• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Preface
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Main
 Main
 Main






Title: Status of licensure of special education teachers in the 21st century
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090888/00001
 Material Information
Title: Status of licensure of special education teachers in the 21st century
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Geiger, William L.
Publisher: Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, College of Education, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00090888
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

RS-7 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Preface
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
    Introduction
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Main
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Main
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Main
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
Full Text






The Status of Licensure of Special Education
Teachers in the 21st Century
Prepared for the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education



by
William L. Geiger
University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Margaret D. Crutchfield
The Council for Exceptional Children

Richard Mainzer
The Council for Exceptional Children

April 2003
(COPSSE Document No. RS-7)


IDEAs
WthatIork


Center on Personnel Studies in


Education


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


http://www. copsse.org









CENTER ON PERSONNEL STUDIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER

INSTRUCTIONAL RESEARCH GROUP, LONG BEACH, CA

COPSSE research is focused on the preparation of special education professionals and its
impact on beginning teacher quality and student outcomes. Our research is intended to inform
scholars and policymakers about advantages and disadvantages of preparation alternatives and
the effective use of public funds in addressing personnel shortages.

In addition to our authors and reviewers, many individuals and organizations have contributed
substantially to our efforts, including Drs. Erling Boe of the University of Pennsylvania and
Elaine Carlson of WESTAT. We also have benefited greatly from collaboration with the National
Clearinghouse for the Professions in Special Education, the Policymakers Partnership, and their
parent organizations, the Council for Exceptional Children and the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education.


The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, H325Q000002, is a cooperative
agreement between the University of Florida and the Office of Special Education Programs of
the U. S. Department of Education. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of other organizations imply
endorsement by them.
Recommended citation:
Geiger, W. L., Crutchfield, M. D., & Mainzer, R. (2003). The status of licensure of special education
teachers in the 21st century (COPSSE Document No. RS-7). Gainesville, FL: University
of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.


IDEAs
thatWork
U. S. Office of Special
Education Programs


Additional Copies may be obtained from:
COPSSE Project
P.O. Box 117050
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-0701
352-392-2655 (Fax)

There are no copyright restrictions on this document; however
please credit the source and support of the federal funds when
copying all or part of this document.









CONTENTS


CHAPTERS

Introduction to Licensure of Special Education Teachers ....................... ............... 4

Review of Research on Licensure Requirements ........................................... 6

Current Requirements for Conventional Licensure..............................................14

Alternative Routes to Licensure............................ 27

Limitations of Studies and Recommendations for Future Research ..............................32

R E F E R E N C E S ....................................................................................... .3 5

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels for Special Education
L ic e n s e s ............................................................................................... .3 9

Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education
T e a c h e rs ............................................................................................... .5 4

Appendix C. Letter Request for Information on Alternative Route Certification
P ro g ra m ............ ......... ............ .................. ................................... ....... ............ ..... .. 62

TABLES

Table 1. Areas of Special Education Licensure ............... ......... ..................18

Table 2. Assessments Required for Licensure of Special Education Teachers .........21

FIGURES

Figure 1. Number of Areas of Special Education Licensure Awarded by
ris d c tio n s ................................Ju risd ic tio n s .............................. ............. 19








INTRODUCTION TO LICENSURE OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS



Licensure1 of teachers in the United States dates back to approximately 1825 when local school
districts and counties established agencies to examine and license teachers (Mackey & McHenry,
1994). At the turn of the 20th century, state agencies entered the arena in order to standardize
examination of teacher candidates. Several decades later, statewide systems for examining were
replaced by state standards for the preparation of teachers. The standards established by
individual states represent minimum levels of competence for practice that will ensure protection
of the general public (Shive, 1988).

Recently the U. S. Department of Education [USDOE] issued a report, Meeting the Highly
Qualified Teacher Challenge, which criticized current state systems of licensure as "outdated"
with low standards, posing barriers to the admission of qualified candidates. It found promise
for a new model of teacher licensure in alternative routes that require passage of state-required
examinations but often do not require many of the pedagogical or clinical practice components
found in most traditional teacher preparation programs. The new model proffered in the report is
based on the best characteristics of current alternative route programs: "high standards for verbal
ability and content knowledge" and "streamlined certification requirements" (U. S. Department
of Education, 2002, p. 19).

The USDOE's report displayed high enthusiasm for alternative licensure programs. However,
there is little information on alternative licensure programs for special education teachers
available in the professional literature. Rosenberg and Sindelar (2001) found only eight data-
based studies on this topic. They were able to distill some potential indicators of effective
alternative licensure programs for special education teachers. However, based on the limited
number and uneven quality of data-based studies, they could conclude little about the
effectiveness of alternative licensure programs in special education.

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge has directed attention to the adequacy of our
traditional systems for licensing teachers and the potential of alternative routes. This report is
intended to help inform discussions about conventional and alternative licensure models in the
area of special education. By providing current information on requirements and options for
licensing special education teachers, this report will enable policy makers and practitioners
interested in special education to participate knowledgeably in the national dialogue about the
licensure and quality of teachers.

This document shares the results of two national studies. The first study focuses on models and
requirements for the conventional licensure of special education teachers. All 50 states and the
District of Columbia participated in this study. The second study focuses on alternative licensure
practices for special educators in a sample often states.


1 The term license (or derivatives) will be used in this report to refer to the credentials states or
comparable jurisdictions issue to qualified school personnel. The term certificate (or
derivatives) will still appear in some quotations.

AI







The report is organized into five major sections:

A review of literature related to the conventional licensure of special education teachers
and special education requirements for general education teachers

The results of a national study of requirements for conventional licensure of special
education teachers and special education requirements for general education teachers

Results of a pilot study of alternative routes to licensure in special education

Limitations of studies in the report and recommendations for future research

Appendices related to the two studies.









REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS

Since the 1960s there have been dozens of studies on a variety of aspects of jurisdiction models
and requirements for licensure of special education teachers and requirements related to special
education for the licensure of general education teachers. These studies can be clustered by scope
of inquiry. Although some studies do not fit neatly into a cluster, clustering studies is a useful
organizational tool for an historical review of research on licensure requirements. Six clusters of
inquiry were identified:

1. Special education licensure in specific areas of disability

2. Categorical and non-categorical approaches to licensure

3. Licensure of special educators that emphasizes ages of students with disabilities
(early childhood special education and transition from secondary education)

4. Assessment requirements for special education licensure

5. Broad, comprehensive studies of special education licensure

6. Requirements that general education teachers be prepared to educate students with
disabilities.


Cluster 1: Special Education Licensure in Specific Areas of Disability

For more than three decades, there has been an interest in licensure for teachers of students with
learning disabilities. Prior to the passage of P. L. 94-142, Schwartz (1969) studied licensure
standards for teachers of students with learning disabilities. At that time, only 12 jurisdictions2
reported licensing teachers in this area, and 21 jurisdictions reported they had no standards for
teachers of students with learning disabilities. Some jurisdictions licensed teachers for students
with learning disabilities under other disability categories, e.g., orthopedically disabled, mentally
retarded. More than 15 years later, Leigh and Patton (1986) published the results of another
study on state licensure patterns for teachers of students with learning disabilities. They observed
that titles of state licenses varied considerably across jurisdictions. While a majority of the
jurisdictions offered a specific credential in learning disabilities, about 40 percent used a more
generic credential. In 1997 Jenkins, Leigh, and Patton updated the information reported in the
1986 study. They found that 29 jurisdictions offered licenses in the "category of learning
disability, or a close variation" (p. 274).

In the latter half of the 1970s, licensure in the areas of severe/profound disabilities and severe
emotional disturbances was investigated. Russo and Stark (1976) found that 4 jurisdictions


2 Because the literature on special education licensure models includes many studies of states and
similar governmental units of the United States and, in at least one instance, other countries, the
term jurisdictions will be used instead of states, except in quotations and when a statement
applies only to a state or states.







licensed teachers in severe/profound disabilities and 7 jurisdictions anticipated licensing in this
area in the near future. Morgan (1978) published the results of a study on certification
requirements for teachers of students with severe emotional disturbances. Fourteen (14)
jurisdictions (of the 40 that responded) indicated they had "separate standards for certification in
the area of severe disturbances, in contrast to the category of behavioral disorders or
social/emotionally maladjusted" (p. 270).

In 1985, Chapey, Pyszkowski, and Trimarco published results of a study on the number of
jurisdictions issuing licenses in specific categorical areas. The areas of visual disabilities and
hearing disabilities were reported most frequently. Forty-three (43) jurisdictions issued licenses
in each of these areas. Other areas in which categorical licenses were frequently awarded
included speech/language impairments (38), mental retardation (34), emotional disturbance (34),
learning disabilities (34), and physical/multiple disabilities (31). Two years later, Huebner and
Strumwasser (1987) reported that 45 jurisdictions offered specific licenses for teachers of blind
and visually impaired.

Cluster 2: Categorical and Non-Categorical Approaches to Licensure

Interest in categorical and non-categorical licensure models for special education teachers
(especially teachers of students with mild forms of educational disability) has existed since the
implementation of P. L. 94-142. In 1979 Belch reported 11 jurisdictions offered forms of non-
categorical licenses. Another 12 jurisdictions indicated that they were moving in the direction of
offering non-categorical licenses.

In the 1980s, at least four studies targeted categorical and non-categorical models of licensure
directly, and many polemical papers were published on the topic. Chapey et al. (1985) reported
that 25 jurisdictions were moving toward "a generalist concept of certifying teachers non-
categorically or generically" (p. 204). The remaining 26 study respondents were continuing to
use categorical models of licensure for special education teachers. A year later, McLaughlin,
Smith-Davis, and Burke (1986) reported that 30 jurisdictions had categorical models of
licensure, and 26 had non-categorical models. The authors noted that "states with primarily non-
categorical certification can and usually do have specialty endorsement areas for certain types of
handicaps or certain types of personnel, and states with categorical certification may include one
or more categories for generic specialists or perhaps cross-categorical specialists" (p. 23). In
other words, many jurisdictions had "mixed" models of licensure -a combination of categorical
and non-categorical.

Mauser and Cranston-Gingras (1988) published a report that supported the observations of
McLaughlin et al. (1986). While some jurisdictions were identified as using a traditional
categorical model and others non-categorical systems, the authors noted that many jurisdictions
used both options. They perceived a preference for categorical certification and noted the
presence of a "slow trend toward non-categorical certification options" (p. 5), especially for
students with mild disabilities. That same year McLaughlin and Stettner-Eaton (1988) affirmed
that jurisdictions were shifting toward non-categorical options. A comparison of studies
conducted in 1977 and in 1986 revealed that at least 10 states had moved from categorical to
non-categorical licensure.

In 1990 the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) reported
that 15 jurisdictions used traditional categorical accreditations. Twelve (12) jurisdictions used a
-7







non-categorical approach, and 4 jurisdictions used non-categorical with some categorical
accreditations. That year Berkeley (1990) also published a study in which 17 jurisdictions were
identified as offering categorical licenses for special educators. Twenty-four (24) jurisdictions
considered their licensure to be non-categorical, yet 20 of these jurisdictions also reported one or
more areas of categorical licensure. He commented that only "four of the states that reported
truly had non-categorical certification for special education teachers" (p. 4).

In the last two years, a few publications have provided updated information on categorical and
non-categorical models of licensure in special education. The Fifth Edition of The NASDTEC
Manual on the Preparation and Certification of Educational Personnel (2000) identified at least
42 states and the District of Columbia as issuing categorical special education credentials; 7
jurisdictions did not. Similarly, 42 jurisdictions issued some form of non-categorical credential,
and 7 did not.

In 2001 Mainzer and Horvath examined jurisdiction special education licensure models using
data from The NASDTEC Manual along with data compiled by the Council for Exceptional
Children [CEC]. They found that, when early childhood special education, deaf, hard-of-hearing,
and blind and visually impaired are excluded from the analysis, "only four states use a purely
categorical framework for licensing in special education" (p. 4). Twenty-four (24) jurisdictions
were found to use only multi-categorical frameworks; 14 of these jurisdictions offered generic
licenses in special education. Twenty-three (23) jurisdictions used a combination of categorical
and multi-categorical approaches. They concluded that there was an identifiable trend toward
multi-categorical licensure, especially for teachers of students with mental retardation,
orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, serious emotional disturbances, and specific
learning disabilities.

Cluster 3: Areas of Special Education Licensure that Emphasize Ages
of Students with Disabilities

During the 1980s, the topic of licensure requirements for early childhood special educators was
examined by at least three teams of investigators. In 1980 Trohanis, Barker, Button, Hazen,
Jackson, Karp, May, Meyer, Moore, Norman, Osteen, and Rostetter noted that, between 1976
and 1979, 4 jurisdictions developed licensure standards in early childhood special education and
another 8 were in the process of developing standards. A few years later, Stile, Abernathy,
Pettibone, and Watchtel (1984) reported that 20 jurisdictions had separate early childhood
special education licenses. In 1987 Smith and Powers analyzed 15 states' policies for licensing
early childhood special education teachers and found that 10 of the states had competency-based
licensure requirements. By 1990, 21 jurisdictions were identified as awarding separate licenses in
early childhood special education (Berkeley, 1990).

