration becomes central to success. States will have to work with local district personnel and varied stakeholders to design and carry out new and better assessments and accountability systems in an effort to close opportunity and achieve- ment gaps. Part E of the ESSA addresses Fam- ily Engagement in Education Programs, authorizing Statewide Family Engagement Centers, which foster family–school partner- ships—a move that clearly supports the ten- ants of a team-based approach to special and general education.

Pre-Service Teacher Development in Collaboration

As architects construct transformative mod- els, we encourage them to consider how to prepare pre-service special educators to func- tion effectively in teams so that they learn the

112 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

fundamentals of collaboration through inter- disciplinary coursework and practice using that newly gained knowledge with feedback during simulated (e.g., MURSION) and real- world clinical experiences. Moreover, we encourage model architects to consider how, throughout their program, pre-service special educators could learn about the models of col- laboration (Friend & Cook, 2013), the basics of team-based service provision (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 2005), and the nuts and bolts of school-wide problem solving frame- works (e.g., Broxterman & Whalen, 2013), such as Response to Intervention (RTI), PBIS, and Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS). Because special educators must work effec- tively with a variety of individuals (e.g., fami- lies, para educators, general educators, administrators), teams (e.g., IEP, PBIS, transi- tion, related services), and organizations (e.g., community agencies), we also encourage model architects to consider how to incorpo- rate training in group theory and group skills, which includes conflict resolution (Johnson & Johnson, 2013)—the latter of which is often lacking.

In-Service Teacher Development in Collaboration

In developing new 21st century transforma- tive models, we encourage architects to con- sider how to continue developing and refining collaborative service delivery through team based, job embedded professional develop- ment. When doing so, we encourage them to focus, specifically, on providing administra- tive support for collaboration (Murawski & Bernhardt, 2015); developing special educa- tion teacher leadership for collaborative team- ing (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011); delineating, clarifying, and adjusting role expectations (Dettmer et al., 2005); and monitoring and evaluating team effectiveness (Salas, Goodwin, & Burke, 2009). Why? Simply stated, the more teams collaborate, the more functional or dysfunc- tional the working relationships become. Thus, model developers need to consider how to intentionally and systematically provide

support across the career span that encourages the former and discourages the latter. In doing so, relationships among frontline practitioners are likely to become more comfortable and fluid, which means school-based teams are likely better able to share and discuss ideas, and their results with K-12 students with and without disabilities will likely be increasingly successful.

Recommendations for the Field: A Call to Action

Recognizing the host of contemporary chal- lenges that have long confronted the special education workforce, the need for transforma- tive 21st century teacher development mod- els, and the described driving forces for change, we conclude with a call to action. First, we see a need for special education teacher education colleagues to come together to articulate transformative models that would address the key issues presented and be achieved, in part, by leveraging the change drivers described. This is not to suggest that innovation and reform have not taken place in special education teacher development, rather it is to encourage more widespread adoption and greater fidelity.

Second, we see a need for those engaged in special education teacher development to develop mechanisms for clarifying what is important to address in education policy. When doing so, we encourage key stakehold- ers to consider those mechanisms and recom- mendations put forth by other organizations with an interest in and a commitment to renewing special and general education teacher development, such as the CEEDAR Center, New Teacher Center, AACTE, CEC, and Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). Moreover, we encour- age those who are engaged in and committed to championing these efforts to consider the unique role the U.S. Federal government has played in special education teacher and con- sider ways to preserve that. For transforma- tive models of special education teacher development and the policies that support them to be realized, we encourage colleagues

Rock et al. 113

in SOEs/COEs (i.e., IHEs), accrediting bodies (e.g., CAEP), SEAs, LEAs, and federal fund- ing agencies (e.g., Office of Special Educa- tion Programs [OSEP], National Center for Special Education Research [NCSER]) to join in advancing them through power mapping and other proven advocacy-related tactics.

