Spring-Summer
2021
Reprise
FLEAT II
1992:
Remembrance
Achieving
Inclusion
Through
Partnerships
Reprise
ASPECT
2001:
Summer School
in Riverdale
Reprise
TALGS 2009:
Lida Cope
in Greenville
Reprise 2002
NYSTESOL
Applied
Linguistics:
Report from
the Winter
Conference
ESL Mini-
Conference
Reprise:
2004 TESOL
Peace Forum
Respects
Union Strike
ESL Mini-
Conference
Reprise:
2003 Rocky
Mountain
TESOL
SEE INAUGURAL
EDITION FROM
SUMMER 2020
drrobbscott@
Editor:
gmail.com
Developing Partnerships to Build K-6 Unified Programs in Kansas
NEWS RELEASE - On March 1st, 2018, Dr. Robert Bruce Scott, Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Teacher Education, and Dr. Jacqueline Lubin, Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Advanced Education Programs, collaborated with Fort Hays colleagues, special education professionals, and teacher educators from peer institutions across the state, to facilitate a panel discussion on "Developing Partnerships to Build K-6 Unified Programs," with some of the participants in a large presentation room at Rarick Hall while others connected via the Internet using Zoom technology. Dr. Lubin was the moderator of a conversation that featured State Director of Special Education Colleen Riley, Hays USD 489 Special Education Director Dr. Raj Sharma, Pittsburg State University Professor and Chair Dr. Alice Sagehorn, University of Kansas Assistant Professor of Special Education Dr. Jennifer Kurth, and Geary County USD 475 Executive Director of Special Education Rebekah Helget, as well as audience members, at FHSU and via Zoom, including Kansas State Board of Education Chair Jim Porter and representatives from teacher preparation programs at Emporia State University, Wichita State University, and several others. The K-6 Unified is a new teacher licensure path in Kansas with rigorous standards that combine general education and special education into a four-year undergraduate program to prepare professionals with knowledge and skills to teach and support all students in inclusive elementary school classrooms. "Since the K-6 Unified standards were approved by the State Board of Education early last year," explained Dr. Scott, "teacher preparation faculty at a number of our peer institutions have been grappling with the challenges of restructuring our curricula to merge objectives from special education with traditional elementary education objectives." Dr. Lubin started the state-wide discussion by praising Dr. Alice Sagehorn for being "the Roger Bannister of K-6 Unified in Kansas," because Pittsburg State is the first school to get their K-6 Unified program approved by KSDE. Dr. Sagehorn described the year-long process it took for their Department of Teaching and Leadership faculty to graft the new standards onto inclusion coursework they already had added to their elementary education licensure program a few years ago. Dr. Kurth, at K.U., described a different approach, in which special education faculty and general education faculty are engaged in a curriculum re-design project that will completely merge their objectives into new courses with an emphasis on teacher preparation faculty co-teaching many of the new classes. Other universities are at everything from preliminary to advanced stages in addressing the challenges posed by the new K-6 Unified licensure standards, and participants at FHSU's panel discussion suggested that conversations like these may become a model for institutions of higher education to share and learn from each other in our efforts to prepare teachers who are equipped to provide all students with access to learning opportunities.
Integrating Teacher Preparation Programs to Implement Non-Categorical Direct Licensure through the Development of a Merged Curriculum (Scott, 2017)
Abstract
A case is made for fully merging general and special education curricula in developing programs to prepare candidates for the new Kansas K-6 Unified direct entry license. The author of this paper was present at important meetings which were instrumental in the decision of the Kansas State Board of Education to approve standards for the new license which require candidates to receive training in low-incidence as well as high-incidence special education, combined with elementary education coursework, in a four-year undergraduate degree program. As a special education faculty member at an institution of higher education (IHE), the author was also involved in discussions with colleagues at his institution and at other schools across the state during the 2016 calendar year, when the details of the K-6 Unified standards were being developed and debated. This paper suggests a context for restructuring teacher preparation in order to most effectively transform a special education culture which has, up to now, prevented children with severe disabilities from having access to the general curriculum in inclusive settings with their same-age peers.
New Kansas Licensure Program Promotes Inclusion
A new era of special education teacher preparation started in 2017 when the Kansas State Board of Education approved standards for a K-6 Unified license which is non-categorical and requires knowledge and skills to work with students with both high-incidence and low-incidence exceptionalities (Kansas State Department of Education, February 14, 2017). This full-inclusion mandate was strongly supported by special education directors in school districts, but resisted by faculty at a number of the state's institutions of higher education as a threat to a long-standing status quo of separating high-incidence and low-incidence special educator preparation programs (Personal communication, March 3, 2016).