Bruder, Klosowski, and Daguio (1990) added to the information base on licensure in early
childhood special education by examining age ranges for early childhood special education
licenses. Four (4) jurisdictions reported having licenses for special educators specific to birth to
three years, and 15 jurisdictions required "some type of certification for special educators
providing services to children in a broader age category beginning at birth" (p. 12). A plurality
of the jurisdictions reported three years as the earliest age for which licensed special educators
were required. Striffler (1995) provided an update on the age ranges of licenses for early
intervention teachers. Fourteen (14) jurisdictions offered credentials for birth through five years.
This was the most commonly reported age range for licensing early childhood special educators.
0







The next most common age range was birth through eight years or a comparable designation.
Five (5) jurisdictions offered credentials for teachers of infants and toddlers, birth through three
years.

Surprisingly, very little attention has been given to licensure requirements for secondary
transition specialists. In 2002 the first study was conducted of state licensure structures and
content requirements for secondary transition personnel (Klienhammer-Trammill, Momingstar,
& Morningstar, in press). Twelve (12) states awarded credentials for secondary transition
personnel. An additional 19 states awarded special education credentials that focused on the
secondary level. Thirty-five (35) states were found to have some form of transition-relevant
content requirement for licensure.

Cluster 4: Assessment Requirements for Special Education Licensure

Very few studies have explored assessment requirements for licensure of special education
teachers. Ramsey (1988) found that 26 states administered specialty area tests in special
education or were in the process of developing or adopting such tests. At least 4 additional states
reported that required assessment of special education candidates was under study. In 1993
Piercy and Bowen explored assessment requirements for licensure of special education teachers.
They found that the following five requirements had been adopted in at least 25 jurisdictions: (1)
a college degree, (2) completion of an approved teacher preparation program, (3) experience in
working with students in classrooms, (4) passage of a basic skills examination, and (5) passage
of either a specialty area examination or an examination of content related to teaching. Eleven
(11) jurisdictions reported having a required minimum grade point average, 36 required basic
skills tests, and 25 required specialty area tests.

Cluster 5: Broad, Comprehensive Studies of Special Education
Licensure

Studies from the early 1970s have examined all areas of special education licensure in
jurisdictions and/or multiple aspects of special education licensure, including aspects identified
in other clusters in this report. Their breadth places these studies in a single cluster.

In 1972 Abeson and Fleury prepared a report designed to be a reference for individuals interested
in state requirements for the licensure of special education teachers and administrators. A
preliminary analysis of the report reveals that most state licensure regulations were based on
categories of disabilities. The number of special education licensure areas ranged from one to
eight; the mode was six areas of licensure. The most commonly reported categories of licensure
were mental retardation (43), hearing-impaired (38), speech/language impaired (38), visual
impairment (36), and physical impairment (33). Twenty-nine (29) jurisdictions were identified as
licensing teachers in the area of emotional disturbance; some jurisdictions indicated licensure
requirements in this area were the same as those for other areas of disability. Fewer than half of
the jurisdictions (23) reported licensure in the area of learning disabilities. Only 7 jurisdictions
had some form of non-categorical licensure for special educators.

Five years later, Gilmore and Aroyros (1997) compiled a similar report. They used "number of
categories" as a basis for identifying general models of licensure. The first model they identified
consisted of six or more categories of disabilities. Most jurisdictions (at least 35) were identified
as using this model. The number of licensure areas most frequently reported by jurisdictions was







seven. Nine (9) states were identified as using a second model that consisted of a generic
certificate and fewer than six disability-specific categories. Two states, California and
Massachusetts, were identified as having unique models. The most common categories of
licensure cited by Gilmore and Aroyros were hearing impairment (43), vision impairment (39),
speech/language impairment (37), mental retardation (35), emotional disturbance (33), physical
disabilities (33), and learning disabilities (31).

When information was available, Gilmore and Aroyros (1997) reported on age/grade ranges for
special education licenses. A preponderance of the jurisdictions had a K-12 or PreK-12 model
for licensing special education teachers. Ten (10) jurisdictions were identified as offering special
education licenses at the elementary and secondary levels.

In 1979, Barresi and Bunte used the structure developed by Gilmore and Aroyros (1997) to
examine jurisdiction models of licensure. Jurisdictions with six or more areas of licensure in
special education were classified as having a "categorical model." Those with fewer than six
categories were considered to have a "generic model." Thirty-five (35) jurisdictions had
"categorical models," 14 used "generic models," 1 used both, and 3 had other models. They
noted that some jurisdictions that were classified as having a categorical model had a "generic
certificate" as one of their "categorical certificates."

Barresi and Bunte (1979) also explored other areas of licensure. They reported that 34
jurisdictions treated special education licensure as freestanding, and 34 treated it as an
endorsement to another license. (In 17 jurisdictions, the special education licensure was both
freestanding and an endorsement to another license.) Nineteen (19) jurisdictions required courses
in special education for licensure of general education teachers. Six (6) additional jurisdictions
were considering such a requirement. All but one jurisdiction reported that state approval of
higher education programs was the basis for licensing teachers. Required courses were
additional bases for licensure in 22 jurisdictions; and proof of the acquisition of competencies
was required in 14 jurisdictions. Satisfactory performance on state-wide tests was required in 9
jurisdictions.

Fearn (1987), on behalf of the CEC, conducted an extensive study of licensure of special
educators. She identified 181 different titles of licenses in special education and created a
classification system of 17 designations as a means of organizing the titles. Areas in which states
licensed special education teachers were identified, and information was provided on the status
of licensure of special education administrators. Fearn also gathered information on whether
special education licensure was based on courses or competencies. In 1993 Piercy and Bowen
explored some of the same questions examined by Feam. Nineteen (19) jurisdictions required
completion of specific courses for licensure. Eight (8) jurisdictions required mastery of specific
competencies.

Fearn summarized information on age and grade ranges of special education licensure. Twelve
(12) states licensed teachers in elementary special education, 5 in middle level, and 21 in
secondary special education. Ten configurations/designations for licensure in early childhood
special education were identified. She also reported that 18 states required special educators to
satisfy licensure requirements in elementary or secondary education in addition to meeting
certification standards in special education. This was a slight increase over results reported by
Barresi and Bunte (1979). By 1993, only 11 jurisdictions were identified as requiring a license
in elementary or secondary education in order for a candidate to be licensed in special education
(Piercy & Bowen, 1993).
1 I\








In 1993 Putnam and Habanek reported on jurisdiction licensure requirements, with a particular
focus on requirements for teachers of students with mild disabilities. Twenty-six (26)
jurisdictions awarded licenses in learning disabilities and the same number offered licenses in
mental retardation. Twenty-eight (28) jurisdictions reported awarding licenses in emotional
disturbance. Thirty-two (32) jurisdictions issued generic licenses to teach students with
mild/moderate disabilities. Several jurisdictions offered both categorical and non-categorical
licenses for teachers of students with mild disabilities. The authors reported a variety of grade-
level configurations for special education licensees. The most common configuration (31) was a
K-12 license. Information was also obtained on whether jurisdictions required licensure in
general education in order to obtain licensure in special education. Fifteen (15) jurisdictions
required a license in general education in order to obtain a license in special education. Their
findings differed from those reported in the same year by Piercy and Bowen (1993).

A few years later, Steffens (1996) reported the results of a study that also examined licensure
requirements for teachers of students with mild disabilities. She noted that 37 jurisdictions
awarded a form of generic licensure. Twenty-five (25) of these jurisdictions offered only non-
categorical licenses for teachers of students with mental retardation, learning disabilities, or
emotional/behavioral disorders; the other 12 also awarded categorical licenses in these areas.
Fourteen (14) other jurisdictions awarded only categorical licenses in the three areas. A K-12
pattern of licensure for special education teachers was used widely. Twenty-four (24)
jurisdictions issued K-12 licenses in special education, and another 7 issued PreK-12 licenses.
Ten (10) jurisdictions offered different configurations of elementary, middle, or secondary
special education licenses.

Cluster 6: Required Special Education Preparation for General
Education Teachers

Attention has been given to the topic of preparing general education teachers to educate students
with disabilities for nearly a quarter of a century (Thurman & Hare, 1979). Studies by Sargent
(1978) and Patton and Braithwaite (1979) reflected this interest. Sargent reported 18 states and
the District of Columbia required preparation of general educators in order to better educate
students with disabilities in their classrooms. At that time another 10 states had requirements
pending. Patton and Braithwaite found that fewer jurisdictions (10) had requirements for special
education courses or experience for the initial licensure or re-licensure of regular classroom
teachers. Four (4) jurisdictions were identified as having pending requirements.

As part of a study that examined categorical and non-categorical models of licensure, Chapey et
al. (1985) requested information on special education requirements for general education
teachers. Fifteen (15) jurisdictions required that general education teachers have a course in
special education, and five (5) jurisdictions reported that two courses were required. Thirty-five
(35) jurisdictions recommended that general education teachers be required to complete some
preparation in special education, and more than 70% expressed a preference for at least two
courses. Two years later, Tait (1987) found that 33 jurisdictions had requirements for "some
exposure to information about exceptional children" (p. 29). She concluded that the number of
jurisdictions with such requirements had increased substantially since the late 1970s.

Interest in special education licensure requirements for general education teachers continued in
the 1990s. In 1990 Patton and Braithwaite conducted a follow-up to their 1979 investigation of
1 1







the topic. They found that 37 jurisdictions required special education course work for the initial
licensure of general education teachers. Nine (9) jurisdictions reported requirements for course
work in special education for the recertification of general education teachers. According to
findings during the 1980s, there had been substantial growth in the number of states requiring
special education for general educators. A year later, Reiff, Evans, and Cass (1991) provided
more information on required preparation in special education for general educators. They found
that 31 jurisdictions required an introduction to special education course for elementary
education teachers. Six (6) more jurisdictions had special education competency requirements
but did not require specific course work. A few years later, Jones and Black (1994) reported that
21 states required a class in exceptionalities for licensure in vocational education. Twenty-three
(23) jurisdictions had such a requirement for licensure in general education. The following year
Katsiyannis, Conderman, and Franks (1995) reported on state practices regarding a specific
dimension of the preparation of general education teachers-inclusion of students with
disabilities in general education environments. Six (6) jurisdictions reported having such
requirements for licensure, and 16 jurisdictions were in the process of revising licensure
requirements to address inclusion.


Summary Observations

Researchers encountered difficulty in understanding special education teacher licensure
guidelines/policies. The topic is complicated by the variety of models and terms adopted by
jurisdictions. Organizational variables-including number of licenses and categorical vs. non-
categorical/generic options-were developed as frameworks. This helped to clarify jurisdictional
approaches to licensing special education teachers.

Thirty-five years of research on licensure requirements for special education teachers and special
education requirements for general education teachers reveals:

The most common areas of categorical licensure have been visual impairment and
hearing impairment.

Over the period reviewed, the number of jurisdictions awarding licenses in the area
of learning disabilities increased; however, the number of jurisdictions issuing such
licenses has remained relatively constant in the last decade.

More recent studies indicate that the number of jurisdictions awarding licenses in
physical disabilities and in mental retardation declined from earlier reports. The data
may also be unclear in the area of emotional disturbance.

The number of jurisdictions awarding some form of non-categorical license in
special education has increased.

Mixed models of special education licensure have become more common. Many
jurisdictions have moved from a model that was based solely on categories of
disability to a model that also includes one or more forms of non-categorical
licenses.







* The number of jurisdictions awarding licenses in early childhood special education
increased noticeably in the 1980s. The models of licensure in this area show
considerable variability, especially in the age/grade ranges covered.

* A strong preference for PreK-12 or K-12 configurations of special education
licensure was noted.

* Little attention has been given to the licensure of secondary transition personnel.

* Few studies have examined jurisdiction assessment standards for licensure in special
education.

* The number of jurisdictions requiring that general education teachers receive
preparation to educate students with disabilities has increased.








CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONVENTIONAL LICENSURE

It has been several years since a comprehensive study of licensure of special education teachers
has been undertaken. Current data on the requirements and models for conventional licensure of
special education are needed in order to evaluate the adequacy of licensure requirements for
special education teachers and to engage knowledgeably in the broader debate on the value of
licensure systems, recently stimulated by the USDOE report, Meeting the Highly Qualified
Teacher Challenge (2002).