In summary, transforming special educa- tion teacher development to be seamless, tech- nology enabled, comprehensive, cohesive, and career spanning is critical to ensuring support- ers as well as critics view it as legitimate, con- temporary, and effective. The change drivers we discussed (i.e., the digital revolution, the diversity gap, the credibility factor, the demand for collective impact, and the culture of we) are vital to substantive transformation by pro- viding direction for how and why model archi- tects come together and proceed with this work. Finally, it is critical that education pol- icy and federally funded personnel preparation in special education ensures that approaches to addressing teacher shortages maintain a focus on increasing the quality of preparation rather than solely on increasing pathways to prepara- tion. In capitalizing on the opportunities for transformation, we believe teacher educators will be more effective champions for the main- stay of special education teacher development: Better trained pre- and in-service teachers lead to improved outcomes for students with dis- abilities.

Acknowledgments

Marcia Rock expresses appreciation to Aftynne Cheek, Kara Holden, and Melissa Sullivan for their assistance in developing the section titled, “Driver 4: The Demand for Collective Impact.”

Authors’ Note

Authors contributed equally to the conceptualiza- tion of this manuscript, after the first four authors, who took a more predominate role, and were placed in alphabetical order with doctoral students last, in alphabetical order.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article: This paper was sup- ported, in part, by Grant # H325D110071 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Research to Practice Division. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of that agency or that Institution of Higher Education.

References

Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R., Johnson, L., & Freitas, C. (2009). Research brief: Supporting new teachers of color and cultural diversity (Issue No. 09-01). Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center.

Albert Shanker Institute. (2015). The state of teacher diversity in American education. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2013). The changing teacher preparation profession. Washington, DC: Author.

American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. Alexandria, VA: Author.

An, H., Wilder, H., & Lim, K. (2011). Preparing elementary pre-service teachers from a non- traditional student population to teach with technology. Computers in the Schools, 28, 170-193. doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.577888

Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., . . . Shepard, L. A. (2010, August 29). Problems with the use of student test scores to evalu- ate teachers (Briefing Paper No. 278). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher educa- tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497- 511. doi:10.1177/0022487109348479

Bang, G. (2010). Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy change in the United States? Energy Policy, 38, 1645-1653. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.045

Bastian, K. C., & Henry, G. T. (2015). Teachers without borders: Consequences of teacher labor force mobility. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 163-183. doi:10.3102/0162373714535662

Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (2006). Betters IEPs: How to develop legally correct and edu-

114 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

cationally useful programs (4th ed.). Verona, WI: Attainment Company.

Belknap, B., & Taymans, J. (2015). Risk and resilience in beginning special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 4, 1-19.

Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2013). A universally designed for learning (UDL) infused tech- nological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) practitioners’ model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48, 245-265. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.g

Berliner, D. C. (2014). Exogenous variables and value-added assessment: A fatal flaw. Teachers College Record, 116, 1-31.

Berry, A., Petrin, R., Gravelle, M., & Farmer, T. (2012). Issues in the special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional devel- opment: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 3-11.

Billingsley, B. S., Brownell, M. T., Israel, M., & Kamman, M. L. (2013). A survival guide for new special educators. Secaucus, NJ: John Wiley.

Billingsley, B. S., Crocket, J., & Kamman, M. (2014). Recruiting and retaining teachers and administrators in special education. In P. T. Sindelar, E. D. McCray, M. T. Brownell, & B. Lignugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research in special education teacher preparation (pp. 94-107). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bishop, A. G., Brownell, M. T., Klingner, J. K., Leko, M. M., & Galman, S. A. C. (2010). Differences in beginning special education teachers: The influence of personal attributes, preparation, and school environment on classroom reading practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 75-92. doi:10.1177/073194871003300202.

Boe, E. E., deBettencourt, L. U., Dewey, J., Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P. T., & Leko, C. (2013). Variability in demand for special edu- cation teachers: Indicators, explanations, and impacts. Exceptionality, 21, 1-23. doi:10.1080 /09362835.2013.771563

Bristol, L. (2015). Leading-for-inclusion: Transforming action through teacher talk. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19, 802-820. doi:10.1080/ 13603116.2014.971078

Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357-377. doi:10.1177/001440291007600307

Broxterman, K., & Whalen, A. J. (2013). RTI team building: Effective collaboration and data-based decision making. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Burke, P. J., Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., Montrose- Moorhead, B., Robinson, S., Rock, M. L., Rude, H., . . . Reder, N. (2013). The federal investment in personnel preparation for spe- cial educators. Alexandria, VA: Personnel Improvement Center, National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved from http://personnelcenter.org/doc- uments/The%20Federal%20Investment%20 in%20Personnel%20Preparation%20for%20 Special%20Educators%20-%20final.pdf

Callahan, R., & Darzi, A. (2015). Five policy levers to meet the value challenge in cancer care. Health Affairs, 34, 1563-1568. doi:10.1377/ hlthaff.2015.0308

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 295-299. doi:10.1177/0022487104268057

Cohen, M. K., Gale, M., & Meyer, J. M. (1994). Survival guide for the first-year special edu- cation teacher. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Coles, A. (2011). Research to practice brief: The role of mentoring in college access and suc- cess. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, UK. John Wiley.