Because high-incidence (adaptive) and low-incidence (functional) exceptionalities had been separated traditionally, that separation was largely maintained even as schools strived to be more inclusive by placing students with special needs in general education settings (Morningstar, M.E., and Kurth, J.A., 2016). Similarly, teacher-preparation programs tended to leave out considerations of children with severe disabilities when addressing inclusive concepts such as differentiated instruction or universal design for learning. The strongest argument for unifying high- and low-incidence mirrored the most compelling calls for integration of schools from the civil rights era (Harris, J.E., 2015).
Perspectives on Truth
From the start of conversations among special education stakeholders during the year in which the new K-6 Unified standards were being developed--and debated--it was clear that huge divisions existed between those representing the status quo and those pushing for the non categorical, inclusive approach that eventually won out, as was evidenced at a joint meeting of the Consortium of Low Incidence Teacher Preparation Programs (CLIPP) and the Early Childhood Higher Education Options Consortium (ECHO) at Topeka (Personal communication, March 3, 2016). Discussions on the committee writing the standards for the new K-6 Unified license were heated at times, and harsh words were exchanged in early stages of the process, as shared in an e-mail from one member to the CLIPP group (Personal communication, October 22, 2015).
In such exchanges, perhaps truth is the most elusive piece of knowledge to get a hold on, yet it is at the core of whether we are able to determine the skills our teacher candidates will need. What do we know about the challenges special educators will face in their schools and classrooms? Can we be sure of what we know? Do we share with our fellow teacher educators a common understanding of "truth" which allows us to compare experiences--and improve our teacher preparation programs in the process?
There are at least two concepts of truth that can direct our thoughts and actions as teachers and special educators. In Socrates' allegory of the cave (Plato, trans. 2008), the idea is that there is a single truth, which exists at a higher plane of reality that is achieved through the experience of breaking chains of illusion and belief. Another, much more relative, version of truth is expressed by Maxine Greene (1995), in her description of an approach to teaching and learning that acknowledges and embraces multiple perspectives and multiple realities.
These two concepts of truth ideally might be blended in a person's development over the course of his or her career. Because the process of letting go of long-held beliefs and
assumptions is frightening and generates so much temporary confusion, or dissonance (Freire, 1970), there may be a psychological need for something concrete at that stage. On a journey of lifelong learning, one has to stop at certain points and throw out a few anchors, locking in the latest version of reality for a while. Then comes a time to break free again and grow through interaction with those who have different ideas and different experiences.
By continually adjusting its outlook, alternating a universal truth perspective with one that embraces multiple realities, a teacher preparation program can respond effectively to the flux of challenges and opportunities it faces in academic and political realms. The K-6 Unified licensure standards in Kansas have presented just such a dilemma for institutions of higher education wishing to develop programs for the new license.
Empowering Teacher Educators
Freire (1970) developed a concept he referred to as "praxis," whose actions are aimed at "the liberation of oppressed communities."
These ideas predate a later call by Skrtic (1986) for a major "paradigm shift" in the field of special education. "Professional induction is the efficient inculcation of the inductee with a commitment to a particular way of seeing the world and operating in it," says Skrtic (1986, p. 6). Bringing together general education and non-categorical special education principles into a single set of standards for the K-6 Unified licensure program would mean re-conceptualizing courses, merging course objectives, and envisioning the learning space anew for teacher candidates while encouraging them (and ourselves) to acquire, in Skrtic's words, a "new lens or paradigm [which] provides a different way of seeing the world and making sense of it" (1986, p. 8).
A tradition in special education over the past few decades has been the preparation of special education professionals mainly as the purview of graduate-level programs. In the past, when undergraduate teacher licensure programs have added a special education option enabling teacher candidates to add a special education endorsement, there has been an outcry from master's level programs questioning the legitimacy of undergraduate special education coursework (Personal communication, May 22, 2013). This has also been an "oppressive reality," in Freire's words, which finally pushed the state board in Kansas to implement the new K-6 Unified standards as a kind of "praxis" to "[reflect and act] upon the world in order to transform it."
"We expect these new standards are going to rock the world" of institutions of higher education in Kansas, said Colleen Riley, the state director of special education at a meeting between the state board of education and the Special Education Advisory Council (Personal communication, January 11, 2017). At one university, it took program leaders several weeks just to come to terms with the fact that the new K-6 Unified licensure standards would require candidates to develop knowledge and skills in both low-incidence and high-incidence disabilities (Personal communication, February 14, 2017). To understand the sense of urgency with which KSDE acted to promote the new standards, it is instructive to read an e-mail sent to the author of this paper by Colleen Riley following up on her "rock the world" statement:
Even after the new reality of non-categorical special education standards was acknowledged, the oppressive influence of the status quo has remained in effect. In one case, a team of general and special education teacher educators began the planning process by trying to determine which general education courses would be conserved and which would be sacrificed to make room for additional special education coursework so that the K-6 Unified program still could be completed within four years (Personal communication, March 13, 2017). Although the K-6 Unified standards did not separate general from special education, a habit of teaching these on separate tracks made it challenging to imagine new courses that might merge these components and bundle standards as another way to keep the overall program the same length.