In 2000 a study was designed for the purpose of updating information on jurisdiction
requirements for the conventional licensure of special educators and extended inquiry into areas
of special education licensure that had been explored infrequently. The study investigated recent
changes in jurisdiction licensure requirements; changes in licensure requirements for special
education teachers; use of recommendations from national organizations for the licensure of
special education teachers; bases for granting conventional licenses in special education; models,
areas, and levels of licensure in special education; assessment requirements for special education
licenses; licensure in early childhood special education; required preparation for general
education teachers to provide instruction to students with disabilities; and preparation of special
educators in the areas of general curriculum and pedagogy.


Method

Questions that would extend and update earlier lines of inquiry were identified through an
extensive review of research literature pertaining to special education licensure. The research
methods adopted for the study were based on the perceived strengths of earlier investigations;
use of current technology was also incorporated into the methodology. Research procedures
included letters sent to jurisdiction licensure representatives, communication by using fax and e-
mail, review of jurisdiction web sites, and telephone interviews. The general methodological
design consisted of four stages: (1) identification of knowledgeable informants from the 50 states
and the District of Columbia, (2) initial contact with the identified informants, (3) interviews of
informants, and (4) validation of the information provided. The format for the interviews
included restatement of the responses that were transcribed by the interviewer. This procedure
was used to confirm/validate the answers provided by informants.

The questions and procedures developed for the study were piloted with a representative of a
state that was undergoing significant changes to its model for licensing special education
teachers. The circumstances in this state were complex and provided a rigorous test of the
research process and instrument. As a result of the pilot test, modifications were made to the
letter requesting participation, and the questionnaire was revised. Procedures for identifying a
knowledgeable informant, scheduling and conducting interviews, and recording responses were
determined to be effective.

In the spring of 2000, letters requesting participation in the study were mailed to directors of
licensure in state departments of education and the District of Columbia. Addresses for the
individuals were obtained from The NASDTEC Manual on the Preparation and Certification of
Educational Personnel, Fourth Edition (1998). In states that had professional standards boards
1 A







responsible for licensure standards, letters were sent to the directors of these agencies; addresses
were obtained from Characteristics of Independent Professional Teacher Standards Boards
(NEA, 1998). Follow-up letters were sent to directors who did not respond to the initial letters
requesting participation. In order to obtain participation from all jurisdictions, telephone calls
were made to those who did not respond to letters of invitation. In some instances, persons in
state special education units were asked to facilitate participation by licensure personnel.
Ultimately, all states and the District of Columbia participated in the study.

Nearly all informants identified by agency directors were representatives of licensure agencies.
However, a few representatives of the special education units in jurisdictions were primary or
secondary informants. Informants were contacted by telephone, fax, or e-mail and were provided
information about the purpose and procedures of the study. They were asked to identify dates
and times for interviews during which they would answer a set of questions on their
jurisdiction's policies/regulations for conventional licensure of special education teachers.
Copies of the questions and a matrix, customized to the areas of special education licensure
offered in their jurisdictions, were faxed to informants a few days prior to the scheduled
interview. This procedure allowed informants to prepare for the interviews by gathering
information that might be needed in order to respond to the questions. The areas of licensure on
the state-specific matrices were taken from The NASDTEC Manual (1998).

Telephone interviews, the third stage in the research process, usually lasted 30 to 45 minutes.
Questions began with the informant sharing information on significant changes that were
underway in the jurisdiction system of teacher licensure. The impact of these changes on
licensure of special education teachers was discussed early in the interview. Informants were also
asked to share information on anticipated changes in teacher licensure in their jurisdictions. The
time frame for the anticipated changes was from the time of the interview until 2005. The
contextual information on changes in licensure was particularly helpful in jurisdictions that were
reforming models and requirements for licensure of special education teachers. If major changes
were underway, informants answered the remaining questions in the interview twice-once from
the perspective of present licensure requirements and again with regard to new/proposed
licensure requirements. Informants were then guided through a series of questions on the
following aspects of licensure requirements for special education teachers: (1) use of national
standards for special educators in the jurisdiction's standards, (2) preparation of general
education teachers to educate exceptional children, (3) preparation of special educators in
general education curriculum and pedagogy, (4) bases on which the jurisdiction awarded licenses
in special education, (5) the jurisdiction's model for licensing early childhood special educators,
(6) areas and levels of licensure for special education teachers, (7) degrees and grade point
averages required for special education teachers, and (8) specific assessments required for
licensure. Prior to concluding each interview, the interviewer read answers that had been
transcribed to the informant. When errors were detected, corrections were made.

The interview process was completed in the fall of 2000. Responses were summarized in a
series of tables that allowed them to be linked directly to each jurisdiction. In the fourth stage of
the research process, these tables were used to validate summarized information reported by
informants. In the fall of 2001 and in the spring of 2001, summary tables were shared in
presentations at two national conferences for teacher educators in special education. One
conference was in the western part of the U. S., and the other was on the east coast. Participants
were asked to examine the information for their respective jurisdictions and to report
inaccuracies. Professionals from 13 states and the District of Columbia reviewed the summary
tables. No errors were identified.








The final stage of the validation process was completed in summer 2001. State-specific
validation packets were mailed to each of the original informants from the jurisdictions. The
packets contained guidelines for reviewing/validating information in the tables, a section from
each table with highlighted information from the jurisdiction, and a page for reporting any
significant changes in special education licensure that had occurred since the time of the
interview. Responses from the final validation activity were received from 30 jurisdictions.
When inaccuracies were identified, the tables were updated.

Results

Context of licensure. Interviews were conducted and responses were received from all 51
jurisdictions. Thirty-seven (37), approximately 73%, reported that significant changes in teacher
licensure were underway. More than half (27) of the jurisdictions reported significant changes
were underway in the licensure of special education teachers. All but one jurisdiction that
reported major changes in special education licensure also reported substantial changes in
teacher licensure in general.

Use of national standards. Informants reported on jurisdiction use of national standards for
the preparation of special education teachers. The standards promulgated by the CEC (1998)
were to some degree incorporated into the special education licensure standards of 29
jurisdictions. The standards for Exceptional Needs Specialists disseminated by the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS, 1996) were similarly incorporated in the
licensure standards for special educators in 8 jurisdictions. The 1998 NASDTEC standards for
teachers of students with disabilities were used in the standards for licensure of special education
teachers in 18 jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions incorporated more than one set of national
standards in their standards for licensure, and others did not incorporate any of the national
standards. Approximately 10% of the informants did not know whether the standards of the three
national organizations were incorporated in their jurisdiction's standards.

Bases for issuing licenses. All jurisdictions reported that "completion of the curricula of
state-approved institutions of higher education" (IHEs) was a basis for issuing a credential in
special education. This approval was the sole standard used in 8 jurisdictions.

The completion of courses/credit hours within the curriculum of a state-approved IHE was an
additional basis for issuing special education credentials in 31 jurisdictions. Twenty-four (24) of
these jurisdictions required a minimum number of credit hours in specific content/topical areas.
The number of credits ranged from 9-45 semester hours. Seven (7) jurisdictions required only a
minimum number of credit hours in special education, i.e., the content was not defined. In these
7 jurisdictions, the number of required credits in special education ranged from 18-30 semester
hours.

Sixteen (16) jurisdictions authorized credentials based on "demonstration of required
competencies in special education" rather than on the completion of courses. Three (3)
jurisdictions required that candidates successfully complete performance assessments for initial
licensure in special education. Some jurisdictions reported combinations of course-based,
competency-based, and performance assessment options.

Eight (8) jurisdictions planned to change from requiring credit hours in special education to the
demonstration of competencies and/or successful completion of performance assessments.
1 /_







Seven (7) of these jurisdictions will require demonstration of competencies in their new models
of licensure; performance assessments will be used by five (5) jurisdictions. Three (3)
jurisdictions will use both demonstration of competencies and performance assessments as bases
for issuing licenses in special education.

Licensure in special education is "freestanding" in a large majority (42) of the jurisdictions.
Candidates for licenses in special education in these jurisdictions are not required to have
teaching licenses in general education. Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia reported that licensure in general education is required
for licensure in special education. (Nevada did not provide information on this question.)
Arkansas and New York will move from a freestanding model to one that requires licensure in
general education.

Areas and levels of special education licensure. Areas of special education and age or
grade ranges of licenses offered by jurisdictions are summarized in Appendix A. Jurisdictions
used a broad array of titles for the licenses they awarded in special education. In general, the
titles aligned well with the categories of disabilities identified in the Individuals in i/i Disabilities
Education Act Amendments of 1997 (USDOE, 1997). Those categories were used as a
preliminary structure for organizing the responses. (Because traumatic brain injury was reported
only once by jurisdictions, it was listed under "Other.") Most jurisdictions offered some form of
generic/non-categorical license in special education. Therefore, generic licensure (e.g.,
comprehensive special education) and generic licensure by level of disability (e.g., mild
disabilities, severe disabilities) were added to the structure; early childhood special education
was also added.

Information on areas of licensure from Appendix A is condensed in Table 1. (Alaska recognizes
licensure titles used by approved preparation programs and is not included in the summary.)
Nearly all jurisdictions reported that they awarded special education credentials in the areas of
hearing impairment and visual impairment. Montana, New Mexico, and Washington did not
report the areas of hearing or visual impairment; Vermont did not report the area of visual
impairment. The next most common categorical area of licensure was emotional disturbance,
with 27 jurisdictions offering credentials in this area, and 2 combining emotional disturbance
with another category of disability.

Specific learning disabilities and mental retardation were the next most common categories.
Twenty-three (23) jurisdictions offered licenses in specific learning disabilities. (In Kentucky
licensure in this category is combined with emotional disturbance.) Of the 22 jurisdictions
awarding licenses in mental retardation, 17 did not make distinctions based on the level of
mental retardation. Two (2) jurisdictions awarded licenses in a single, specific level of mental
retardation; 3 awarded licenses at two different levels of mental retardation.









Table 1: Areas of Special Education Licensure
Area Number Specific
of States State(s)
Some form of general special education license 27
Some form of general special education license based on 27
degree of disability
Mental retardation 22
Hearing impairment 47
Vision impairment 46
Emotional disturbance 27
Orthopedically impaired 21
Autism 5
Other health impaired 3
Specific learning disabilities 23
Early childhood special education 40
Other: (10) 9
Aphasia I CA
Orientation mobility 2 FL,HI
Deaf/blind I HI
Multiple disabilities I ID
Homebound I MI
Adapted brain injury 2 NV,NE
Traumatic brain injury I NV
Specialist in assessment of intellectual functioning I NH
Secondary, diversified occupations I VT
Vocational special needs I VT

About 40% of the jurisdictions reported issuing special education licenses in the area of
orthopedic disabilities. Two (2) jurisdictions awarded licenses that combined orthopedic
disabilities with another category of disability.

Other categorical areas were not reported frequently by the jurisdictions. Five (5) jurisdictions
offered credentials in autism; in Texas the credential is combined with another categorical area.
Three (3) jurisdictions awarded licenses in the area of "Other Health Impaired;" 2 of the
jurisdictions combined them with another category of disability. Eight (8) categories of disability
or specialization areas were reported by a single jurisdiction.

Approximately 80% of the jurisdictions offered licenses in early childhood special education.
However, there were noticeable differences in the age levels/grade ranges for these licenses.
Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and South Carolina did not report the area of early childhood special education.

All but 5 jurisdictions reported some form of generic special education license. Twenty-seven
(27) issued expansive generic licenses in special education, and 27 reported having generic
licenses that were based on one or more levels of disability. Fifteen (15) jurisdictions reported
generic licenses at both the mild and more severe levels of disability. Nevada offered a generalist
license for teachers of students with mild/moderate disabilities, and 11 other jurisdictions
reported generic licenses for teachers of students with more severe disabilities.

When licensure in speech language impairment was not included, jurisdictions reported 1
(Montana) to 12 (Nevada) areas of licensure in special education. (Although most jurisdictions
issued licenses to professionals in the area of speech/language impairments, these individuals
1o








were usually considered to be clinical professionals rather than teachers.) As illustrated in
Figure 1, 5 areas of special education licensure was the most common number (mode) offered
by jurisdictions. Seven (7) areas was the next most common. The mean and median number of
areas fell between 6 and 7.

The predominant model for generic licenses reported by the jurisdictions was K-12/PreK-12/1-
12 or equivalents. Twenty (20) of the 27 jurisdictions that awarded expansive generic special
education licenses used this model, and all of the jurisdictions that awarded generic licenses by
level of disability provided this option. Nine (9) of the jurisdictions that awarded expansive
generic licenses did so by grade level, but 2 jurisdictions also offered broader age/grade range
licenses, e.g., K-12/PreK-12/1-12. Of the 27 jurisdictions that offered generic licenses by level
of disability, 4 offered both restricted age/grade level licenses and K-12/PreK-12/1-12 or
equivalent options. All of the others offered only expansive K-12/PreK-12/1-12 or equivalent
licenses.