Connelly, V., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2009). Special education as a profession: Historical com- parisons to careers that have achieved full professional standing. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 201-214. doi:10.1177/0888406409339575

Constantine, J., Player, D., Silva, T., Hallgren, K., Grider, M., & Deke, J. (2009). An evalu- ation of teachers trained through different routes to certification: Final report (NCEE 2009-4043). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence- based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135-144.

Cook, B., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. (Eds.). (2009). Evidence-based practices for reading, math, writing, and behavior. [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 260-385.

Rock et al. 115

Council for Exceptional Children. (2012). Position on special education teacher evaluation.

Retrieved from https://www.cec.sped.org/~/ media/Files/Policy/CEC%20Professional%20 Policies%20and%20Positions/Position_on_ Special_Education_Teacher_Evaluation_ Background.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Croft, A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., Powers, E., & Killion, J. (2010). Issue brief: Job-embedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Dadisman, K., Gravelle, M., Farmer, T., & Petrin, R. (2010). Issue brief: Grow your own and other alternative certification programs in rural school districts. Chapel Hill, NC: National Research Center on Rural Education Support.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 7-13.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple mea- sures for evaluating program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 1-19.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation? Educational Researcher, 44, 132-137. doi:10.3102/00131 89X15575346

deBettencourt, L. U., & Howard, L. (2004). Alternatively licensing career changers to be teachers in the field of special education: Their first-year reflections. Exceptionality, 12, 225- 238. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1204_4

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N. J. (2005). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dieker, L. A., Kennedy, M. J., Smith, S., Vasquez, E., III, Rock, M., & Thomas, C. N. (2014). Use of technology in the preparation of pre-service teachers (Document No. IC11). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innova- tion-configurations/

Dukes, C., Darling, S. M., & Doan, K. (2014). Selection pressures on special education teacher preparation: Issues shaping our future.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 9-20. doi:10.1177/0888406413513273

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-142. 89 Stat. 773 (now called Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]; 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.).

Ellis, W. F., & Epstein, K. (2015). Tactics and strategies for breading the barriers to a diverse teaching force. In C. Sleeter, L. Neal, & K. Kumashiro (Eds.), Diversifying the teacher workforce: Preparing and retaining highly effective teachers (pp. 139-149). New York, NY: Routledge. .

Fallon, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Maggin, D. M., Sanetti, L. M., & Johnson, A. J. (2015). Is performance feedback an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and evaluation. Exceptional Children, 81, 227-246.

Feuer, M. J., Floden, R. E., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of teacher prepara- tion programs: Purposes, methods, and policy options. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network, University of South Florida.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2013). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Frohman, M. A. (1997). Igniting organizational change from below: The power of personal initiative. Organizational Dynamics, 25(3), 39-52. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90046-2

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157- 171. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072

Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Seminar Series Paper No. 204). East Melbourne, Australia: Center for Strategic Education.

Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single case research: Applications in special educa- tion and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

Goldhaber, D. (2015). Exploring the potential of value-added performance measures to affect the quality of the teacher workforce.

116 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

Educational Researcher, 44, 87-95. doi:10.31 02/0012189X15574905

Goldhaber, D., Liddle, S., & Theobald, R. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation based on student achieve- ment. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29- 44. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.011

Graham, S. (Ed). (2005). Criteria for Evidence- Based Practice in Special Education. [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 130-207.

Great Teacher and Leading for Great Schools (GREAT) Act of 2014 (H.R. 848, 2015).