Resistance to the paradigm shift represented by the new K-6 Unified license in Kansas was also evident in conversations among those developing these undergraduate programs. At one institution, it sounded as if the curriculum design team was resigned to the idea that a four-year undergraduate unified program would produce licensure candidates with less than optimum skills, thereby maintaining the relevancy of graduate programs in special education (Personal communication, March 27, 2017). At least the first several months of conversations regarding K-6 Unified program development were impaired by the continuing strength of a status quo which prevented collaborators from envisioning a different special education culture.
Transforming an Established Model
Leadership is crucial to the success of any change process, and implementation of the new K-6 Unified direct licensure standards is creating challenges for leaders at colleges of education across the state of Kansas. Those interested in designing the very best teacher preparation programs for K-6 Unified licensure candidates will need to be (or become) transformative leaders capable of engaging and guiding faculty in negotiating changes in unfamiliar territory. Transformative learning is a way of viewing the learning process as a potentially life-changing event in which longstanding habits of thought are challenged and modified as a result of new experiences, critical reflection, and rational dialogue (Imel, 1998).
Mezirow (1995) describes two ways that we can change our frames of reference, or "meaning schemes" (specific beliefs, attitudes, and emotional reactions). First, these meaning schemes can develop over time as an individual incorporates new experiences and ideas into an existing mental framework, accommodating perspectives to include new information. Transformative learning, however, which shifts perspectives, is less common (Mezirow, 1995). This restructuring of mental frameworks is caused by what Mezirow calls "a disorienting dilemma," in the context of a crisis or transition (1995, p. 50). Imel (1998) reports Mezirow's 10 phases of transformative learning.
1. A disorienting dilemma
2. Self-examination
3. Critical assessment of assumptions
4. Recognition that others have shared similar transformations
5. Exploration of new roles or actions
6. Development of a plan for action
7. Acquisition of knowledge and skills for implementing the plan
8. Tryout of the plan
9. Development of competence and self-confidence in new roles
10. Reintegration into life on the basis of new perspectives
(Mezirow, cited in Imel, 1998, p. 3)
The "disorienting dilemma" facing any teacher preparation program in Kansas desiring to develop a K-6 Unified licensure program consists in three main facts: the new curriculum must include both high- and low-incidence knowledge and skills; K-6 Unified is a special education license to be earned entirely through undergraduate coursework, displacing the traditional master's level entry system; and K-6 Unified is expected to be a four-year program of study, with no additional credits beyond the typical 124 or 128 required for an elementary or secondary education degree.
The next three phases in Mezirow's model--self-examination, critical assessment of assumptions, and recognition that others have shared similar transformations--strongly imply
that this process ought to involve cooperation and communication across divisions between areas of expertise as well as from one institution to another. On a macro level, faculty at teacher preparation programs from different universities would benefit from open, honest sharing of concerns as well as insights during these early phases of a change process which some inevitably will perceive as threatening to long-held beliefs based on experience and tradition. On a micro level, it is important within programs, especially in collaborations between general education specialists and special educators, for faculty to be open to ideas about new ways of seeing relationships among knowledge bases and skill-sets from each other's special areas of expertise. Acknowledging Suzuki's concept of "beginner's mind" can help us appreciate what there is to learn about our area of expertise from those whose perceptions are not limited by the thought routines which shape our own ideas. "In the beginner's mind, there are many possibilities," suggests Suzuki. "In the expert's, there are few" (2010, p. 2).
Brave, Visionary Leadership
The new K-6 Unified standards truly have "rocked the world" which previously existed in colleges of education at universities throughout the state of Kansas. It is no surprise if some programs are hesitant to take on the task of self-reflection and transformative learning to arrive at newly defined roles and shifted knowledge bases and skills in order to develop degree programs which fully merge what used to be a clear separation between general and special education. Leaders at those teacher preparation programs which are determined to develop K-6 Unified programs first will need to address the sense of fear nearly everyone involved is feeling regarding changes which challenge some assumptions held very tightly.
Phase nine of Mezirow's transformative learning model--development of competence and self-confidence in new roles--suggests that self-efficacy in situations like the one faced by teacher preparation programs in Kansas with the challenges of meeting the new K-6 Unified standards is going to be more complicated than simply having established a track record of success on previous academic projects. Leaders in the K-6 Unified change process will need to be sensitive to the potential effects of deep-seated fears on the self-confidence of faculty working on this new curriculum.