Of 9 jurisdictions undergoing or strongly considering major changes in their models of special
education licensure, 3 (Iowa, Kansas, and Wisconsin) will retain an existing emphasis on grade
levels. Three others (Arkansas, Indiana, and New York) will move from a K-12/PreK-12 model
to one that addresses multiple grade/age levels.



Figure 1 Number of Areas of Special Education Licensure Awarded
by Jurisdictions

12

10

8

06
E
z 4

2-


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Areas*
*Does not include speech/language or multiple licenses in an area of disability. Does include Early
Childhood Education.



Preparation in general education for special educators. Given the requirement that
instruction for students with disabilities should be linked to the general curriculum according to
the Individuals in iih Disabilities Education Act Amendments (USDOE, 1997), preparation of
special education teacher candidates to meet this requirement was examined. Informants from
the 42 jurisdictions that reported freestanding licenses in special education were asked to provide
information on requirements for the preparation of special education teachers in general
1 n







education curriculum and pedagogy. Fourteen (14) jurisdictions (including Alaska) reported
they did not have requirements for preparation in these areas. Nineteen (19) reported that such
preparation was required by their standards and that assessments associated with program
approval would probably be included in new system of licensure. Seventeen (17) jurisdictions
reported that course work was required; the number of hours varied from "not prescribed" to 30
semester hours. Eight (8) jurisdictions reported requirements of 12 or fewer semester hours for at
least some areas of special education licensure.

Preparation in special education for general educators. Jurisdictions reported on
licensure requirements that general education teachers be prepared to teach exceptional children.
Seven (7) jurisdictions reported they had no such requirements for all general education teachers;
2 of these (Arkansas and New York) will require preparation in their new systems of licensure.
Twenty-two (22) jurisdictions reported that preparation was required by their state standards for
teacher preparation and that the method of preparation was the option of IHE programs. Five (5)
jurisdictions reported that preparation was expected to be embedded in programs. Seventeen
(17) jurisdictions reported that course work in teaching exceptional children was required for
general education teachers. Fourteen (14) of the 17 jurisdictions required two or three semester
hours, or the equivalent in clock hours; the other 3 did not stipulate the number of hours of
required preparation, and four (4) jurisdictions that required credit hours in special education
plan to change to standards-based requirements.

Assessment for licensure. Jurisdictions exhibited considerable variation in the procedures
and standards they used to assess the proficiency of beginning special education teachers.
Informants provided detailed information on a variety of measures of proficiency, including
degrees, grade point averages, standardized tests, and required performance assessments.
Information on the types of assessments required by each jurisdiction is provided in Appendix
B. A general summary of required assessments is provided in Table 2.

All jurisdictions required at least a bachelors degree in order to be eligible for a license in special
education. Four (4) jurisdictions did not require any of the specific measures investigated
(minimum grade point average, assessment of basic skills, pedagogical assessment, assessment
of knowledge of special education, or performance assessment). Three (3) jurisdictions required
or will require all the forms of assessment.

Twenty-two (22) jurisdictions reported having minimum grade point average requirements.
North Dakota required a 2.5 overall undergraduate grade point average in order to be eligible for
a license in special education but did not require other measures of proficiency.

Forty-two (42) jurisdictions required some type of assessment of candidates' basic skills, usually
reading, mathematics, and writing. State or national standardized tests were the most commonly
reported measures of basic skills. Most jurisdictions adopted the PreProfessional Skills
Test/PRAXIS I developed by the Educational Testing Service [ETS]. Although many
jurisdictions required the PRAXIS I test, minimum passing scores varied. The greatest difference
in minimum scores was for the Reading test. The minimum scores for the computer-based
version of this test varied from 316-335. Minimum scores for the computer-based Mathematics
test ranged from 314-323; and the minimum scores for the computer-based Writing test ranged
from 316-324.

A majority of the jurisdictions reported requirements for the assessment of knowledge of special
education, at least in some areas of special education. Approximately one-third of the
20








jurisdictions used PRAXIS II (ETS). Specific tests required by jurisdictions and in minimum
passing scores differ notably.

Fewer states (22) reported requirements for the assessment of pedagogical knowledge. The
majority of the jurisdictions that assess the pedagogical knowledge of aspiring special education
teachers have adopted the PRAXIS II Principles of Learning and Teaching test [ETS]. There are
three versions of this test based on specific grade levels. Jurisdictions reported passing scores
from 152-168 on these tests.

Performance assessments of candidates for initial licenses in special education were required
least often. Thirteen (13) jurisdictions presently require or will require some form of
performance assessment for all or most candidates; 3 other jurisdictions require a performance
assessment for applicants in a few areas of special education licensure.


Table 2: Assessments Re uired for Licensure of Special Education Teachers
Assessment Number of States Comments
Grade point averages 22 Undergraduate GPAs ranged from C to 2.75.
The most common requirement was 2.75.
Alabama and North Dakota reported GPAs
as the only measure of a candidate's
proficiency.
Basic skills 42 Usually reading, math, and writing
Pedagogy 22
Knowledge of special education 22 An additional 7 states require knowledge of
special education tests for some special
education licenses.
Performance 13 Three (3) more require performance
assessments for some areas of special
education.
All of the above 3 In Kentucky performance assessment occurs
Florida, Kentucky, in the first year of teaching.
Florida, Kentucky,
Oklahoma
None 4 In Utah, approval of programs will require the
assessment of a candidate's performance
aho, ta, S h during student teaching.
Dakota, Utah


Discussion and Conclusions

There have been major changes in licensure structures and requirements in recent years. Many of
the changes reflect a shift to standards-based licensure systems, increased emphasis on the
assessment of teacher candidates, multilevel structures of licensure, and models for the induction
of new/beginning teachers. In most jurisdictions, the field of special education has been included
in the transformation of broader licensure structures.


Use of national standards for the preparation of special educators. National
standards for the preparation of special education teachers have influenced the licensure
IN1







standards adopted by many states. The degree of impact of national standards was often difficult
for informants to report in a precise manner. Although many respondents did not know whether
their jurisdiction's standards for licensure of special education teachers were influenced by those
of national organizations, a substantial number affirmed that jurisdictions referred to the
standards of one or more national organizations when they reviewed and modified their licensure
standards. The standards of CEC (1998) were considered most frequently.

Informants were confused regarding the status of NASDTEC's standards (1998) for special
educators. Although many informants were familiar with these standards, there were different
understandings of the status of the standards. Some informants believed the standards were no
longer operative; others thought they were.

Since the standards developed by NBPTS were designed for experienced special education
teachers, it was not surprising to discover that these had less influence on jurisdiction standards
for beginning special education teachers than CEC or NASDTEC standards.

Licensure systems for special education teachers. All jurisdictions that license special
education teachers require the approval of programs that prepare these teachers. Utilization of
program approval as a foundation for the licensure of special educators has changed little in the
last two decades.

Reliance on course-based models of licensure in special education has a long tradition (Barresi &
Bunte, 1979; Fearn, 1987; Piercy & Bowen, 1993). Investigators have consistently reported that
this model has been preferred by a plurality of jurisdictions. In 2000-2001, most jurisdictions
continued to prescribe courses/credit hours for approved programs of preparation. More
jurisdictions used this approach than in earlier studies. Jurisdictions differed greatly in the
number of credit hours and content required for the preparation of special education teachers.

A substantial minority (38%) of the jurisdictions did not base licensure of special education
teachers on the completion of a prescribed number of credit hours. These jurisdictions required
demonstration of identified competencies or the successful completion of performance
assessments.

Eight (8) jurisdictions with course-based systems reported they will use, or were considering the
use of, competency-based or performance-based requirements in new licensure systems. If and
when these changes occur, more than 50% of the jurisdictions will use competency-based or
performance-based systems.

Categorical and non-categorical models of licensure. At the beginning of the 21st
century, nearly all jurisdictions had mixed models of licensure for special educators. Five (5)
jurisdictions issued only categorical special education licenses; and 3 jurisdictions offered only
one or two non-categorical licenses, including early childhood special education. More than
80% of the jurisdictions have mixed systems of licensure in special education, i.e., award both
categorical and non-categorical licenses to special education teachers. More than half of the
jurisdictions offered generic/non-categorical licenses. Similarly, more than half offered non-
categorical licenses based on a level of disability. Nearly all jurisdictions awarded categorical
licenses in visual and hearing impairments.

In the last 30 years there has been a clearly identifiable shift from special education licensure
models that were based solely on categories of disabilities to models that retain categorical
22







options and also offer non-categorical options. By way of illustration, Abeson and Fleury (1972)
reported 7 jurisdictions with some form of non-categorical licensure; others were categorical.
The situation now is almost the reverse; all but 5 jurisdictions award some form of non-
categorical license.

Statistics on the number of areas of special education licensure awarded by jurisdictions have
remained surprisingly constant across the last three decades. Abeson and Fleury (1972) found
jurisdictions offered from 1-8 areas of licensure; the mode was 6. Gilmore and Aroyros (1997)
found a mode of 7 areas of licensure; the mode was 5, and the median and mean were 6-7. On
average, the number of areas of special education licensure available in jurisdictions may have
decreased slightly. However, 11 jurisdictions reported more areas of special education licensure
than were reported by any jurisdiction 30 years ago (Abeson & Fleury, 1972).

Among categorical areas of licensure, visual impairment and hearing impairment have been the
most common for the last 25 years. Apart from the areas of sensory impairment, there were only
4 categorical areas of licensure-emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, mental retardation,
and orthopedic impairments-that were reported by more than 10% of the jurisdictions. The
categories of mental retardation and physical disabilities are reported much less frequently than
in the 1970s and 1980s. The number of jurisdictions awarding licenses in the categorical areas
of learning disabilities and emotional disturbance has remained relatively unchanged in the last
decade.

Of the jurisdictions undergoing major transitions in their licensure systems, Arkansas, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina will reduce the number of categorical areas of licensure in
special education; none will increase the number of categorical areas.

Levels of licensure in special education. When licensure in early childhood special
education is discounted, 33 jurisdictions used only expansive levels of licensure in special
education, e.g., K-12. This finding is compatible with those of Steffens (1996) and Putnam and
Habanek (1993) who reported that a majority of jurisdictions used expansive licenses for
teachers of students with mild forms of disabilities. All other jurisdictions had mixed systems
that included expansive licenses and licenses restricted to specific ages or grade levels. No
jurisdiction awarded licenses only for specific age/grade/developmental levels. When the results
of this study are compared with those of Gilmore and Aroyros (1997), the number of
jurisdictions offering the option of age/grade/development level-specific licenses in special
education has increased.

Licensure in early childhood special education. Four (4) out of 5 jurisdictions have
licenses for early childhood special educators. New York will add this area of licensure in 2004,
and South Carolina has a proposal to add a credential in the area. In 1980 Trohanis et al. reported
that 4 jurisdictions issued licenses in this area; presently more than 40 do. These findings
underscore the fact that licensure in early childhood special education has experienced dramatic
growth over the last two decades. Not only has licensure in early childhood special education
grown rapidly, it has grown in many directions. There is no consensus on age or grade ranges for
these licenses. Striffler (1995) reported age ranges of birth through three, birth through five, and
birth through eight. These and other age/grade options were identified in the present study.

Preparation of special educators in general education. Permitting candidates to be
directly licensed in special education without being prepared first as a general education teacher
is a common practice of jurisdictions. Only 8 jurisdictions reported that licensure in general
S23







education was a requirement for licensure in special education. This study identified fewer
jurisdictions requiring licensure in general education than have been identified previously
(Barresi & Bunte, 1979; Piercy & Bowen, 1993; Putnam & Habanek, 1993).

It is not uncommon for jurisdictions to shift away from freestanding models of special education
licensure. Since 1996, the proportion of states issuing freestanding licenses in special education
has remained relatively constant. Seven (7) states have changed or are about to change this
dimension of their licensure structure. Three (3) of the changes were toward a freestanding
model, and 4 were away from freestanding.

Individualized education programs (IEPs) of students receiving special education should be
related to the "general curriculum," according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997 (USDOE, 1997). In view of this requirement, special education teachers
will need to be knowledgeable of the general curriculum and should be acquainted with
pedagogical strategies used by general educators. Teachers prepared in jurisdictions with
freestanding models of special education licensure will need to acquire such knowledge as part
of their preparation. Nearly one-third of the jurisdictions with freestanding models of licensure
have no such requirements for special education teachers. Among the jurisdictions with
requirements for preparation in these areas, the number of credit hours of preparation varies
widely.

Special education preparation for general education teachers. Required preparation
in special education for general education teachers is commonplace. All but 5 jurisdictions
require or soon will require such preparation for most general education teachers. This licensure
requirement has more than doubled in the last two decades (Barresi & Bunte, 1979).