Greenwood, C. R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276-289. doi:10.1177/088840640102400403

Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation: Using technology to examine teaching (Overview for a digital exhibition: Learning from the practice of teaching). Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 70-85. doi:10.1177/0022487108328533

Hymes, K., Karr, S., & Pudelski, S. (2014). Special education personnel shortages fact- sheet. Washington, DC: National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services.

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on beginning teacher attrition? (Research Report #RR-82). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and self-actualization (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kemelgor, B. H., Johnson, S. D., & Srinivasan, S. (2000). Forces driving organizational change: A business school perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 133-137. doi:10.1080/08832320009599003

Kennedy, M. J., Driver, M., Pullen, P. C., Ely, E., & Cole, M. T. (2013). Improving teacher candi- dates’ knowledge of phonological awareness: A multimedia approach. Computers & Education, 64, 42-51. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.010

Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., Tramill, J. L., & Brace, H. (2010). Context, funding history, and impli- cations for evaluating the Office of Special Education Program’s investment in personnel preparation. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 195-205. doi:10.1177/0022466908316201

Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., Tramill, J. L., & Westbrook, A. (2009). Evaluating the federal investment for personnel preparation in special education.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 150-165. doi:10.1177/0888406409334277

Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2013). Single- case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26-38. doi:10.1177/0741932512452794

Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational makerspaces: Part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8-11.

Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25-43. doi:10.1177/0014402915598782

Leko, M. M., & Smith, S. W. (2010). Retaining beginning special educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 321-325. doi:10.1177/1053451209353441

Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44, 54-61. doi:10.3102/00131 89X15570388

Lewis, W. D., & Young, T. V. (2013). The poli- tics of accountability: Teacher education policy. Educational Policy, 27, 190-216. doi:10.1177/0895904812472725

Losinski, M., Katsiyannis, A., & Ryan, J. B. (2013). The McKinney–Vento educa- tion for homeless children and youth pro- gram: Implications for special educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 92-98. doi:10.1177/1053451213493170

Mahon, J., Bryant, B., Brown, B., & Kim, K. (2010). Using Second Life to enhance class- room management practice in teacher educa- tion. Educational Media International, 47, 121-134. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010.492677

Malone, D. M., & Gallagher, P. A. (2010). Special education teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of teamwork. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 330-342. doi:10.1177/0741932509338362

Martin, C. C., & Hauth, C. (2015). The survival guide for special education teachers (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Marx, G. (2014). Twenty-one trends for the 21st century: Out of the trenches and into the future. Bethesda, MD: Education Week Press.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mills, S. (2011). Special education teacher preparation. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 47-60). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rock et al. 117

McCall, Z., McHatton, P. A., & Shealey, M. W. (2014). Special education teacher can- didate assessment: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 51-70. doi:10.1177/0888406413512684

McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap? A perspective on the teacher shortage in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 293-305. doi:10.1177/0741932507312010

Mead, S., Aldeman, C., Chuong, C., & Obbard, J. (2015). Rethinking teacher preparation: Empowering local schools to solve California’s teacher shortage and better develop teachers. Washington, DC: Bellwether Education Partners.

Menlove, R., Garnes, L., & Salzberg, C. (2004). Why special educators leave and where they go? Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 373-384. doi:10.1177/088840640402700405

Mihaley, K., McCaffrey, D., Sass, T., & Lockwood, J. R. (2012). Where do you come from or where do you go? Distinguishing between school quality and the effectiveness of teacher preparation program graduates (CALDER Working Paper No. 63). Retrieved from http:// www.caldercenter.org/publications/where- you-come-or-where-you-go-distinguishing- between-school-quality-and-effectiveness

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9620.2006.00684.x

Morningstar, M., & Mazzotti, V. (2014). Teacher preparation to deliver evidence-based transi- tion planning and services to youth with dis- abilities (Document No. IC-1). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innova- tion-configurations/

Murawski, W. M., & Bernhardt, P. (2015). Five steps to instituting successful co-teaching: An admin- istrator’s guide. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 30-34.