"If efficacy beliefs always reflected only what people can do routinely," says Bandura, "they would rarely fail but they would not set aspirations beyond their immediate reach nor mount the extra effort needed to surpass their ordinary performances" (1994, pp. 71-81). When a new challenge presents a set of dilemmas like the ones associated with K-6 Unified licensure in Kansas, hesitation and tentativeness can turn to fear, as suggested by Orison Swett Marden (1913), quoted in a book, "Suggestion and Autosuggestion," by Charles Baudouin (1921):
Leaders of the transformative change effort entailed in the development of K-6 Unified programs will need to provide continuous encouragement and be understanding of the inevitable missteps and mistakes which will accompany an honest restructuring of the curriculum to meet the goals of the new K-6 Unified standards. Above all, deans, chairs, and other leaders must value the inclusion of children with exceptionalities in general education settings: the goal which constitutes the driving force behind the new K-6 Unified license.
Next, these program development leaders must communicate unequivocally and consistently to the curriculum re-design teams their faith in the ability of the team members to achieve success despite the fact that quite possibly nothing on the scale of what is required by the new K-6 Unified standards has ever been accomplished anywhere else in the United States of America. In motivating their teams to strive for unparalleled results, the leaders at teacher preparation programs will want to remember how Pajares (2005) expands on Bandura's insights regarding self-efficacy. "...[T]he most functional self-efficacy judgments are those that slightly exceed what an individual can actually accomplish," writes Pajares, "for this overestimation serves to increase effort and persistence" (2005, p. 355).
Strengths-Based Supervision
In sum, educational leaders in Kansas have to believe in the importance of the mission and take up the gauntlet laid down by the Kansas State Board of Education on behalf of increased integration of special education students in general education settings. Then, these enlightened leaders are going to face a challenge like no other in education today, as they encourage and support the efforts of faculty and other stakeholders who are striving to merge not only general and special education standards, but also low-incidence and high-incidence awareness, knowledge, and specialized instruction skills, in designing the most effective and efficient curriculum possible for preparing candidates for the new K-6 Unified license.
Because developing K-6 Unified programs at institutions of higher education represents what Skrtic refers to as "a paradigm shift" in how special education is conceptualized by teacher educators as well as by classroom teachers, para-educators, school administrators, and other stakeholders, the curriculum development teams will not know ahead of time what form the outcomes are going to take; the shape of these new programs will become clear as the work of each team proceeds. Neither will team leaders, deans, chairs, and directors know in advance the many details which will arise as the results develop, although they will be responsible for recognizing practical elements capable of being implemented.
Recent research on "strengths-based supervision" in school counseling offers intriguing suggestions with apparent relevance to the leadership challenges expected in the change process sure to accompany any serious effort to design a K-6 Unified teacher preparation program. "Strengths-based supervision has many benefits such as building the supervisory relationship, instilling confidence, fostering independence, and reducing anxiety," say Nichter and Dowda (2017, p. 318), who refer to research by Aasheim (2012) "that focusing on strengths may enhance supervisee self-efficacy..." (Nichter and Dowda, 2017, p. 317).
While striving to motivate curriculum development teams in the transformative learning process associated with overcoming traditional mindsets and working through fears related to new and unknown aspects of designing a program which merges aspects of education previously treated separately, those college, departmental, and team leaders can borrow from "strengths based supervision" principles such as nonjudgmental observation and positive reinforcement (Nichter and Dowda, 2017) to allay the anxieties felt by team members in potentially stressful situations. When "strengths-based supervision" is utilized by leaders, according to Nichter and Dowda, "supervisees feel safe to be open and honest" (p. 318), which will be an essential factor in a successful K-6 Unified program development process.
On the Right Side of History
In March of 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided unanimously for the plaintiffs in the case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, establishing a more rigorous standard for FAPE (free and appropriate public education) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), updating the 1982 Supreme Court decision Board of Education v. Rowley, in which the concept of a minimal level of educational benefit was established and had been used by school districts over the past three and a half decades to resist efforts by parents and advocates at improving the quality of individualized education programs (IEPs).
The same impulse which compelled the Kansas State Board of Education to insist that the new K-6 Unified licensure standards be non-categorical and facilitative of greater inclusion of special education students in general education settings in Kansas schools is also the driving force behind the Supreme Court's decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, setting a higher standard for the specialized instruction received by students with special needs in public schools. This is a further signal to teacher preparation programs that sufficient financial
and supervisory support ought to be provided to the curriculum restructuring process required to develop strong, effective coursework for new K-6 Unified initiatives, as opposed to shortcuts and a higher education version of "merely more than de minimus."
###
Originally posted
by Robb Scott on Academia.edu in 2017
drrobbscott@gmail.com
2021 The Multilingual Adaptive Systems Newsletter