The most common means of requiring preparation of general education teachers to educate
exceptional children is through state standards for the preparation of teachers. Standards-based
rather than course-based requirements appear to be preferred increasingly. Soon approximately
two-thirds of the jurisdictions will have adopted a standards-based or embedded approach to
special education preparation for general educators.

Assessment of beginning special education teachers. Program approval standards-
whether course-based, competency-based, or performance-based-are one means of "assuring
the quality" of beginning special education teachers. Assessment of candidates' knowledge and
skills is another means.

Jurisdictions have very different requirements for measuring the proficiency of special education
teacher candidates. The only common denominator is a required bachelors degree. Many
jurisdictions require assessment of basic skills, pedagogical knowledge, and/or knowledge of
special education. However, even when jurisdictions commonly assess one or more of these
areas, they often use different instruments and have different standards for acceptable
performance.

In the last 20 years, jurisdiction requirements for assessment of candidates have increased
greatly. In 1979 Barresi and Bunte reported 9 jurisdictions required assessments. Currently 45
require some form of standardized assessment. Six (6) more jurisdictions required assessments of
basic skills than were reported by Piercy and Bowen in 1993. Similar growth was not found in
jurisdiction assessment of knowledge of special education. The number of jurisdictions
requiring such assessment has remained relatively unchanged during the last dozen years
24







(Ramsey, 1988; Piercy & Bowen, 1993). Assessment of pedagogical knowledge and skills is
required least frequently. When assessment of pedagogy is required, it is usually at the level of
knowledge.

Approximately 30% of the jurisdictions required or are in the process of requiring performance
assessment of candidates for special education licenses. Interest in this form of assessment
appeared to be growing; a majority of the jurisdictions that reported significant changes in their
licensure systems will implement performance assessments in their new systems. The nature of
the required performance assessments varied between the jurisdictions.

Summary Observations. A substantial majority of jurisdictions have adopted licensure
structures that include a mixture of categorical and non-categorical licensure options. This
situation has evolved largely through the addition of non-categorical options during the last three
decades. The growth of non-categorical licensure options may provide jurisdictions and local
education agencies with the flexibility needed to address chronic shortages of special education
teachers. The growth of non-categorical licensure models is reinforced by the fact that more that
80% of the degrees awarded in special education are in general special education as opposed to
categorical areas of special education (Mainzer & Horvath, 2001).

Jurisdictions have continued to show a strong preference for expansive age/grade range levels of
licensure in special education. All jurisdictions award grades 1-12 or more expansive licenses in
at least one area of special education. Some jurisdictions undergoing major reforms in their
licensure structures are converting to more restricted age/grade levels or are adding these
options. The impact of these changes on the supply and quality of special educators is a
worthwhile area for future study.

Licensure in the area of early childhood special education is now common among jurisdictions.
This area of licensure has grown dramatically in the last two decades. At the beginning of the
21st century, at least 80% of the jurisdictions issued licenses in this area. The diversity of
models and age/grade levels makes it difficult to easily summarize requirements for licensure in
early childhood special education.

Ninety percent of the jurisdictions now require or soon will require some preparation of general
educators to teach students with disabilities. However, a sizable minority of the jurisdictions
lack similar requirements that special education teachers receive preparation in general education
curriculum or pedagogy. This omission may raise concern about the preparedness of special
education teachers to implement IEPs that are related to the general curriculum. It would not be
surprising if jurisdictions begin to enhance requirements for the preparation of special education
teachers in general education curriculum and instruction.

Jurisdictions have significantly increased requirements for the assessment of teacher candidates
in the last two decades. The most frequently required assessment is in the area of basic skills.
Although such assessments may assure the fundamental competence of teachers in reading,
writing, and mathematics, they do not assure that candidates have acquired the knowledge and
instructional expertise needed to facilitate learning by students with disabilities. More than 40%
of the jurisdictions do not have requirements for the assessment of candidates' knowledge of
special education. Several jurisdictions have adopted or are exploring performance assessments
that will assure competence in these areas. These initiatives are supported by standards adopted
by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Interstate
New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC).








Required assessments of the knowledge and abilities of special education teacher candidates, an
area that has been given little attention in the past, merits increased emphasis in future
investigations. There are substantial variations among jurisdiction assessment requirements for
special education teachers. Some jurisdictions require only a bachelors degree from approved
programs; others require successful performance on multiple standardized tests. However,
jurisdictions do not agree on which standardized tests candidates must take and display little or
no accord with regard to scores required for licensure. There appear to be many instances where
challenging assessments and high standards for performance are lacking in jurisdiction
requirements for licensing special education teachers. In these situations, the criticism of
licensure systems presented in Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge appears to be
justified.








ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO LICENSURE

Introduction. Although the USDOE displays high enthusiasm for alternative licensure
programs in Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge, there is little information on
alternative licensure programs for special education teachers available in the professional
literature. Rosenberg and Sindelar (2001) found only eight data-based studies, although they
were able to distill some potential indicators of effective alternative licensure programs for
special education teachers. They concluded that the limited number of data-based studies and
their uneven quality prevented conclusions about regarding the effectiveness of alternative
licensure programs in special education. Because there is relatively little research available on
models of alternative licensure of special education teachers, a focused study of the intersection
of policy and practice around the issue of alternative routes to licensure [ARL] for special
education teachers was undertaken in 2001.

Methodology. Ten states were selected for in-depth investigation. These states were selected
to provide a representative sample based on the following parameters: large vs. small population;
categorical vs. non-categorical special education licensure framework; endorsement vs.
freestanding licensure framework; rural vs. urban; heavy vs. little involvement in alternative path
programs; and high vs. low need for special educators. The selected states were California,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and Utah.
Interviews took place during the spring of 2001.

Appropriate personnel to be interviewed in each state were identified. In most cases, this
individual was the Director of Teacher Licensing or the Director of the Professional Standards
Board. An e-mail with attached letter was sent to each state representative (Appendix C). The
letter outlined the purpose of the request for information and included 12 interview questions.
Follow-up calls were made over the next two weeks to those who did not respond to the initial e-
mail. Four interviews were completed with the person who was originally contacted. In three
cases, the person who received the e-mail referred the request for information to another person
in that office. This was either the person who had primary responsibility for the special education
alternative programs or the person who had oversight of the general alternative licensure
program for the state. These people were either interviewed by telephone or responded to our
questions (including follow-up questions) by e-mail. In three cases, we received no response to
the e-mail and appropriate persons were found by telephoning the appropriate office.

The following 12 questions formed the basis for the telephone and e-mail interviews:

1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State
Analysis 2001 (Feistritzer and Chester, 2001) an accurate description of the current ARLs
in your state?
2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.
3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?
4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking
courses only (sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?
5. Describe the current ARL programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g.,
institution or entity providing training, length of training, etc.)
6. When were these programs begun?
7. What standards were used to develop the programss?
8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last three years?
IN -7







9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?
10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as
graduates of traditional programs? If so, please describe.
11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs. Can you
share any evaluation data with CEC?
12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition
by program?


Results

Interview Summary Forms for each state interview are included in Appendix C. That
information is summarized as follows.

Accuracy of state information. Alternative Teacher Licensure: A State-by State Analysis
2001 (Feistritzer & Chester, 2001) provides a complete listing of all ARL policies and/or options
in this state. If the interviewee needed a copy of this document, we faxed the pertinent pages.
Several of the interviewees did not feel they had the expertise to comment on all of the ARLs
listed in the publication. In these situations, if possible, information from state web sites was
used to confirm the information from the Feistritzer and Chester report. Information from state
representatives or from state web sites confirmed the accuracy of the information for 9 states.
One state representative (Louisiana) stated that the state was in the middle of a major reform
effort and that all of the ARL programs had changed or were likely to change over the next year.

Other routes to licensure. Two states (Georgia, Louisiana) reported ARLs for special
educators that were not included in the publication by Feistritzer and Chester.

ARLs that apply to special education teachers. The responses to questions 3 and 5 are
combined in the following state-by-state summaries. The authors designed an organizational
framework in order to foster understanding of the different ways states have addressed ARLs.
The framework consists of two different strategies states used to develop ARL programs. These
strategies are designated state-initiated and local-initiated. In the state-initiated paradigm, a state
conceptualizes and develops standards, criteria, and procedures for ARLs. Local districts and/or
IHEs then make proposals to implement the state-initiated ARL program at their sites following
the criteria established by the state. The state has more control over the variables in these
programs (e.g., requiring a certain number of hours of training prior to beginning teaching). In
the local-initiated model, states have established much more general standards and policies for
ARL programs. Appropriate entities (e.g., local districts, teacher preparation programs) design
and implement their own or collaborative ARL programs to meet state policy. These programs
become operational when approved by the state.

Due to the constraints of the study, only state-initiated ARLs or state criteria for local-initiated
programs are described. It is beyond the scope of this report to describe the myriad of individual
programs that could meet the ARL criteria in local-initiated programs in a particular state.
Whenever possible, we have included web addresses for state-initiated and local-initiated
programs.







California: California does not have any state-initiated ARLs but has three ways local entities
can develop ARLs: the District Intern program, the University Intern, and the Pre-Internship
Teaching Certificate. Los Angeles Unified School District is the only District Intern program in
the state that includes special education. Information about this program can be found at the
LAUSD web site (www.lausd.kl2.ca.us). Several institutions have University Intern programs to
prepare teachers for mild/moderate and moderate/severe licensure. There are many Pre-
Internship Teaching Certificate programs that include special educators at the local level.
California also has a number of paraprofessional career ladder programs that include special
educators; some of them are exclusively oriented to special educators.

Connecticut: Connecticut has a very active ARL program that has been in operation for over 14
years, but it is not open to special educators. There are no ARL programs for special educators in
Connecticut.

Georgia: Georgia recently instituted a state-initiated ARL, the Georgia Teacher Alternative
Preparation Program (TAPP), at 15 sites including IHEs and Regional Education Service
Agencies. All TAPP programs are open to special educators. Information about the TAPP
program can be found at www.gapsc.com. Candidates for TAPP must have a bachelors degree
from an accredited IHE with at least a 2.5 GPA, a major or equivalent in subject matter content,
and a passing score on the Praxis I prior to program entry. Praxis II must be passed during the
second year of the program. Participants in the program receive three to six weeks of intensive
course work during the initial summer. They are placed in classrooms and are required to serve
an induction period of two years. During the induction period, the candidate is observed and
supervised by a support team consisting of a trained mentor teacher, a school administrator, and
a college faculty representative. Seminars are held throughout the year for the cohort group. The
provider program and the support team make recommendations for full licensure.

Illinois: None of the current ARL programs in Illinois applies to special educators.

Louisiana: Three new ARLs are being developed: Practitioner Teacher program, Master's
Degree program, and Certification Only program. All programs are based in IHEs. Currently,
eight of the nine providers of the Practitioner Teacher program include programs preparing
candidates for mild/moderate licenses; however, it is unclear how special education training will
be incorporated into the other new programs.

Candidates for the Practitioner Teacher program must possess a Baccalaureate degree from an
accredited IHE with at least a 2.5 GPA. Candidates must also pass the PRAXIS I as an entry
requirement. During the program, candidates must pass the PRAXIS II in special education.
Participants in the program receive intensive training in the summer (nine credit hours) prior to
being placed in a classroom. During the school year, candidates participate in a seminar each
semester and receive one-on-one supervision during an internship. The practitioner teachers also
receive support from school-based mentor teachers. Teams composed of principals, mentors, and
practitioner teachers will review the first-year teaching performance of practitioner teachers and
determine the extent to which the practitioner teachers have demonstrated teaching proficiency.
If successful, they enter the assessment portion of the Louisiana Teacher and Assessment
Program during the following fall. If unsuccessful, a prescriptive plan will be developed and
implemented.

Michigan: Michigan has recently instituted an experimental Limited License to Instruct
program specifically for special education with Detroit Public Schools. Information on this
29







program is available at www.state.mi.us/mde/. There are no other ARL programs in special
education.

New Jersey: No ARLs are available for special education.

Oregon: Oregon does not have a typical ARL program. Its alternative options are more
accurately viewed as an alternative path to entry into a program. This option, which is available
to special educators, allows participants to teach while they are completing a regularly approved
program of study at an Oregon IHE.

Texas: Texas has well-established ARL programs, all open to special educators. All programs
are individually developed through the collaboration of local school districts, IHEs, and the
regional education service centers. Information about these can be obtained from the Texas
Department of Education at www.tea.state.tx.us.

Utah: Utah has no state-initiated ARL programs. The only local-initiated programs for special
educators are two at Utah State University. Information about these programs is available at
sped.usu.edu/ppictures/programs/sped_prog_off.html.

Course count option. States were asked whether or not they have a procedure that permits
students to obtain full licensure in special education by taking courses only (sometimes called a
course credit or course count path). Eight (8) states reported that they did not have a course-
count option. Illinois is transitioning from a course count to a standards-based evaluation;
Louisiana will do an individual course count evaluation.