Nagro, S. A., & Cornelius, K. E. (2013). Evaluating the evidence base of video analysis: A special education teacher development tool. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 312- 329. doi:10.1177/0888406413501090

Nance, E., & Calabrese, R. L. (2009). Special educa- tion teacher retention and attrition: The impact of increased legal requirements. International Journal of Educational Management, 23, 431- 440. doi:10.1108/09513540910970520

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (CNES 2012- 045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Homeless Education. (2015). McKinney-Vento Law into practice brief series: Supporting homeless children and youth with disabilities: Legislative provisions in the McKinney-Vento Act and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Brown Summit, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://center. serve.org/nche/downloads/briefs/idea.pdf

National Center on Teacher Quality. (2010). 2009 state teacher policy yearbook: National sum- mary. Washington, DC: Author.

Newman, L. (2005). Family involvement in the educational development of youth with disabil- ities. A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Nurudeen, S. M., Kwakye, G., Berry, W. R., Chaikof, E. L., Lillemoe, K. D., Millham, F., . . . Haynes, A. B. (2015). Can 360-degree feed- back help surgeons? Evaluation of multisource feedback for surgeons in a multi-institutional quality improvement project. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 221, 834-844. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.06.017

Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based prac- tices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148. doi:10.1177/001440290507100201

Oyler, C. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclu- sive and critical (special) education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 201- 218. doi:10.1177/0888406411406745

Palaich, B., Reichardt, R., O’Brien, T., McDaniel, J., Wool, S., & McCelland, A. (2014). Keeping up with the kids: Increasing minority teacher representation in Colorado. Denver, CO: Augenblick, Palaich and Associates.

Pierangelo, R. (2004). The special educator’s sur- vival guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

Prather-Jones, B. (2011). How school administra- tors influence the retention of teachers of stu- dents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Clearing House, 84, 1-8.

Rieckmann, T., Abraham, A., Zwick, J., Rasplica, C., & McCarty, D. (2015). A longitudinal study of state strategies and policies to accel-

118 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

erate evidence-based practices in the context of systems transformation. Health Services Research, 50, 1125-1145.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

Rock, M. L., & Billingsley, B. S. (2014). From metaphorically speaking to acting boldly: A commentary on the special issue. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 71-76. doi:10.1177/0888406413507720

Rock, M. L., & Billingsley, B. S. (2015). Who makes a difference! Next generation special education workforce renewal. In B. Bateman, J. W. Lloyd, & M. Tanskersley (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education personal perspectives (pp. 168-186). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rock, M. L., Schumacker, R. E., Gregg, M., Howard, P. W., Gable, R. A., & Zigmond, N. (2014). How are they now? Longer term effects of eCoaching through online bug-in-ear technology. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 161-181. doi:10.1177/0888406414525048

Rock, M. L., Thead, B. K., Gable, R. A., Hardman, M. L., & VanAcker, R. (2006). In pursuit of excellence: The past as prologue to a brighter future for special education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 38(8), 1-19.

Ronfeldt, M., Schwartz, N., & Jacob, B. A. (2014). Does pre-service preparation mat- ter? Examining an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1-46.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rosenberg, M. S., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2014). Innovation, policy, and capacity in special educa- tion: Competing demands in challenging times. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 77-82. doi:10.1177/0888406413516809

Roy, P., & Hord, S. M. (2004). Innovation configu- rations chart a measured course toward change. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 54-58.

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71-72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F., & Burke, C. S. (Eds.). (2009). Team effectiveness in complex orga- nizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives

and approaches. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Sawchuck, S. (2015, December 8). ESEA-rewrite bill includes controversial teacher-prep pro- visions. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacher- beat/2015/12/teacher-prep_provisions_in_ess. html?qs=ESEA+rewrite

Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 8-24. doi:10.1177/0888406409358593

Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2000). Serving too many masters: The proliferation of ill conceived policies and practices in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 188-193. doi:10.1177/0022487100051003005

Sindelar, P. T., Wasburn-Moses, L., Thomas, R. A., & Leko, C. D. (2014). The policy and economic contexts of teacher education. In P. T. Sindelar, E. D. McCray, M. T. Brownell, & B. Lignugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher prepa- ration (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Routledge.

Skinner, R. R., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2015). Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Highlights of the Every Student Succeeds Act (Congressional Research Service Report). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Smartt, S. S., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Barriers to the preparation of highly qualified teach- ers in reading (TQ Research & Policy Brief). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Spooner, F. (Ed.). (2003). Perspective on defining scientifically based research [Special issue]. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 28, 102-164.

Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Hussey, E. K., & Ng, S. (2015). The potential for literacy to shape life- long cognitive health. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 92-100. doi:10.1177/2372732215600889

Tait, M. (2008). Resilience as a contributor to nov- ice teacher success, commitment, and retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 57-75.

Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. (2011). Teacher leader model standards. Washington, DC: Author.

Tichy, N. M. (1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Rock et al. 119

Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 728-739.

Tulbert, B., Sindelar, P. T., Correa, V. I., & La Porte, M. M. (1996). Looking in the rear view mir- ror: A content analysis of Teacher Education and Special Education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 248-261.

Tyler, N., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Flippin, S. (2002). Diversifying the special education workforce (COPSSE Document No. RS-3E). Gainesville: Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida.

Tyler, T. A., & Brunner, C. C. (2014). The case for increasing workplace decision-making: Proposing a model for special educator attrition research. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 283-308. doi:10.1177/ 0888414527118

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). U.S. Department of Education strategic plan for fiscal years 2014-2018. Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2014- 18/strategic-plan.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/essa

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010). ESEA blueprint for reform. Washington, DC: Author.

White, R. (2004). The recruitment of paraeducators into the special education profession: A review of progress, selection evaluation outcomes, and new initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 2, 214-218. doi:10.1177/0741932 5040250040401

Wiens, P. D. (2012). The missing link: Research on teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 249-261. doi:10.1080/016266 20.2012.694018

Zeichner, K. (2015, December, 5). The disturbing provisions about teacher preparation in No Child Left Behind rewrite. The Washington Post. Retrieved from h

Author Biographies

Marcia L. Rock, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Specialized Education Services at UNC Greensboro. Her research interests are in tech- nology enabled teacher development, eCoaching, effective instruction for students with high incidence disabilities, and classroom/ behavior management.

Fred Spooner, PhD, is a Professor in the Depart- ment of Special Education and Child Development at UNC Charlotte. He is currently Co-Principal Investigator on Project Solutions, a U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences Proj- ect, examining mathematical problem solving for students with severe disabilities. His research inter- ests include evidence-based practices and instruc- tional strategies for students with severe disabilities.

Sarah Nagro, EdD, is an Assistant Professor in the Special Education and Disabilities Research Divi- sion of the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University in Fair- fax, Virginia. Her research focuses on identifying high leverage clinical practices in special education teacher education that result in profession ready teachers who can partner with families to improve the educational experiences of students with dis- abilities.

Eleazar Vasquez III, PhD, is an Associate Profes- sor Department of Child, Family, and Community Sciences, Exceptional Education Program at the University of Central Florida. His research focuses on the evaluation of innovative technologies impact on the academic and behavioral performance for individuals with disabilities in STEM content areas.

Cari Dunn, PhD, is a Humana-Germany-Sherman Distinguished Professor in the Department of Spe- cial Education, Rehabilitation, and Counseling at Auburn University. She has directed or co-directed numerous doctoral leadership and master’s training grants. She is particularly interested in transition programs for secondary students with disabilities, STEM education for students with disabilities, and teacher preparation.

Melinda Leko, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University if Kansas. Her research interests center on teacher edu- cation initiatives to support students with disabili- ties, adolescent literacy, and issues surrounding the

ttps://www.washington-

implementation of evidence-based practices.

post.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/05/

John Luckner, EdD, is a professor in the School

the-disturbing-provisions-about-teacher-

of Special Education, the coordinator of the Special

preparation-in-no-child-left-behind-rewrite/

120 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

Education: Deaf/Hard of Hearing program and the Director of Research and Evaluation for the Bres- nahan-Halstead Center for Disabilities at the Uni- versity of Northern Colorado.

Margaret Bausch, EdD, is the department chair of Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabili- tation Counseling at the University of Kentucky. Her teaching and research focus on special educa- tion teacher training with a specific interest in assistive technology. She has authored numerous manuscripts and has held a variety of leadership positions in the Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Claire Donehower, Doctoral Candidate Excep- tional Education Program in the Child, Family, and Community Sciences department at the Uni- versity of Central Florida. Her current research focuses on using innovative technology to improve social and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities.

Jennie L. Jones is a doctoral scholar in the depart- ment of Specialized Education Services in the School of Education at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research interests include teacher preparation and coaching/mentor- ing support for literacy instruction.