Dates programs were begun. The earliest programs were begun in 1986, two programs
began in the summer of 2001, and several are just beginning. For a complete breakdown, see the
Interview Summary Forms in Appendix C.

Standards used to develop the program. In all cases, states report that ARL programs are
based on the same standards as traditional preparation programs, i.e., to be approved, ARL
programs must meet the same standards as traditional preparation programs. However, when and
where standards are met will most likely differ between ARL programs and traditional programs.
For example, all states require that programs have field-based components. In a traditional
program, these are most likely to be part a series of courses with a culminating full-time
practicum. In an ARL program this requirement is most likely to be met while the candidate is
employed as a teacher. Course work in an ARL program is more likely to be delivered in the
summer and in after-school seminars. A traditional program most likely delivers courses to full-
time students during the day. None of the programs reported having additional requirements for
ARLs.

Number of ARL graduates. Only Texas had data on the number of ARL program graduates.
In several states, programs were too new to have collected data. In the other states, these data
were not collected.

Assurance of quality. In every case, the strategy for ensuring the quality of ARL graduates
was by requiring program completers to pass the same tests that graduates of traditional
programs must pass. For state-specific information, see the Interview Summary Forms
(Appendix C).







Evaluation of ARL graduates. States use either state-specific tests or PRAXIS I and II.
There are also evaluations done by mentor teachers, principals, etc. No data on candidate
performance were available.

Retention and attrition of ARL graduates. No states had collected retention or attrition
data for graduates of special education ARL programs. Several states are planning to collect
retention/attrition information for graduates of new programs. Texas and New Jersey have data
for all ARL program completers but have not analyzed the results by discipline.

Summary observations. Many states are using ARL programs to deal with critical shortages
of teachers. Telephone and e-mail interviews were completed with representatives of 10 states to
determine how ARL programs were being implemented for special educators.

Some states are proactively addressing this problem by developing standards, criteria, and
procedures for ARLs; the state then works with selected local districts and/or IHEs to implement
the programs. In other states, general standards and policies for ARLs have been established at
the state level; and local school districts and/or IHEs design and implement their own programs
that meet the state standards. Four (4) states (New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Oregon) did not
provide ARL programs for special educators. Two (2) states (Georgia, Louisiana) had developed
state-initiated ARL programs that were available for individuals interested in special education
licensure. The final four (4) states (Texas, California, Michigan, Utah) have varying involvement
in local-initiated ARL programs, e.g., Texas is heavily involved, Utah, very little. Each of these
states has established policies for ARL programs, but these are not always extensively used for
the preparation of special educators.

All graduates of the special education ARL programs in the states that we investigated must meet
the same standards as graduates of traditional preparation programs in their state. However,
program requirements for field work and course delivery can be very different. In most cases,
courses are provided during the summers and as seminars during the school year. Field work is
completed while the participant is teaching as opposed to the more traditional internship or
student teaching experience utilized in conventional training programs. Usually mentor teachers
rather than university faculty provide supervision in ARL programs. Some states require
university faculty participation; others do not.

Graduates of ARL programs, in general, must take the same tests and reach the same
performance levels as graduates of traditional training programs. These tests are the primary
source of accountability for graduates of the special education ARL programs.

Only Texas had data on the number of graduates. None of the states had data that compared the
retention rates or test scores of graduates of ARL programs and graduates of traditional
preparation programs.








LIMITATIONS OF STUDIES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Limitations of the Studies in this Report

Research on the topic of special education licensure does not lack challenges. Specialized jargon
is a major obstacle to developing an understandable national picture of licensure practices.
Jurisdictions use terms related to licensure that often do not have common definitions across
borders. Examples of such terms include license, certificate, endorsement, approval, and
authorization. The variety of licensure-related terms and the absence of common definitions can
result in miscommunication and errors in research on the subject. Impediments to
communication on licensure are exacerbated by the lack of common terms and definitions in
special education. More than a quarter of a century ago, Gilmore and Aroyros (1997) observed
"a prolix profusion of particular terms pervades the field of special education" (p. 9). That
description applies equally well to the present situation. Both of the studies in this report may
have been affected by misunderstandings associated with jargon.

A second challenge that must be addressed when studying special education licensure is
identification of informed respondents. Throughout the years, investigators have targeted state-
level licensure personnel, state-level special education personnel, or occasionally both for
information on the topic. One might expect that jurisdiction coordinators of Comprehensive
Systems of Personnel Development would have current and accurate information on licensure
requirements for special educators, but often that is not the case. The same can be said for some
personnel in jurisdiction licensure units. Because responsibilities for licensure of special
education teachers are distributed in diverse ways within jurisdictions, it is difficult for
researchers to predetermine the most knowledgeable respondents in each jurisdiction. If an
inquiry on licensure is sent to an inappropriate respondent, it may go unanswered or be answered
incorrectly. Consequently, response rates and the accuracy of information obtained may vary.
Both studies in this report relied heavily on the knowledge of informants. The accuracy of the
results is affected by the extent of the informants' knowledge regarding requirements for
conventional licensure of special education teachers and alternative routes to licensure for special
education teachers.

Because the difficulties associated with communication and with locating knowledgeable
respondents are formidable, research methodologies that enhance the likelihood of accurate
communication with well-informed respondents must be used. Mailed surveys may be less
effective than strategies that utilize more direct personal communication, which affords
opportunities for follow-up and clarification of questions and responses. Verification of the
investigator's accurate interpretation of written or verbal information provided by respondents is
crucial in view of the communication challenges mentioned previously.

As a final cautionary note when considering the results of the studies in this report, remember
that many jurisdictions reported that licensure changes were underway. Some of the anticipated
changes may have occurred by the time this report is published; others may not have taken
effect, and still additional or unanticipated changes may have occurred since the studies were
conducted. In some jurisdictions, the landscape for licensure in special education may not be
today what it was a year ago or even a few months ago.







Recommendations for Future Research


The history of research on models and requirements for conventional licensure of special
education teachers and related matters contains many examples of narrow, targeted studies (e.g.,
licensure for teachers of students with learning disabilities) and multidimensional, more
comprehensive studies. Targeted studies may be less intimidating to potential respondents and
provide information on important details of special education licensure. Comprehensive studies
may help us to understand interconnections within jurisdiction systems of licensure. Both types
of investigation are valuable in helping professionals better understand the panorama of special
education licensure.

Research on alternative routes to licensure is in an early stage. Based on information obtained
through our pilot study, jurisdictions vary in their policies and practices. The complexity that
results from these variations requires that, in the future, both comprehensive and targeted studies
be undertaken to further explore the options adopted by jurisdictions.

Whether investigators undertake targeted or comprehensive studies of conventional licensure
requirements or alternative routes to licensure, it is important that findings be reported for
individual jurisdictions in order for results to be understood clearly and for historical
comparisons to be made. This form of reporting will enable jurisdictions to verify the results and
will enable changes in a jurisdiction's licensure requirements to be tracked over time. It also
allows for aggregation of licensure information and for reliable determination of
national/regional trends.

It is time for an historical overview of special education licensure to be constructed based on
jurisdiction-identifiable information. In the last three decades, several studies have reported
results by jurisdiction. The comparison of results across these studies will enable us to better
understand changes that have occurred. By constructing a baseline of data from the past and
present, we will be able to judge the likely impact of proposed changes in licensure such as that
espoused by the USDOE (2002) in Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge. Most
importantly, by understanding where we have been and where we are, we should be able to plan
future models/frameworks of licensure that will enhance learning by students with disabilities.

Questions for Future Investigation

Presently, with regard to special education, there is insufficient information available to confirm
or refute definitively the USDOE's assertions with regard to the failure of licensure systems and
the benefits of a new model based on elements of alternative routes to licensure. Many questions
need to be answered in order to rejoin the positions advocated in Meeting the Highly Qualified
Teachers Challenge.

Probably the most important set of questions that will need to be answered pertains to
relationships between the preparation and licensure of special education teachers and the
performance of students with disabilities. Jurisdictions have adopted various configurations of
categorical, multi-categorical, and/or generic models of licensure for special education teachers.
Also, some jurisdictions have requirements that candidates be prepared in both general education
and special education. In addition, many jurisdictions recognize both traditional and alternative
routes to licensure. Are certain licensure models/frameworks or programs of preparation more
efficacious than others, i.e., do they contribute to improved learning by students with







disabilities? If so, what are the critical components in these models/frameworks? These
questions, which apply to both traditional and ARL programs, will not be answered easily, but
they are fundamental, and sound data are needed to answer them.

A second area for investigation focuses on the relationship between licensure standards and the
abilities of general educators to meet the instructional needs of students with disabilities
effectively. What skills are needed by general educators to effectively teach students with
disabilities? Are there licensure requirements for general education teachers that can be shown to
contribute to teachers' instructional effectiveness with students with disabilities? Are these
requirements included in ARL programs for general educators?

A third major area for future investigation is the relationship between licensure models and the
supply of special education teachers (both short-term and long-term). Are some
models/frameworks of special education licensure more successful in assuring an adequate
supply of special education teachers than others? For example, does a non-categorical system
contribute to or alleviate imbalance in the supply and demand of special educators? Answers to
questions related to the supply of special education teachers are of great interest to school
administrators, policy makers, and parents. Many special education licensure systems have been
modified with the expectation that the changes in licensure models and options, e.g., ARL
programs, will increase the availability of special education teachers. It is time to gather data on
the relationship between licensure systems and the supply of special education teachers.

A fourth area for additional research focuses specifically on ARL programs, which are relatively
new mechanisms for the preparation of special education teachers. A majority of the jurisdictions
interviewed in our study of these programs perceived them to be effective strategies for
addressing shortages of qualified special education teachers. However, empirical data regarding
the near-term and longer-term impacts of these strategies on the supply of qualified special
education teachers have not been gathered systematically. As a start, data should be gathered to
determine how many jurisdictions have adopted ARL procedures and which models they are
using. Many of the ARL programs contacted in our study are too new to have collected retention,
attrition, and impact data; yet it is imperative that jurisdictions demand sound data from
programs on variables such as retention and performance of candidates in order to evaluate their
effectiveness. Also, jurisdictions should explore the impact of special education teachers
prepared through ARL programs on the students they teach. Although accurate data on this
matter may be difficult to obtain, such research should become a goal in order to assure the
quality of these programs.

The four areas for future study we have suggested are not an exhaustive list. The recommended
areas focus on the fundamentals of special education personnel preparation: an adequate supply
of well-qualified personnel as demonstrated by the performance of students in our schools. Our
recommendations are offered as a place to begin a comprehensive investigation of the
relationships between teacher preparation, licensure standards, and the performance of students
with disabilities in our schools. By better understanding these relationships, we will enhance our
collective ability to judge the effectiveness of all models for preparing and licensing special
education teachers, including those models criticized and those advocated in USDOE's report,
Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge (2002).









REFERENCES

Abeson, A., & Fleury, J. B. (1972). State certification requirements for education of the
handicapped. Arlington, VA: State-Federal Information Clearinghouse for Exceptional
Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED069063)

Barresi, J., & Bunte, J. (1979). Special education certification practices: A summary of a
national survey. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 189800)

Belch, P. J. (1979). Toward noncategorical teacher certification in special education-myth or
reality? Exceptional Children, 46(2),129-131.

Berkeley, T. R. (1990). Special education certification survey of the states. Reston, VA:
National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED3 54640)

Bruder, M., Klosowksi, S., & Daguio, C. (1990). A national survey of personnel standards
under P. L. 99-457. Information Bulletin #36. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED405655)

Chapey, G. D., Pyszkowski, I. S., & Trimarco, T. A. (1985). National trends for certification and
training of special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 8(4),
203-208.

The Council for Exceptional Children [CEC]. (1998). What every special educator must know:
The international standards for the preparation and licensure of special educators. (3rd
ed.). Reston, VA: Author.

Fearn, K. M. (1987). Report on the status of certification of special educators in the United
States and Territories. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Feistritzer, E., & Chester, D. (2001). Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis
2001. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Information.

Gilmore, J. T., & Aroyros, N. S. (1997). Special education certification: A state of the art survey.
Albany, NY: New York State Education Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED158447)

Huebner, K. M., & Strumwasser, P. (1987). State certification of teachers of blind and visually
impaired students: Report of a national study. Journal of Visual Impairment and
Blindness, 81(6), 244-250.

Jenkins, A. A., Leigh, J., & Patton, J. (1997). State certification standards for teachers of
students with learning disabilities: An update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 266-
279.







Jones, K. H., & Black, R. S. (1994). Teaching students i/ ith special needs in vocational and
regular education: Are certification requirements adequate? Paper presented at the
American Vocational Association Convention, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED378391)

Katsiyannis, A., Conderman, G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State practices on inclusion. Remedial
and Special Education, 16(5), 279-287.

Klienhammer-Trammill, P. J., Geiger, W., & Momingstar, P. (in press). State policy contexts for
transition personnel preparation: An analysis of transition-related credentials, standards,
and course requirements in state certification and licensure policies. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals.

Leigh, J., & Patton, J. (1986). State certification standards for teachers of learning disabled
students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 259-267.

Mackey, C., & McHenry, V. (1994). The history ofNASDTEC. Seattle. WA: The National
Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification.

Mainzer, R. & Horvath, M. (2001). Issues in preparing and licensing special educators.
Arlington, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Mauser, A. J., & Cranston-Gingras, A. M. (1988). Special education teacher certification
trends: A national survey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED348786)

McLaughlin, M., Smith-Davis, J., & Burke, P. (1986). Personnel to educate the handicapped in
America: A status report. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED30581)

McLaughlin, M. J., & Stettner-Eaton, B. (1988). Categorical certification in special education:
Does it really make a difference? Policy issues. Charleston, WV: Appalachia
Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED311643)

Morgan, S. R. (1978). Personnel preparation and implementation of services for severely
disturbed children in the United States. Behavior Disorders: Journal of the Council for
Children i/ ith Behavior Disorders, 3(4), 268-275.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (1990). National, regional, and
state accreditation and certification standards for special education and related services
personnel: A summary. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354644)

National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification [NASDTEC].
(1998). The NASDTEC manual on the preparation and certification of educational
personnel. (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

NASDTEC. (2000). The NASDTEC manual on the preparation and certification of educational
personnel. (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.







National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (1996). Exceptional Needs
Specialist: Standards for National Board Certification (Draft). Washington, DC:
Author.

National Education Association. (1998). Characteristics of independent professional teacher
standards boards. Washington, DC: Author.

Patton, J. M., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1979). Public Law 94-142 and the changing status of teacher
certification/recertification: A survey of state education agencies. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 178487)

Patton, J. M., & Braithwaite, R. (1990). Special education certification/recertification for regular
educators. The Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 117-124.

Piercy, S. W., & Bowen, M. L. (1993). Current and projected practices for certification and
monitoring ofpersonnel needs in special education. Normal, IL: Illinois State University.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366150)

Putnam, M. L., & Habanek, D. V. (1993). A national survey of certification requirements for
teachers of students with mild handicaps: State of confusion. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 16 (2), 155-160.

Ramsey, R. (1988). National trends in special education teacher competency testing. Paper
presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children,
Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED296495)

Reiff, H. B., Evans, E. D., & Cass, M. (1991). Special education requirements for general
education certification: A national survey of current practices. Remedial and Special
Education, 12(5), 56-60.

Rosenberg, M. S. & Sindelar, P. T. (2001). The proliferation of alternative routes to
certification in special education: A critical review of the literature. Arlington, VA: The
Council for Exceptional Children.

Russo, T., & Stark, N. B. (1976). Teacher certification trends. Mental Retardation, 14 (5), 24-
26.

Sargent, L. R., (1978). State certification requirements. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(6), 47.

Schwartz, L. L. (1969). A survey of teacher certification requirements in the field of learning
disabilities. Paper presented at the conference of the Association for Children with
Learning Disabilities, Fort Worth, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED032999)

Shive, J. J. (1988). Professional practices boards for teachers. Journal of Teacher Educators,
39(6), 2-7.

Smith, B. J., & Powers, C. (1987). Issues related to developing state certification policies.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 7(3), 12-23.

""-7







Steffens, S. (1996). A comparative analysis of state special education certification for working
11 /i/ students ii it disabilities: Certification practices and teacher competence.
Unpublished manuscript.

Stile, S. W., Abernathy, S. M., Pettibone, T. J., & Watchel, W. J. (1984). Training and
certification for early childhood special education personnel: A six-year follow-up study.
Journal of the Divisionfor Early Childhood, 8(1), 69-73.

Striffler, N. (1995). Selectedpersonnel policies andpractices under Part H ofI. D. E. A. Chapel
Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED386896)

Tait, P. E. (1987). Update on general education certification requirements concerning
exceptional students. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 19(1), 27-30.

Thurman, S. K., & Hare, B. A. (1979). Teacher training in special education: Some perspectives
circa 1980. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 14(4), 292-95.

Trohanis, P., Barker, M., Button, J., Hazen, S., Jackson, E., Karp, J., May, M., Meyer, R.,
Moore, B., Norman, M., Osteen, B., & Rostetter, D. (1980). The State Implementation
Grant (SIG) Program: Three years in perspective. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 193875)

United States Department of Education [USDOE]. (1997). Individuals i/h Disabilities
Education Act Amendments of 1997. Washington, DC: Author.

USDOE. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge. Washington, DC: Author.









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses

Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
AL B B B b-8 yrs Collaborative
teacher
k-6th, 6th-12th
AK Credential titles are determined by approved preparation programs.
Developmental levels of approved programs are used to determine grade ranges
AZ K K K K K K K b-5 yrs Special Severe/ K
Education Profound
K
AR Current K K K K b-5yrs Mild
Disabili
ties
K
Mod-
Prof K
New b-8 b- b-8yrs Instructional
(2002) yrs, 8yrs, Specialist
4th_ 4th- thh_12th
8th, 8th,
7th_ 7th_
12th 12th

CA B B B B b to k Mild- Aphasia
Moderate K B
Moderate-
Severe K









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
CO Current 5-21 b-21 5-21 b-21 5-21 b-5 yrs Moderate
yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs needs
(5-21 yrs)
Profound
needs
(b-21 yrs)
Proposed Under revision
CT Current P P P b-k Comprehensive
p-k Special
Education
1st -12th

Proposed Unified general education and special education licensures
DE K K K K K b-k Exceptional Trade
Children: and
Elem: 1st -8th Indus-
Sec: 7th -12th tries

DC K K K K K K K p -3rd Non- 9th -12th
categorical K









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
FL K K K K K K K b-k Varying Prof. Hcp. O&M
b-3yrs Exception K K
3yrs-3rd K
GA K K P K K K K 3-5yrs Interrelated K
HI 3-20 3-20 3-20 Special Mild/Mod Orien-
yrs yrs yrs Education (3-20 yrs) station
3-20 yrs Ser/Prof &
(3-20 yrs) Mobi-
lity
(3-20
yrs.)
Deaf/
Blind
(3-20
yrs.)
ID K K K K K b-3d Generalist K Standard Multi-
SMR Exceptional ple
children K Hand.
Consultant K
teacher K










APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
IL P P P P P P P
EMR
TMR
IN Current K K K K K K b to k Mild dis. K
mild Severe dis. K
Proposed Preschool Preschool Mild
Elem: Elem: Intervention
Primary Primary Preschool
Elem: Elem: Elem: Primary
Intermed. Intermed. Elem:
Mid Sch. Mid Sch. Intermed. Mid
/Jr. Hi /Jr. Hi Sch.
/Jr. Hi
High Sch High Sch High Sch
Intensive
Intervention
Preschool
Elem:
Primary
Elem:
Intermed.
Middle Sch.
/Jr. High/
High Schools









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
IA Current k-6It k-6h b-20 k-6ih k-6th k-6h k-6h b-k Multi- Severe/
7-12th 7-12th yrs 7-12th 7-12th 7-12th 7-12th b- 3rd categorical Profound
Resource K
k-6th, 7th-12th
Multi-
categorical
special class
with inclusion
k-6th, 7th-12th
Proposed k-6th k-6 b-3rd Mild-Mod.
7-12th 7-12th k-6th
7-12th
Instructional
Strategist I
k-6th
7-12th
Instructional
Strategist II
k-6th
7-12th










APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
KS Current K K P K K K K preK Interrelated
k-9th k-9th k-9th k-9th k-9th k-9th K
7-12th 7-12th 7-12th 7-12th 7-12th 7-12th k-9th
7-12th
Severely
Multi-
disabled
K
K-9th
7-12th
Proposed P P b-3rd Adaptive
K-6th
5-8th
6-12th
Functional
K-6th
5-8th
6-12th
KY K K K (C)K (C)K b-k Moderate/
Severe
K









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
LA Pre K Pre b-4 yrs Mild/Mod.
Sch., Sch., 1-12th
1-8th 1-8th Sev/Prof.
7-12th 7-12th 1-12th
ME K K K b-4yrs Teacher of Teacher of
students with students with
disabilities Sev./Prof
k-3rd Impair.
k-8th K
7-12th
MD B B b-3r" Generic Severe/
Elem: 1-8th Profound
Sec: 6-12th B


MA B B B p-3rd Teacher of Teacher of
students with students with
special needs intensive
p-9th special needs
5-12th B
MI K K K K K (C)K K (C)K K b-5yrs Home
Bound
K









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
MN Current K B B B K K K b-6 yrs
Mild/
Mod
Mod/
Sev
New K B B B K (C)B (C)B K b-6 yrs
(2000) Devel
Dis.

MS K K K K Mild/Mod.
Dis.K-8th
K
Sev./Multi-
ply Dis. K
MO K K K K K (C)K (C)K K b-3d Sev. Dev.
Dis. K
Mild/Mod.
Cross-
categorical K
MT Generic
Special
Education
P









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
NE K P K K K b-4yrs Mild/Mod Adap.
K-8th K-8th K-8th PE
7th- 7- K-9th K
12th 12th 7-12th
K
Severe/
Multiple Dis
K

NV 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 b-7 yrs Generalist TBI
yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs (LD, ED, 3-21
MR) yrs
Mild to Adapt
Moderate PE
Needs 3-21
K yrs

NH K K K K K K K General Special
Special Ed. in
K Assess.
of
intell.
funct.









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
NJ P P P P Teacher of
Handicapped
P

NM b-4yrs General
Special Ed.
P

NY Current P P P Special Ed.
P


New B B B b-2n Students with
1"" 1) disabilities
1-6th
5-9th
7-12th

NC K K K K K b-k, Cross-
3-4yrs categorical
(Mild/Mod)
K
Sev/Prof.
Disabled K









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
ND K K K K K K K b-3rd


OH 1998 3-21 3-21 3-8yrs Mild-Mod
yrs yrs 5-21 yrs
Moderate-
Intensive
5-21yrs
OK P P Mild/Mod,
Disabilities
P
Sev/Prof.
Disabilities
P


OR P P P b-3d Special
educator:
ECED &
ELED
p-8th
MCED &
High Sch.
5th_12th









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
PA K K K Mentally
and/or
Physically
handicapped
K
RI K K b to K Mild/Mod
Elem/Mid
k-8th
Midd/Secd
7th 12th
Sev/Prof
3-20yrs

SC Current K K K K K K K Generic
EMH K
TMH


Proposed K K K K K K p Multi-
categorical K
Severe Dis.
K









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
SD K b-21 K b-8 yrs Special
yrs Education
k-8th
K
TN P P P b-lst Modified K
Comprehensive
K

TX P P (C)P (C)P p-6th Generic Sped Sev/Prof
P Handicapped
6th_12th P

UT K K K b-5 yrs Mild/Mod. K
Severe K

VT K K b-7 yrs Counsult. Intensive Sec.
Teacher/ special needs divers.
Learning K occup.
specialist Special 7-12th
K education Spec.
resource needs
Room K teach
7-12th
VA K K K K K K b-4 yrs Spe Ed.
Sev/Prof.
K










APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
WA b-3rd Special ed.
K

WI Current P P P P P P P b-8 yrs
p-9th p-9th p-9th p-9th
6- 6- 6- 6-
12th 12th 12th 12th

New p P P P P P P b-7 yrs Cross-
11""1) mid Sam Sam Sam categorical
child levels levels levels with areas of
/as as concentration
early MR MR (LD, BD,
adol MR MR)
scen -Mid. Child./
ce, OR Early
e.g. Adolescence
ages e.g., ages 6-12
6-12 OR 13
or 13 Early
adolescence/
Adolescence
e.g., ages
10-21
OR wide
range
P









APPENDIX A. Categories and Age/Grade Levels* for Special Education Licenses (cont.)


Special education credential categories

General
MR HI SL VI ED OI A OHI SLD ECSE General General Other
State levels
WV K B B K K K K b-4 yrs Sev/prof
5-12' 5-12' 5-12" 5-12* 5-12 52 Handicapped
Mild B
to
Mod
WY K K K K K K b-5 yrs Exceptional
Children K
Generalist K


*Legend:
B= Birth through 12th grade
P= Pre kindergarten through 12th grade
K=Kindergarten through 12th grade
b = birth
p=pre kindergarten
k=kindergarten
- =through
C=combined with another category of disability which also is designed with a C
Mod.=Moderate
Prof.= Profound
Dis.=Disabilities
Spe Ed. = Special education
O & M= Orientation & Movement









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers


State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
State Minimum GPA Other
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
AL 2.5 undergraduate No No No Yes
3.0 masters
3.25 sixth year

AK No Yes No No No

AZ No No Yes Yes No


AR 2.5 Yes Yes Yes No


CA CorIHE Yes Yes Yes No
requirement that is (reading) Content
higher than C knowledge

CO No No No Yes Yes
(Braille for
teachers of
visually impaired)
CT B- for entry to Yes No Yes for No
teaching programs comprehensive
special ed license
DE No Yes No No No

DC No Yes No Yes No









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers (cont.)


State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
FL 2.5 in subject Yes Yes Yes Yes
courses for graduates of
state's approved
programs
GA 2.5 Yes No Yes No

HI No Yes Yes Yes Yes

ID No No No No No

IL No Yes Yes Yes No




IN No Yes No Yes Yes
in the areas of (2002-2006)
severe disabilities
seriously
emotionally
handicapped, and
learning disability
IA No No No No No









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers (cont.)


State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
State Minimum GPA Other
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
KS 2.5 Yes Yes No No
except for
speech/language
pathologist, early
childhood
disabled, and
severely multi
disabled

KY 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Performance is
assessed in one-
year internship
program
LA 2.5 Yes Yes No No


ME None Yes No No No


MD C Yes No Yes No
for Generic
Elem/Middle
Infant primary,
and secondary/
adult









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers (cont.)


State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
State Minimum GPA Other
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
MA No Yes No Yes No
for teachers of
students with
special needs and
early childhood
teachers
MI No Yes Yes Yes No

For some areas of special education licensure


MN No Yes In development


MS 2.5 Yes Yes Yes No


MO 2.5 Yes No Yes No
Overall and in
major area of
study


MT 2.5 Yes No No No

NE No Yes No No No









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers (cont.)


State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
State Minimum GPA Other
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
NV No Yes No information No


NH No Yes No No No


NJ 2.75 Yes No Yes No
for Speech
language specialist
only


NM No Yes Yes No No



NY No Yes Yes Being developed No



NC 2.5 Yes No Yes Yes
for admission to except for hearing
programs only impaired, birth
thru kindergarten,
and preschool
educator 3 to 5









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers (cont.)

State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
ND 2.5 No No No No



OH 2.5 No Yes Yes Yes (2000)
By reference to
NCATE


OK 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Foreign language
proficiency


OR No Yes No Yes Yes



PA Beg. Sept. 2001 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
will require at Elementary
least 2.6 in each content knowledge
area of teaching.
Gradually
increasing to 3.0
beginning 2003









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers (cont.)


State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
State Minimum GPA Other
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
RI No Yes Plan to require Yes (2001)


SC 2.5 Yes Yes Yes No

SD No No No No No

TN No Yes Yes Yes No


TX No Yes Yes Yes Yes
For some teachers
of deaf children

UT No No No No No


VT No Yes Being considered for implementation in 2002 No

VA No Yes Being considered No


WA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes









Appendix B. Required Assessments for Initial Licensure of Special Education Teachers (cont.)


State Minimum GPA Knowledge of Pedagogical Knowledge of Other Performance
State Minimum GPA Other
basic skills knowledge special education assessment
WV 2.5 Yes Yes Yes No



WI 2.75 Yes No Yes Yes (2004)
in major and
minor and
professional
education courses,
except for student
teaching




WY No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Embedded in Embedded in Embedded in Embedded in
standards standards standards standards









APPENDIX C. Alternative Teacher Certification Interview Request
Letter and State Interviews



P Council for


Children


Dear:

Richard Mainzer, the CEC Assistant Executive Director of Professional Standards and Practice, and I are seeking
information about how states are addressing, developing, and/or implementing alternative routes to licensure (ARLs)
for special education teachers. In order to obtain a clearer picture of both the policy and the practice in states, we
have selected 10 states to evaluate in-depth. To ensure that we receive accurate and current information we would
like to complete a phone interview with you or your designee. We have information on the alternative path policies
in your state as published in the most recent edition of Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis
2001, published by the National Center for Education Information.

1. Is the information copied from this publication an accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?
If you do not have the information available, we will be happy to fax you the respective pages.
2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.
3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?
4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?
5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or entity
providing training, length of training, etc.)?
6. When were these programs begun?
7. What standards were used to develop the programss?
8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?
9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of traditional
programs are not required to meet?
10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of traditional
programs? If so, please describe.
11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs. Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?
12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by program?

Information you provide will assist CEC in describing the ARLs being used in states as part of a synthesis paper we
are developing in collaboration with the Center on Professional Policy in Special Education (COPPSE). We would
appreciate your help. Please let us know by return email whether you prefer we schedule a phone interview with you
or with your designee. If you prefer we interview your designee, please let us know whom to contact

Sincerely,

SfXc^a-l J 0. !^ Ut -


Margaret D. Crutchfield
Director for Program Accreditation
margiec@,cec.sped.org









Interview Summary Sheet: California
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

Does not include information on Paraeducator Career Ladder programs

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) AUSD runs the only District Intern program for sped.
Several institutions have University Intern programs in mild/moderate and moderate/severe. There are
many Pre-Internship Teaching Certificate programs that include special educators at the local level. Many
of the Paraprofessional Career Ladder programs include special education; some are exclusively special
education.

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses
only (sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

No

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

See response to #3

6. When were these programs begun?

Intern program was begun in late 1980's

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

California's teacher preparation programs.

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

Have not collected state-wide data

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

No

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

Must pass same tests-CBEST and MSAT or appropriate PRAXIS II, may change requirement for Severe
license from MSAT to PRAXIS II for Health.

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

Graduates of all programs must pass the same assessments.

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

C-_)









Interview Summary Sheet: Connecticut
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

No

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

There are no ARL programs in CT.

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

No

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

NA


6. When were these programs begun?

NA

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

NA


8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

NA

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

NA

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

NA

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

NA

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

Connecticut does track graduates of its ARL programs. The retention rates are as good as or better than
graduates of traditional programs.


Retention after 3 years (1997 cohort):


85.5% of ARL graduates
84.4% of graduates of traditional programs








Interview Summary Sheet: Connecticut (continued)
Retention after 5 years (1993 cohort): 79.9% of ARL graduates
78.7% of graduates of traditional programs

1993 graduates n= 120
1997 graduates n = 150
2000 AFL graduates n = 230









Interview Summary Sheet: Georgia
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Does not include information on the Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation Program (TAPP)

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

TAPP

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

All the TAPP programs include special education

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

No

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

Georgia: Georgia recently instituted a state-based ARL, the Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation
Program (TAPP), at 15 sites including IHE's and Regional Education Service Agencies. All TAPP
programs are open to special educators. Information about the TAPP program can be found at
www.gapsc.com. Candidates for TAPP: must have a Bachelor's degree from an accredited IHE with at
least a 2.5 GPA, must have a major or equivalent in subject matter content, and must have a passing score
on the Praxis I prior to program entry. Praxis II must be passed during the second year of the program.
Participants in the program receive 3 to 6 weeks of intensive coursework during the initial summer. They
are placed in classrooms and are required to serve an induction period of two years. During the induction
period, the candidate is observed and supervised by a support team consisting of a trained mentor teacher, a
school administrator, and a college faculty representative. Seminars are held throughout the year for the
cohort group. The provider program and the support team make recommendation for full licensure.


6. When were these programs begun?

Summer 2001

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

Georgia teacher preparation standards (NCATE)

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

Program has just begun

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

No

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

Graduates of TAPP and traditional programs must both take PRAXIS I and II and must meet same cut
score.


C-_'-








Interview Summary Sheet: Georgia (continued)
11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

See response to question #10.

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

Not yet.









Interview Summary Sheet: Illinois
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

No

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

There are no ARL programs in Illinois at this time for special educators.

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

Transitioning from course count to standards-based

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

NA

6. When were these programs begun?

NA

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

NA

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

NA

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

NA

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

NA

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

NA

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

NA









Interview Summary Sheet: Louisiana
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

No, Louisiana is in the middle of a major reform and many of the ARL programs are changing

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

3 new paths being developed-see detailed description in folder: Practitioner Teacher Program, Master's
Degree, and Certification Only. All programs are implemented through IHEs.

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

All three of the above programs are available for special education. Eight of the nine new Practitioner
Teacher programs include special education. It is unclear how special education will be incorporated into
the other programs.

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

Yes

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

Candidates for the Practitioner Teacher program must possess a Baccalaureate degree from an accredited
IHE with at least a 2.5 GPA. They must pass the Praxis I and during the program must pass the PRAXIS II
in special education. Participants in the program receive intensive training in the summer (9 credit hours)
prior to being placed in a classroom. During the school year, participants participate in a seminar each
semester and receive one-on-one supervision through an internship provided by the program providers. The
practitioner teacher also receives support from school-based mentor teachers. Teams made up of principals;
mentors and practitioner teachers will review the first year teaching performance of practitioner teachers
and determine the extent to which the practitioner teachers have demonstrated teaching proficiency. If
successful, they will enter the assessment portion of the Louisiana Teacher and Assessment Program during
the following fall. If not successful, a prescriptive plan will be developed and implemented.


6. When were these programs begun?

2000-2001 school year
7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

Louisiana teacher preparation standards, however, special education standards are currently under review

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

Programs are too new to have data

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

In some disciplines areas, candidates can be licensed by passing PRAXIS II, but in special education,
course work is required.

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

Same assessments, must pass PRAXIS I and II

C fl'








Interview Summary Sheet: Louisiana (continued)
11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

See response to question #10


12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

IHE's will be accountable for their graduates whether they are from traditional or ARL programs









Interview Summary Sheet: Michigan
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

No

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

Currently, there are no special education ARL programs in Michigan, except for a Limited License to
Instruct program with the Detroit Public Schools. This is a pilot program to provide training to persons
teaching on emergency certificates and will likely include special educators.

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

No

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?


None other than the experimental program described above.

6. When were these programs begun?

NA

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?


Michigan Board of Education standards

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

NA

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

No

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

NA

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

NA

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

NA


'-7









Interview Summary Sheet: New Jersey
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

No

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

There are no ARL programs for special educators in New Jersey.

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

No

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

NA


6. When were these programs begun?

NA

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

NA


8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

NA

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

NA

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

NA

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

NA

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

NA









Interview Summary Sheet: Oregon
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes; however, Oregon describes its programs as an "alternate route to entry" rather than an alternative
route to licensure. The holder of the certificate is allowed to teach but must be accepted into a regular
teacher education program in the state and complete that program within 3 years.

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

No

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

NA

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

Not allowed for special education

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

NA

6. When were these programs begun?

NA


7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

NA

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

NA


9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

NA

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

NA

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

NA

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

NA


'-7,









Interview Summary Sheet: Texas
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

No

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

All are open to special educators

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

No

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

6. When were these programs begun?

Earliest began in 1986

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

Texas teacher preparation standards

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

1998 1,042 (traditional programs = 714)
1999 1,045 (traditional programs = 836)
2000 947 (traditional programs =586)

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

No

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

All candidates must pass the EXCET test.

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

ExCET. Does not have a comparison of the EXCET scores of traditional and ARL graduates

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

Not by discipline area, in general have data that shows ARL completers have a greater hiring rate after
training and that retention was as good or better than IHE grads









Interview Summary Sheet: Utah
1. Is the information copied from Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 2001 an
accurate depiction of the policy for ARLs in your state?

Yes

2. Are there other routes to licensure not included in this list? Please describe briefly.

No

3. Which ARLs apply to special education teachers?

There is one special education ARL at Utah State University.

4. Does your state have a procedure that permits students to obtain full licensure by taking courses only
(sometimes called a course credit or course count path)?

No

5. Describe the current ALR programs in your state that prepare special educators (e.g., institution or
entity providing training, length of training, etc.)?

There is one program at Utah State. The program prepares 25 individuals per year in greater Salt Lake City
for a mild/moderate license. These individuals must hold a baccalaureate degree from an accredited
institution and be employed in an approved special education setting serving students with mild/moderate
disabilities. Training includes academic coursework taken concurrently with supervised filed-based
experiences. (sped.usu.edu/pictures/programs/sped_prog_off.html)

6. When were these programs begun?

NA

7. What standards were used to develop the programss?

Utah teacher preparation standards. State accepts IHE's recommendation.

8. How many individuals have completed each program in the last 3 years?

Not known at state level.

9. Are there any licensing criteria graduates of these programs) must meet that graduates of
traditional programs are not required to meet?

No

10. Does your state ensure that graduates of ARLs are of at least the same quality as graduates of
traditional programs? If so, please describe.

Must meet all the same criteria as graduates of traditional program

11. Describe how your state evaluates the individuals who complete these programs? Can you share any
evaluation data with CEC?

Accepts IHE recommendation for licensure

12. Does your state track completers of these programs to evaluate retention and/or attrition by
program?

Not at state level
-7C




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs