How Preparation Programs for Moderate-Severe Disabilities in Ohio Incorporate High-Leverage Instructional Practices

How Preparation Programs for Moderate-Severe Disabilities in Ohio Incorporate High-Leverage Instructional Practices

Two elementary aged students in a classroom. The students are talking to one another while writing on notebook paper.

Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Background and Research Questions

Students with significant cognitive disabilities benefit from participation in general education core instruction in inclusive settings, especially when their teachers, both general and special educators, are well prepared to support their learning (e.g., Blanton et al., 2011; Rock et al., 2016; Thomas & Rose, 2020; Yang & Rusli, 2012). In fact, students with significant cognitive disabilities receive some benefit from being served in inclusive settings even when their teachers don't use evidence-based practices (Matzen et al., 2010). An increasing consensus in the field of special education reveals that being “well-prepared” to assist these students requires competence with a set of clearly defined, instructional strategies—what Brownell and colleagues (2020) talk about as the “pedagogical content knowledge” supporting specialized expertise in special education (see also Leko et al., 2015). These instructional strategies have recently been codified as “high-leverage” practices (HLPs) for students with disabilities (McLeskey et al., 2017).

Literature about the preparation and induction of special education teachers, moreover, strongly encourages preparatory experiences that focus on the use of HLPs (e.g., Billingsley et al., 2019; Brownell et al., 2019; Brownell et al., 2020/2021). Arguably, the use of these practices would enable more extensive and effective inclusion of students with significant cognitive disabilities than is possible without their use (McLeskey et al. 2018). [1] But to what extent are preservice and induction programs focusing on these practices?

The present study addresses this issue with respect to preservice and practicing teachers who receive preparation in Ohio colleges and universities to work in inclusive settings. Its specific research questions are:

  1. To what extent do leaders of Ohio Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) believe their licensure programs for mild-moderate and/or moderate-intensive special education prepare preservice candidates in special education [2] to teach students with significant intellectual disabilities using high-leverage practices in inclusive settings?
  2. To what extent do special educators in Ohio believe their EPPs prepared them to teach students with significant intellectual disabilities using high-leverage practices in an inclusive setting?
  3. To what extent do in-service special educators in Ohio believe they are implementing high-leverage practices to support students with significant intellectual disabilities in inclusive environments?
  4. To what extent do Ohio parents of students with disabilities believe their children’s teachers are using high-leverage practices to support their children in inclusive environments?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) describes a range of disabilities, [3] including intellectual disability, which entitle students to special education and related services based on individual needs. Many students with significant cognitive disabilities become eligible for special education by being identified as having an “intellectual disability.” However, some students with significant cognitive disabilities become eligible through their identification as having an autism spectrum disorder, deafblindness, or multiple disabilities. [4]

To prepare educators to teach students with significant cognitive disabilities, especially in inclusive settings, a growing consensus maintains that EPPs should focus extensively on the use of the evidence-based instructional strategies that are best suited to students with such disabilities. Arguably, the CEEDAR Center’s high-leverage practices (McLeskey et al., 2017) represent the instructional strategies with greatest salience to the preparation of teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities. But, with limited evidence thus far about what EPPs are actually doing, it is not clear whether candidates receive adequate preparation in the use of these HLPs.

This review of related literature contextualizes the issue in three ways. First, it looks at current research about best instructional practices for teaching students with significant cognitive disabilities, especially in inclusive settings. Second, it provides an assessment of the potential of HLPs to support the inclusion of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Finally, it reviews previous research relevant to the questions of how and to what degree EPPs incorporate CEEDAR’s HLPs and other sets of evidence-based instructional strategies into programs that prepare candidates for working with students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Best Practices for Teaching Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities Especially in Inclusive Settings

Two reviews of relevant literature speak to the practices that work best for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The first of these (Browder et al., 2014) was developed and disseminated by the CEEDAR Center as an “Innovation Configuration,” and the second by the TIES Center (Saunders et al., 2020). Both identify evidence-based instructional strategies for use in teaching students with significant and complex disabilities in inclusive settings.

Table 1, below, specifies the evidence-based practices identified by CEEDAR.

Table 1. CEEDAR’s Evidence-Based Practices

Practice

Brief Description

Systematic Instruction

This set of practices (including task analysis, prompting, reinforcement, and support for generalization) reflects principles of applied behavior analysis. Evidence supporting this set of practices comes from a durable body of research (much of it single-subject-design research) with students with severe disabilities, including significant cognitive disabilities.

Self-directed Learning

These practices teach students with severe disabilities how to learn and solve problems on their own. They include pictorial self-instruction, directed inquiry, and the self-determined learning model of instruction. Several research studies relating to each of the practices provide evidence of their effectiveness for teaching academic and functional skills.

Peer Tutoring

Peer tutoring practices involve same-age peers as tutors of students with moderate to severe disabilities. Evidence of the effectiveness of peer tutoring shows its benefits for social interaction as well as for academic skill development. Peer tutors can also learn how to use systematic methods of instruction and apply these methods with fidelity.

Technology

Various technologies can improve learning experiences and outcomes for students with significant disabilities. Video modeling and video prompting have been shown to be effective for teaching social interaction and functional skills. A wide range of computer mediated instructional tools has also been shown to help these students learn.

Table 2, below, presents instructional practices identified by the TIES Center (Saunders et al., 2020).

Table 2. The TIES Center Evidence-Based Practices (Saunders et al., 2020)

Practice

Brief Description

Embedded Trial Instruction

This approach involves the use of distributed opportunities for practice of new skills across different settings and different portions of the school day.

Systematic Instruction

This set of practices, including constant time delay, system of least prompts, and simultaneous prompting, involve “call and response” protocols in which prompting scaffolds learning by limiting a student’s error rate and thereby increasing the student’s opportunities for reinforcement.

Task Analytic Instruction

This set of practices involves breaking a skill down into a sequence of chained tasks and then teaching the sequence of tasks, starting with the first, then adding in the second, and so on until the student can perform the entire sequence.

Peer Support Interventions

These interventions include peer-tutoring and other related approaches, especially approaches in which peers are taught to use systematic instructional practices.

Technology-aided Instruction

Technology-aided instruction uses computers and sometimes other technologies as the platform for deploying other effective practices (e.g., explicit instruction, prompting).

Graphic Organizers

These diagrams help students understand ideas (and networks of ideas) by showing them (or asking them to show) how information is organized conceptually.

Potential of Evidence-based Practices to Support Inclusion of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

Future and ongoing improvements in the inclusion of students with significant cognitive disabilities depend on both general and special educators’ widespread understanding and use of effective instructional practices (e.g., Bruggink et al., 2016; Leko et al, 2015; Park et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the extent to which educators understand and can use these practices is still an open question (e.g., Byrd & Alexander, 2020). Moreover, determinations have not yet been made about which practices (e.g., those identified in CEEDAR’s innovation configuration or in the TIES literature review or some other set) are the most effective for promoting learning among students with significant cognitive disabilities who receive education in inclusive settings (Saunders et al., 2020).

Interestingly, not all practices that appear to work well with students with significant cognitive disabilities are credited by education researchers as being evidence-based. Saunders and colleagues (2020) organized the research on instructional practices for students with significant cognitive disabilities into three categories: (1) evidence-based practices, (2) research-based practices, and (3) promising practices. Practices that had had high-quality research supporting their use were considered evidence-based. A research-based practice met less stringent criteria, and a promising practice met even weaker criteria (i.e., at least one significant study that reported positive results).

In addition to limited support from high-quality research, inclusive instructional practices that are thought to work well with students with cognitive disabilities, in general, do not necessarily work well with students with significant cognitive disabilities. This circumstance reflects the fact that studies of these practices often do not include students whose disabilities represent a full range of support needs. For example, the research on metacognitive strategies overwhelmingly supports their use with students with learning disabilities, not necessarily with students with significant cognitive disabilities. Additional research about the practices that work well with students with significant cognitive disabilities is clearly needed.

Despite the limited research support for and slow adoption rates of evidence-based, research-based, and promising practices for students with significant cognitive disabilities, using these practices to promote inclusion is still possible; and it is possible at any point in a student’s education. Nevertheless, some studies do cite the benefits of pursuing such placements as early as possible in a student’s school career (e.g., Park et al., 2018).

Educational practices supporting inclusion. Whereas the research discussed above considers discrete instructional practices (and combinations of those discrete practices) that are likely to benefit students with cognitive disabilities in inclusive classrooms, other research focuses on the effectiveness of educational practices with larger grain size. [5] Scholarship along these lines includes Browder and colleagues’ 2014 effort via their Innovation Configuration to synthesize information about effective educational practices for students with significant disabilities. These practices, which were originally identified by Meyer and colleagues (1987), were (1) inclusion, (2) home-school collaboration, (3) staff development, (4) data-based instruction, and (5) attentiveness to the criterion of ultimate functioning (i.e., preparing students for their current and future environments). This approach subsumed effective instructional practices (e.g., evidence-based instructional practices) within the broader category of effective educational practices.

Building on this work and using a similar approach, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the CEEDAR Center worked together to create a more definitive synthesis. These research partners convened a large group of stakeholders to review the existing evidence as the basis for identifying the “high-leverage” practices that improve outcomes for students with disabilities (CEC, 2017). The stakeholder group worked for 18 months to identify foundational practices to support effective instruction, behavior management, and implementation of IDEA. The identification of these practices oriented to two criteria to ensure their foundational character: (a) relevance to the everyday work of teachers, and (b) relevance to teacher education programs.

This effort resulted in the identification of 22 HLPs that purportedly increase the ability of general and special education teachers to improve educational outcomes for students with disabilities (See Appendix A.). According to the CEC/CEEDAR partners, institutions of higher education (IHEs) should include these HLPs in their educator preparation programs so that their candidates graduate with the competencies needed for supporting students with disabilities in inclusive settings (McLeskey et al., 2017).

The HLPs are organized into four categories: collaboration, assessment, social/emotional/behavioral learning, and instruction. According to CEC/CEEDAR, each practice is essential. The list, therefore, does not present a menu of choices. Nevertheless, McLeskey and colleagues (2017) acknowledge that teachers often implement the practices in different ways. Table 3 lists categories or practice types of HLPs and the specific practices included in each category or type.

Table 3. CEC/CEEDAR’s HLPs in Special Education

Practice Type

Practice

Collaboration

1. Collaborate with professionals to increase student success.

2. Organize and facilitate effective meetings with professionals and families.

3. Collaborate with families to support student learning.

Assessment

4. Use multiple sources of information to develop a comprehensive understanding of a student’s strengths and needs.

5. Interpret and communicate assessment information with stakeholders to collaboratively design and implement educational programs.

6. Use student assessment data, analyze instructional practices, and make necessary adjustments that improve student outcomes.

Social

Emotional

Behavioral

7. Establish a consistent, organized, and respectful learning environment.

8. Teachers provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students learning and behavior (behavior focus).

9. Teach social behaviors.

10. Conduct functional behavioral assessments to develop individual student behavior support plans.

Instruction

11. Identify and prioritize long-and short-term learning goals.

12. Systematically design instruction toward a specific learning goal.

13. Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals.

14. Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support learning and independence.

15. Provide scaffolded supports.

16. Use explicit instruction.

17. Use flexible grouping.

18. Use strategies to prompt active student engagement.

19. Use assistive and instructional technologies.

20. Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning across time and setting.

21. Provide intensive instruction.

Note: Adapted from High-Leverage Practices in Special Education (pp 17-25), by J. McLeskey et al., 2017, Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children and CEEDAR Center.

HLPs Taught in Educator Preparation Programs

As noted above, the broad research question guiding the current study concerns the extent to which preservice and induction programs focus on HLPs. Little prior research addresses this question, in large part because CEC/CEEDAR’s publication of the HLPs is relatively recent.

Nevertheless, since their publication in 2017, a few researchers and research teams have started to examine the use of the HLPs—a question that has a bearing on the teaching of HLPs. Firestone and colleagues (2021), for example, described work to develop an instrument to measure educators’ knowledge of the HLPs. Farley (2020) investigated Hawaii special educators’ knowledge of HLPs, finding that they had relatively high knowledge of the practices but experienced many impediments to their use. By contrast, Schaller (2020) found that teachers with more preparation in the use of HLPs perceived fewer barriers to their use than teachers lacking that preparation. Other relevant publications do not report research per se but rather advocate the use of HLPs and describe ways to use them (e.g., Billingsley et al., 2019; Brownell et al., 2020/21; Herburger et al., 2020).

Findings from the Literature Review

The review of the relevant literature suggests five main points:

  1. Authoritative bodies have specified best practices for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
  2. The evidence base for these determinations is of variable strength, likely because studies of students in this small group are comparatively rare (and perhaps difficult to organize).
  3. Though conceptions of “best” or “high-leverage” instructional practice differ, all reflect a basis in applied behavior analysis, augmented by peer interaction and tutoring, varied sorts of scaffolding, technology, and social and emotional support.
  4. Additional organizational features comprise educational practices beyond instruction: collaboration, family engagement, assessment, and, overall, inclusion in general education.
  5. Research support for the effectiveness of such constellations of practice is weak. For one thing, the main conceptions are of recent creation, and for another, the study of such effectiveness is conceptually and statistically challenging.

Given these findings from the literature, then, an assessment of the landscape characterizing the use of HLPs seems warranted. Results can prove useful, in particular to EPPs, but also to interested practitioners, especially state-level and district-level special education leaders.

Methods

The study used mixed methods to address its four research questions. The methods included (1) a survey of Ohio faculty members from EPPs, (2) focus-group interviews with Ohio in-service special education teachers, (3) an analysis of syllabi from Ohio EPPs, (4) and focus-group interviews with Ohio parents. This section describes participants, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis.

Participants

As the four research questions indicate, information about HLP use was collected from three groups of participants: (a) higher education faculty, (b) special education teachers, and (c) parents. We recruited groups in different ways, as described below.

Faculty were recruited with the assistance of interested leaders of the 43 Ohio IHEs that offer mild/moderate or moderate/intensive licensure programs. Leaders who expressed interest in the study submitted contact information for 83 faculty members. These faculty members received the link to the survey designed to collect their data (a 20-minute online instrument); 41 responded.

Teachers were recruited with assistance from the Ohio Association of Pupil Services Administrators (OAPSA). Via the OAPSA listserv, we asked members to distribute a survey link to teachers in their districts with mild-moderate or moderate-intensive licensure who taught students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive settings. The linked survey collected contact information and other demographic data from teachers willing to participate in the planned focus group.

Parents were recruited with the help of the Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disabilities (OCECD), Ohio's parent training and information center (PTI). An email from OCECD asked for study volunteers who were parents or guardians of children with significant intellectual disabilities being taught in an Ohio school (public, charter, or private). To this inquiry, 161 parents responded by completing a consent form, a short background survey, and information about availability for focus-group participation.

Instrumentation

The study developed four instruments to use in data collection: (a) an online survey to address research question 1; (b) a focus-group protocol for teachers to address research questions 2 and 3; (c) a focus-group protocol for parents to address research question 4, and; (d) procedures for reviewing IHE syllabi to address research question 1.

Faculty survey

This survey (Appendix B) collected data about which specific HLPs practices (CEC, 2017) were represented in courses taught by faculty respondents. Items were adapted from Saunders and colleagues (2020, pp. 23-24) and Browder and colleagues (2014, pp. 7-48).

Teacher Focus Groups

The protocol for the focus-group interviews with teachers comprised six questions: (a) introduction and background of each participant; (b) impression of “high-leverage practices”; (c) interaction with paraprofessionals; (d) strategies used with students with significant cognitive disabilities; (e) adequacy of preparation for serving such students; and (f) needed improvements in preparation programs (for serving students with significant cognitive disabilities). See Appendix C.

Parent Focus Groups

Focus-group interviews with parents were guided by five questions: (a) child’s experience of inclusion; (b) experience of collaborating in planning the child’s education; (c) adequacy of teachers’ preparation to teach students with significant cognitive disabilities; (d) opinions about improvement in teaching; and (e) opinions about improvements in teacher preparation. See Appendix D.

Syllabi review procedures

Six IHEs sent syllabi for review. Reviews examined the syllabi to identify mention of any of the 22 HLPs, coding each practice as either present or absent.

Data Collection

The instruments created for the study were used to gather data. Surveys (i.e., the background surveys for all three participant groups and the substantive faculty survey) were administered using the Qualtrics survey utility. Focus-group interviews were conducted online using the Zoom meeting platform. Focus-group interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Data Analysis

The study analyzed quantitative data (survey data) and qualitative data (focus-group transcripts). Demographic data were, in all cases, used to supply context to the interpretation of respondents’ data, whether quantitative or qualitative.

Quantitative data analysis

For the substantive survey questions (about HLP use) posed to faculty in the survey, the resulting quantitative data were tabulated as frequencies. These data were the most direct representation of HLP use.

Qualitative data analysis

A multi-step approach was followed in analyzing the data generated by the transcribed recordings (Agar, 1980; Creswell, 2012). Research team members read each transcript multiple times in its entirety to get a sense of the group interviews as a whole. During this first step, key concepts were identified and noted on the sides of hard copies of the de-identified transcripts.

Based on these identified concepts, an initial set of broad categories was developed and used as the basis for organizing the main ideas identified through additional readings of the transcripts. Through this iterative technique and discussion of the categories, we came to agreement about the final broad categories. Following the determination of the categories, we coded the data by identifying specific descriptive units of information assigned to each category. To achieve reliability between coders, the themes and codes identified by the research team were reviewed collaboratively and differences were discussed until consensus was achieved.

Findings

This section is subdivided into two parts. The first part focuses on the findings from the faculty survey about the use of HLPs, together with the results of coding the six syllabi submitted by IHEs. The second part focuses on findings from the focus group interviews. This presentation is subdivided by respondent group (teachers, parents).

Faculty Survey

Of the 43 IHEs, 29 (68%) indicated willingness to participate. Eighty-three faculty were nominated for participation by the IHE leaders in the 29 interested IHEs. Of the faculty members who were nominated, 41 (from 22 institutions) responded and completed the faculty survey. The tables below (Tables 4-7) provide information for frequency of use of HLPs in EPPs and degree of implementation of HLPs. Note that across the four Tables, there are predictably fewer respondents for moderate-intensive programs than for mild-moderate. The result is predictable, in part, because of the smaller numbers of students in moderate-severe categories in Pre-K to 12 schools than in the mild-moderate categories.

Frequency

Tables 4 and 6 provide the results of frequency analysis of the survey responses, delineating the degree to which HLPs were used in educator preparation programs in the areas of mild-moderate educational needs and moderate-intensive educational needs programs. Frequency was gauged using a five-point scale from "always used" to "never used." Table 4 presents instructional practices as identified by the TIES Center whereas Table 6 presents HLPs cited in Browder's (2014) Innovation Configuration.

For example, Table 4 shows that in the classrooms of responding Ohio faculty, research-based instructional practices (Saunders et al., 2020) are reported as being taught with widely varied frequency. No practice is reported as “always taught” by more than 70% of respondents. Only graphic organizers are “always taught” more than half the time in mild-moderate programs. But graphic organizers are “always taught” in moderate-intensive programs by just 42% of respondents. Most notably, inclusion is reported as being “always taught” (see Table 6) in mild-moderate courses by 86% of respondents but in moderate-intensive courses only by 60% of respondents.

Implementation

Tables 5 and 7 provide results related to the level of implementation (consistent, inconsistent, none) of HLPs. Table 5, for example, combines frequency categories to display levels of consistent use. Consistent use in Table 5 is reinterpreted (from Table 4 data) as the sum of always and often and inconsistent use as the sum of sometimes or rarely. As the table shows, for instance, just 22% consistently (i.e., always or often) teach the constant time delay strategy in mild-moderate programs, but 97% consistently teach the use of graphic organizers. Frequency levels for implementation of research-based instructional practices (Saunders et al., 2020) are once again seen to vary by practice and by programmatic category and are visible across the mild-moderate and moderate-intensive categories. Note that when consistency is displayed (see Table 7), the differences across programmatic categories are muted: with 95% of faculty report teaching inclusion consistently in mild-moderate courses, as compared to 90% for moderate-severe courses (i.e., a practically small difference).

Table 4. Frequency of Research-Based Practices Identified by TIES Center

You may need to scroll to see all table data.

Mild-Moderate Program Frequency

Moderate-Intensive Program Frequency

Practice

Always

Often

Some-

times

Rarely

Never

Always

Often

Some-

times

Rarely

Never

Embedded Trial

14%

(5)

17%

(6)

20%

(7)

20%

(7)

29%

(10)

42%

(5)

25%

(3)

8%

(1)

8%

(1)

17%

(2)

Constant Time Delay

11%

(4)

11%

(4)

22%

(8)

31%

(11)

25%

(9)

33%

(4)

33%

(4)

17%

(2)

0%

(0)

17%

(2)

System of Least Prompts

17%

(6)

29%

(10)

11%

(4)

26%

(9)

17%

(6)

50%

(6)

25%

(3)

8%

(1)

0%

(0)

17%

(2)

Task Analytic Instruction

37%

(13)

31%

(11)

11%

(4)

11%

(4)

9%

(3)

58%

(7)

17%

(2)

17%

(2)

0%

(0)

8%

(1)

Chained Tasks (task analysis with SLP)

31%

(11)

22%

(8)

17%

(6)

8%

(3)

22%

(8)

42%

(5)

25%

(3)

17%

(2)

0%

(0)

17%

(2)

Simultaneous Prompting

29%

(10)

17%

(6)

11%

(4)

23%

(8)

20%

(7)

42%

(5)

33%

(4)

8%

(1)

0%

(0)

17%

(2)

Peer Support Interventions

37%

(13)

37%

(13)

14%

(5)

9%

(3)

3%

(1)

42%

(5)

33%

(4)

17%

(2)

0%

(0)

8%

(1)

Technology-Aided Instruction

39%

(14)

31%

(11)

19%

(7)

3%

(1)

8%

(3)

42%

(5)

42%

(5)

8%

(1)

0%

(0)

8%

(1)

Graphic Organizers

69%

(25)

28%

(10)

3%

(1)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

42%

(5)

25%

(3)

25%

(3)

8%

(1)

0%

(0)

Notes. SLP= System of Least Prompts. Total n =35 for mild-moderate panel; total n = 12 for moderate-intensive panel; items in parentheses are n per item.

Table 5. Levels of Implementation of Research-Based Practices identified by TIES Center

Mild-Moderate Program Frequency

Moderate-Intensive Program Frequency

Practice

Consistent

Inconsistent

None

Consistent

Inconsistent

None

Embedded Trial

31%

(11)

40%

(14)

29%

(10)

67%

(8)

16%

(2)

17%

(2)

Constant Time Delay

22%

(8)

53%

(19)

25%

(9)

66%

(8)

17%

(2)

17%

(2)

System of Least Prompts

46%

(16)

37%

(13)

17%

(6)

75%

(9)

8%

(1)

17%

(2)

Task Analytic Instruction

68%

(24)

22%

(8)

9%

(3)

75%

(9)

17%

(2)

8%

(1)

Chained Tasks (task analysis with SLP)

53%

(19)

25%

(9)

22%

(8)

67%

(8)

17%

(2)

17%

(2)

Simultaneous Prompting

46%

(16)

34%

(12)

20%

(7)

75%

(9)

8%

(1)

17%

(2)

Peer Support Interventions

74%

(26)

23%

(8)

3%

(1)

75%

(9)

17%

(2)

8%

(1)

Technology-Aided Instruction

70%

(25)

22%

(8)

8%

(3)

84%

(10)

8%

(1)

8%

(1)

Graphic Organizers

97%

(35)

3%

(1)

0%

(0)

67%

(8)

33%

(4)

0%

(0)

Notes: SLP= System of Least Prompts. Total n =35 for mild-moderate panel; total n = 12 for moderate-intensive panel; items in parentheses are n per item.

Table 6. Frequency of Meyer et al. (1987) Practices for Educating Students with Severe Disabilities

You may need to scroll to see all table data.

Mild-Moderate Program Frequency

Moderate-Intensive Program Frequency

Practice

Always

Often

Some-

times

Rarely

Never

Always

Often

Some-

times

Rarely

Never

Inclusion

86%

(19)

9%

(2)

5%

(1)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

60%

(6)

30%

(3)

10%

(1)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

Home-School Collaboration

68%

(15)

23%

(5)

5%

(1)

5%

(1)

0%

(0)

60%

(6)

40%

(4)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

Staff Development

35%

(7)

10%

(2)

30%

(6)

10%

(2)

15%

(3)

30%

(3)

20%

(2)

30%

(3)

10%

(1)

10%

(1)

Data-Based Instruction

68%

(15)

23%

(5)

9%

(2)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

60%

(6)

40%

(4)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

Criterion of Ultimate Functioning

41%

(9)

23%

(5)

27%

(6)

5%

(1)

5%

(1)

30%

(3)

50%

(5)

20%

(2)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

Note: Total n =22 for mild-moderate panel; total n = 10 for moderate-intensive panel; items in parentheses are n per item.

Table 7. Levels of Implementation of Meyer et al. (1987) Practices for Educating Students with Severe Disabilities

Mild-Moderate Program Frequency

Moderate-Intensive Program Frequency

Practice

Consistent

Inconsistent

None

Consistent

Inconsistent

None

Home-School Collaboration

95%

(21)

5%

(1)

0%

(0)

90%

(9)

10%

(1)

0%

(0)

Staff Development

91%

(20)

10%

(2)

0%

(0)

100%

(10)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

Data-Based Instruction

45%

(9)

40%

(8)

15%

(3)

50%

(5)

40%

(4)

10%

(1)

The Criterion of Ultimate Functioning

64%

(14)

32%

(7)

5%

(1)

80%

(8)

20%

(2)

0%

(0)

Note: Total n =22 for mild-moderate panel; total n = 10 for moderate-intensive panel; items in parentheses are n per item.

Syllabus review

The self-reporting of faculty was triangulated in this study through inspection of relevant syllabi. All IHEs willing to participate in the study were asked to submit syllabi, and six IHEs (three public and three private) responded. The results of the syllabus review appear in Table 8.

Table 8: Syllabus Review for CEC/CEEDAR High-Leverage Practices

Area and Practices

Yes

No

%

Collaboration

HLP 1: Collaborate with professionals to increase student success.

6

0

100%

HLP 2: Organize and facilitate effective meetings with professionals and families.

3

3

50%

HLP 3: Collaborate with families to support student learning and secure needed services.

5

1

83%

Assessment

HLP 4: Use multiple sources to develop … understanding of a student’s strengths and needs.

6

0

100%

HLP 5: Interpret and communicate assessment information with stakeholders…

5

1

83%

HLP 6: Use student assessment data…[to] make necessary adjustments that improve student outcomes.

5

1

83%

Social/Emotional/Behavioral

HLP 7: Establish a consistent, organized, and respectful learning environment.

3

3

50%

HLP 8: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students’ learning and behavior.

5

1

83%

HLP 9: Teach social behaviors.

4

2

67%

HLP 10: Conduct functional behavioral assessments to develop individual student behavior support plans.

5

1

83%

HLP 11: Identify and prioritize long- and short- term learning goals.

3

3

50%

Instruction

HLP 12: Systematically design instruction toward a specific learning goal.

4

2

67%

HLP 13: Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals.

4

2

67%

HLP 14: Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support learning and independence.

3

3

50%

HLP 15: Provide scaffolded supports.

4

2

67%

HLP 16: Use explicit instruction.

3

3

50%

HLP 17: Use flexible grouping.

3

3

50%

HLP 18: Use strategies to promote active student engagement.

4

2

67%

HLP 19: Use assistive and instructional technologies.

3

3

50%

HLP 20: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students’ learning and behavior.

3

3

50%

HLP 21: Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning across time and settings.

3

3

50%

HLP 22: Provide intensive instruction.

3

3

50%

Table 8 shows that 12 of the 22 practices were represented in more than 50% of the syllabi and 10 were represented in 50% or fewer of the syllabi reviewed. Just two practices were represented in all six syllabi: “collaborate with professionals to increase student success” and “use multiple sources to develop … understanding of a student’s strengths and needs.”

Focus-Group Findings

This section presents findings from the focus group interviews, organized by question, and a theme inferred from inspection of the responses. Results are reported first for analysis of the teacher focus-group data, followed by analysis of the parent focus-group data.

Teachers

Sixty-one educators agreed to participate in a focus group. However, after repeated attempts to schedule meetings, just 16 ultimately participated in one of the six focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were held on Zoom. These sessions were recorded, and the recordings transcribed. Tables 9-16 present the results by the five substantive questions posed to participants. Each question is followed by its respective themes and the data that illustrate the theme.

Table 9 presents responses to the first question asked of the focus group of teachers.

Table 9. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 1

When you hear the term high-leverage practices, what comes to mind?

Theme 1: High-leverage practices are strategies that are essential high-quality practices that Intervention Specialists use when working with their student and with those vested with students with special needs.

  • Frequently used, essentials from your toolbox that you cannot live without.
  • Practices that make a big impact: such as systematic/explicit instruction, providing scaffolding, and interactive learning.
  • Practices that motivated students to work.
  • Science of Reading practices, Universal Design, Accessing curriculum at all levels of abilities.
  • I think of high-quality performance as an Intervention Specialist in terms of working with students, parents and colleagues alike.
  • Targeting and serving the whole student, not just academics.
  • This, to me, means that I would be using practices that yield the greatest learning outcomes with less work required.
  • I would say assessment and instruction would be my primary thoughts. Related to like all kinds of instructions, so it's direct instruction, it's in-direct instruction.

Theme 2: Many participants did not have an idea of what the term high-leverage practice meant. Several teachers stated they did not have any idea what HLP means.

  • I have never heard of those terms before.
  • Does high leverage practice mean quality.
  • I think I have heard of that before, but I know I use strategies that work for me.
  • I've never heard that exact terminology before. I have been teaching for almost 25 years so that wasn't around when I was in school. But, um, let's see . . . Assessment, social-emotional-behavioral

Table 10 presents responses to the second question asked of the focus group of teachers.

Table 10. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 2

What strategies do you use to enhance education for students with significant intellectual disabilities?

Theme 1: Strategies that combine behavioral techniques with classroom management strategies for effective and personalized classroom lessons.

  • A lot of the strategies that we use are just embedded into classroom management - visual schedules, we have token economies, we've got behavior charts, we have behavior contracts.
  • It's just all a lot of your regular modification and accommodations; picture schedules, having extra time for processing. A lot of my stuff technically would not be an accommodation because everybody uses a picture schedule.
  • Flexible behavior management, modifying of materials/curriculum.
  • I use a lot of small groups to reteach students with IEPs and to offer guided practice and I modify instruction by exposing them to everything but focusing on the concepts they are most likely to understand and/or remember.
  • Break tasks down into manageable steps for them; repeat directions and give them extended time to complete tasks.
  • Use universal design as often as possible with student choice of process and product in the lesson.
  • Provide differential reinforcement of other behaviors throughout class to encourage positive and engaged behavior.

Theme 2: Strategies that involve getting to know the student personally and their background.

  • Get to know my students and their unique personalities, likes/dislikes, learning styles and existing knowledge.
  • Get to know the student, work as a team with parent, and gen ed. teacher. Patience, if then boards. Structure activities and schedules.

Theme 3: Strategies that use multisensorial, hands-on learning – those include visual, auditory, kinesthetic strategies.

  • As much of a hands-on approach as possible.
  • Provide multiple ways to convey lessons--visual, auditory, hands on
  • The more hands on you can make a lesson the better. I try to hit multiple modalities. High interest subject matter.
  • Design lessons that allow students to hear the information, see the information and use their bodies to access the information.
  • Multi-sensory techniques, accommodations, modified curriculum, Science of Reading approach, vocabulary instruction, repeated practice, differentiated instruction
  • Provide multiple ways to allow them to display their knowledge--typical tests, projects, written paper.
  • Small group intensive explicit multi-sensory instruction based on their present levels.

Table 11 presents responses to the third question asked of the focus group of teachers.

Table 11. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 3

How do you collaborate with and utilize special education paraprofessionals?

Theme 1: Paraprofessionals are utilized as equals in most cases and in as varied ways as they are comfortable with. Specific examples include 1-1-time, small group work, schedule development, data collection, collaboration on what strategies work best.

  • She is the other teacher in this classroom. She is my right hand. I don't know if I could do it without her because she is just so supportive, and I don't have to spoon-feed things to her.
  • I worked closely with my behavior specialist to collect valuable data on problem behavior, implement behavior plans, provide scaffolded lessons, and provide varying levels of prompting to our students.
  • My staff also collects data for me. They are inputting data for me into a Google Forms so that I can quickly get to it for progress notes or look at it or look at it to see if we need to change any interventions. They also run small group intervention groups. I call it "My ABA Groups," because it is pretty much ABA therapy just going over things in a repeated fashion. So, they're constantly working with the students on academic and behavioral interventions all day long.
  • We collaborate on strategies to deal with issues with students, feeding, positioning etc. as well as academics.
  • I work daily with speech, occupational and physical therapists due to my students’ disabilities. Open communication is key.
  • My paraprofessionals support students in inclusion settings by providing extra one-on-one or small group practice; particularly with tasks that require repetition such as sight word or math flashcards.
  • We work together by showing the data and discussing what we are working on in their sessions.
  • My paras especially because my students have behavioral needs they're just as important as being other teachers in the classroom. I mean I start the school year off with the expectation of what my students need to be able to do at the end of the year. We go over everything. We go over behavior plans, crisis plans, what happens if the worst behavior possible happens? I go over their schedule, because I want them to know exactly what they're doing at every time.
  • We develop our schedules together, so that we consider our strength areas when working with our students. Each Paraprofessional can work with individual students or small groups to facilitate learning of content as guided by the curriculum, general education teacher, IEP and my ability to teach them effective instructional practices. We schedule planning time together. We all meet with our grade level team to discuss students and how to best assist all learners.

Table 12 presents the first and second themes generated via the analysis of responses to the fourth question asked of the focus group of teachers.

Table 12. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 4 Themes 1 and 2

Did you feel prepared to enter the profession and teach students with significant intellectual disabilities? (If yes, please share. If not, what would have made you feel more prepared?)

Theme 1: I felt prepared, but…

  • Yes: but I wished I had more training in reading and behavioral interventions.
  • I feel like when I graduated and got my first job at a school run by the County Board of DD, I was well prepared. At that time Ohio had a curriculum for students called "Persisting Life Problems." and the whole school taught from this curriculum which I learned about at Miami University before I graduated in 1982.
  • Um, I felt prepared. I mean, I've always been happy with Bowling Green, and I still put their program up there compared to other schools. I felt like I could just walk into the workforce and go for it.
  • Yes: I felt prepared due to my experience in substituting, working with special education students and during inclusion in my room while teaching.
  • Yes, HOWEVER - Prior to getting my master’s degree I worked in a separate facility that serviced students with Autism. Much of my expertise came from my time working with these students. I eventually became a program director there and learned to write IEP's and treatment plans. I wrote behavior plans and trained my staff to implement every piece of the child's learning program.

Theme 2: I felt unprepared (needed more field/practicum hours, IEP, direct hands on, organization techniques, paperwork, working with others).

  • No: I was not prepared on how to organize, time utilization, space, paperwork, documents – and to find an organization plan that works.
  • No: I was not prepared to run an IEP
  • So, we spent exactly two and a half hours one day my sophomore year talking about children with special needs. That was the extent of it. So, if I had to go teach at that point with children with special needs, I would have been very ill-prepared.
  • No: I learned about students with disabilities but was never given a chance to work with students with disabilities prior to this job.
  • No: More practicum hours- learning more behavior managements skills
  • No: I did not feel prepared. I would have felt more prepared if I had been more familiar with how to write IEPs, find material to work with students, and how to work cooperatively with a team of teachers to provide services for students with disabilities
  • No: the IEP writing process and writing realistic goals and objectives and more on transition
  • No: I started my career on a provisional license. I had a license to teach business education, not special education. So, I was going to school to get my special ed. license while I was also going through my first couple of years of teaching special education. It was also frustrating that after I finally had all the classes to get my special ed. license, I immediately had to find a way to get my Highly Qualified status. Why in the world wouldn't the college have provided that when we were getting our license?

Table 13 presents the third theme generated via the analysis of responses to the fourth question asked of the focus group of teachers.

Table 13. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 4 Theme 3

Did you feel prepared to enter the profession and teach students with significant intellectual disabilities? (If yes, please share. If not, what would have made you feel more prepared?)

Theme 3: Somewhat prepared: (needed more help with paperwork – IEP’s, field experience and practicum work, working with others, and direct experience was the key).

  • I felt prepared to teach, I did not feel prepared to do the paperwork. In my graduate program, we practiced one IEP, no data collection practice or methods, very little overview of testing like the DAB -4, etc., and in my district, we are expected to write ETRs, and I never even saw one before I started working for this district.
  • I felt semi-prepared for working with Para’s and other colleagues, but not really. You really must work with others closely.
  • Because of my maturity and being a mom to a son with special needs, and working as an aide, I felt somewhat prepared-But the class work, which I took online doesn't properly prepare you. How does it all connect to the day in and out?? This is missing.
  • My master’s program was great, but I felt if I had not gained those valuable years working at that separate facility, I would have drowned my first few years. The training I received on writing IEPs was minimal, only one short class. I was lucky to already have that knowledge and experience, so I was able to hit the ground running in my first teaching position. In my district, they require the Intervention Specialists to write all RETRs. We had zero training on writing ETRs and were told that we would never have to write them. Similarly, there were classroom management courses but when I asked about severe behavior and how to change them (I knew strategies from my current job but wanted everyone to have these strategies) we were told it would be rare in a mild to moderate setting to have severe behaviors which just isn't the case.

Table 14 presents the first and second themes generated via the analysis of responses to the fifth question asked of the focus group of teachers

Table 14. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 5 Themes 1 and 2

What improvements could be made to enhance teacher preparation programs?

Theme 1: Organization techniques

  • I guess being able to organize and like working with other adults would be important. I think a more explicit IEP class because I know, I know that I did not take an IEP class. I think that just going over the legalities of it would have been very useful.
  • Learning how to balance everything -I really struggle with balancing because I'm teaching everything

Theme 2: Collaboration with others

  • To be able to collaborate with the other colleagues in your school.
  • I do not have a paraprofessional, but I was one. I believe that training on how to use paras in the classroom would be helpful.
  • I would say improvements could be made in terms of collaborating with other teachers including regular ed. teachers and other Intervention Specialists
  • Working with others

Table 15 presents the third, fourth, and fifth themes generated via the analysis of responses to the fifth question asked of the focus group of teachers.

Table 15. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 5 Themes 3,4, and 5

What improvements could be made to enhance teacher preparation programs?

Theme 3: Paperwork, IEP, software training, data collection

  • The whole process about writing an IEP and what the significance of data recording and what I needed to be aware of, how to do accommodations, modifications, and not just let that fall on the intervention specialist.
  • Understand the software school systems use
  • Have them practice writing more IEP's- co-teaching opportunities
  • I feel students need to be exposed to the software that various districts use to create IEP/ETR's, access to the evaluation process and be aware of changes happening in special education in regard to accommodations, modifications, etc.
  • Practice with tasks such as data collection and writing IEPs.
  • In depth instruction on writing IEP's, specifically how to write measurable goals that target skills the student needs. How to keep them truly individualized. How to write accommodations that fit each student's unique needs.
  • More role playing and situational instruction on how to collect data on problem behaviors, how to design interventions to reduce problem behaviors based on this data.

Theme 4: More field and practicum experiences

  • Just more field experience or do at least a rotation of several weeks in an MH or ED [6] unit.
  • I would make sure that all gen ed and special ed or the Pre-K through 3 groupings of students have more than just a two-week time in special education or just in preschool.
  • More real-life experiences.
  • Pre-service teachers need less child development theory and more actual classroom experience. A semester of being a substitute teacher after student teaching would be invaluable. That is where you learn how to teach. Or a longer student teaching period than a semester.

Theme 5: Using the content

  • Preparation needs to include how we use the content we are being taught in the classroom. I also feel that more focus needs to be made on co-teaching, push in, planning, scheduling resource classes. The classes seem random and by the time you’re in the classroom. You learn more from talking with other peers. Assign mentors. Mandate working in the field. With the shortage of subs etc. and aids in schools, require them to work in these roles while attending
  • Greater detail on educational law and how to apply it to situations in the workplace that will help us advocate for our student’s needs.

Table 16 presents the sixth theme generated via the analysis of responses to the fifth question asked of the focus group of teachers

Table 16. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 5 Theme 6

What improvements could be made to enhance teacher preparation programs?

Theme 6: Regular education teachers and job experience

  • An improvement that could have been made would have been becoming familiar with the best practices of the main reading intervention programs available. Also, having been introduced to math intervention programs would have enhanced my program.
  • There was a major focus on reading and phonics, which is great, but I have yet to have to use any of that information while teaching. We need more instruction on the actual expectations of the job.
  • Gen ed. teachers need to be aware of what is required to work with those with special needs and why we do the interventions that we do.
  • Training regular ed. teachers to understand that when they will have a child in their classroom with an IEP that the accommodations need to be met and that they're for a reason.
  • Regular teacher and principal prep need to understand what goes on in a special education classroom and their roles.
  • I really think teacher prep needs to be about whole education. You can't just prepare us, you must also prepare the rest of the school and you must prepare principals.
  • Well, I think just making the pre-service teachers aware. And I realize that most of the kids that are going into college now have grown up with special education at least in their buildings where they are for high school.
  • Include the Highly Qualified certifications in the program so people are fully equipped with everything they need as they embark on the special education field.
  • In depth instruction on the ETR process, identifications and how to complete an ETR as part of the team.

Among these 16 teachers, most were unfamiliar with HLPs as a particular set of practices, and none mentioned the research that informs this study. Many, of course, appeared to believe in the distinction between less and more effective practices. At the same time, teachers easily enumerated practices that they used in teaching students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Teachers also reported that they worked with paraprofessionals as equals. This collaboration varied substantially across the participants. Teachers listed seven sorts of improvements for educator preparation programs, mostly centering on opportunities for clinical experience in order to better navigate the actual role special education teachers would confront once they were employed.

Parents

Although 105 parents indicated an interest in participating in a focus group, 36 parents from across the state eventually participated in one of the four focus group sessions. Focus group interviews were held on Zoom and recorded. Recordings were transcribed and proofread for accuracy. Tables 17-23 report the results. Each question is followed by its respective themes and the data that illustrate the theme.

Table 17 presents the first theme generated in response to the first question asked of the focus group of parents.

Table 17. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 1 Theme 1

What words and phrases come to mind when you hear the word inclusion?

Theme 1: Inclusion means planned access to the general curriculum and social events, acceptance, and friendships.

  • For me it means you have all access. You're not separated. It means that when you walk down the hall, you have friends. When you walk into a school building, somebody says hello. And it means that you have acceptance. It's more than just saying hello. It's going out to play on the playground. It is having friends outside of the school day. If you expand that out more, it's having access to the entire community.
  • It means they're actually part of the school community. They have friends, they're involved in activities, they're in classes with typical peers, learning a curriculum that is adapted as little as necessary.
  • Yeah, I agree with everything you just said because we're kind of in the same boat. I feel like to me inclusion is meeting kids where they are, finding opportunities for them to be a part of whatever is happening in the school whether it's an assembly or a music program or phys. ed. class or whatever it might be. There are opportunities, and it might not look the same for every kid. It might not look the same for one kid every day. But I think that intentionality is super important. I'm also a teacher in a different district than my kids go to. But I just think that planning is super important, and I think what, at least at my son's school, right now they are lacking is support.
  • What I think of inclusion, inclusive education I think of I guess practices that are beneficial for all learners in a classroom that maybe you know listed as accommodations or specific if you differentiate, which I do think differentiation is important in some ways. But when I truly think of inclusion, I think about supporting all students with basic things like relational safety and visual support, you know multi-sensory, creating spaces that work for all students in a heterogeneous classroom or even school-wide.
  • The opportunity to be exposed to grade-level content, at the same pace, and expectations that typical peers would be, with support from an intervention specialist, at the same time, who provides those modifications or accommodations as needed.

Table 18 presents the second theme generated in response to the first question asked of the focus group of parents.

Table 18. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 1 Theme 2

What words and phrases come to mind when you hear the word inclusion?

Theme 2: For inclusion to be successful the right supports must be in place.

  • It sounds good, but inclusion doesn't work and you have to have the right people doing it. For me, inclusion means that people are around people even if they have or don’t have disabilities, they're out in the community and they're having some quality of life even in the school system. I mean it's nice to have friends whether they have disabilities or not. It's hard to – I don't know, I think the older you get like the differences just become so more widespread. I mean I don't know, for me, inclusion is just having some quality of life and being in the community whether it's your school community and being included and having friends.
  • You can have a child included in the lunchroom every day, but if they sit by themselves and have no one to talk to, because they need assistance with those skills, then that's not inclusion.
  • So, at that point though like socially My child has been allowed to go to every school function. They have made – they have told us that if we ever don't want to go with my child to a school function, they had aides to go with her. They asked us at homecoming if my child wanted to go to homecoming this year, because they would get an aide to go with her. They also have aides that go to prom. My child has not been into that, she doesn't like to dress up. We have Sparkle cheerleading here which My child does, which is an inclusion cheerleading.

Table 19 presents the one theme generated in response to the second question asked of the focus group of parents.

Table 19. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 2

Is your child included in general education settings and activities? (If so, what activities/classes?)

Theme 1: Most students with significant intellectual disabilities spend most of their day in a resource room.

  • Yeah, I would say none. So, he spends most of his day in the resource room. His specials are pretty limited. He goes to lunch with his peers, but he does not eat there, and then at recess he has an aide. He has an aide with him 100 percent of the time, which is something I asked for, right? That's something he needs right now, but that is not inclusion to me because he always has a grown up there who knows him so specifically so that she can diffuse situations and help coach him on what to say and things like that. So, the closest thing I would say that he has to full inclusion is recess.
  • My child one, I think the class that she felt the most included in is band. I mean, she fought me tooth and nail to join the band and didn't wanna take a gym class. Now as an alumni, she's like "I wish I would have done it my freshman year." Child two had a very different experience. He was included in some Gen Ed classes in the eighth grade. He is currently in that resource room, Special Ed, all the time. He does change classes, but it's with this kind of core group of kids. And so I think in his instance, I don't think he feels that full inclusion yet. I think it's coming in time. He's making some more friends. He is kind of reaching out to some others. So, I don’t know what that's gonna look like for his high school career. In elementary, although he was included in some Gen Ed classes, he didn't make friends. Those relationships didn't extend beyond the school day. So, I don't think he ever really felt part of anything or included at all.
  • My child, three years old, she was in a regular daycare, but it was just over the school border, their school, and so they refused to bus her to the special ed. preschool, so they provided I think it was an hour or two hours a week there. Four-year-old she went to that special preschool they had and then she went to a fully inclusive preschool. Kindergarten she went to that same school and she was fully included. First and second, she was in a separate school just for kids with significant disabilities. And she went back to the public schools and elementary she had specials like some of the other ones had said integrated. Junior high she did, when they get to high school they call them "essentials classes," which kind of makes you think it's mainstream, but it's not, it's all kids with pretty significant disabilities. Although the career tech program that she did in theater, which was two periods her last two years, that was a regular classroom. The teacher was just great at modifying things.

Table 20 presents the two themes identified in parents’ response to the third focus-group question.

Table 20. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 3

Do you feel like you have enough opportunities to collaborate with teachers and administrators on your child’s learning plan? (If so, can you share your success story? If not, how would you improve that process?)

Theme 1: Parents wish that teachers and administrators would work with them to meet their child/student’s needs.

  • I wish that everybody would realize that parents know their child best and to really, really focus on that and work with us, viewing us as partners.
  • Well I, I remember like I would get pictures and they'd say, "She's having a great time" and I'm like, "No, she wasn't." You know I know it's weird but that picture of her smiling she was actually really upset, so it's a weird thing. I wish they would listen to me. She was actually very agitated. I live with her.
  • So don't be afraid to ask for help. If you don't know what to do with him, ask me. If I don't know, we'll figure it out together.

Theme 2: Collaboration is difficult to achieve.

  • I also feel like there's been a lot of collaboration with our district. Sometimes I have to demand it, but they've been, I would say, largely accommodating. I think that they care a lot, and that says something to me, right? I just don't think that they have the training that they need, and our superintendent has even said that to me straight up. He says, "We don't have the knowledge or resources to deal with what Jason is presenting to us." And I think that that speaks volumes in and of itself. If a superintendent is coming to you about me, for me and my child, and says "Look, I wanna do the right thing, but I don't know how. I don't know what to do" — and they've been super willing — I mean, our school district has a behavior specialist, but I don't really know what her credentials are, and I think that it's like a Master of Education. I don't think that she has hyper-specialized behavior training. She's not a BCBA, and I think that makes a big difference, honestly. I'm not usually one who gets hung up on credentials, but I think that one is an important one.
  • I think what has saved us through particularly these weird middle school puberty years is collaboration with everybody, you know? I have to do all of the collaborating and setting up meetings and pulling people together. It isn’t easy but if I don’t do it, it doesn’t happen, and it has to happen.
  • One of the best things ever that worked for us were the teachers that you know every three weeks were willing to sit down for 15-20 minutes to problem solve and be the detective. Because we would see the one side, they would see the other and we were like, "Well she flips out every Tuesday and Thursday and we've been picking her up." You know we did trace it and it's was like, "Oh that's the day they do this special," there's a problem with that or whatnot.
  • I think that was me saying I didn't always feel like part of the team. That's so important, and I don't know that a young teacher would realize how important it is that the parent knows so much about their child, and, you know, we may have ideas, we may not have ideas, but it's just really important. And even from writing the IEP, you know, I've always had to – I like to have pre-IEP meetings to discuss the goals, because otherwise they show up with the goals and I haven't had any input. And you know, we're supposed to have input. So, just, you know, just tell them, tell them to get the input from the parents, talk to the parents. And then, talk to the other teachers, collaborate with your gen ed teacher, so that the kids can be included, you can do inclusion. And teach them how to modify materials.

Table 21 shows parent focus-group responses to the fourth question.

Table 21. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 4

Do you feel that your child’s teachers (general education and special education) are prepared to teach students identified with significant intellectual disabilities?

Theme 1: Parents felt that general and special education teachers were not prepared to work with students with significant intellectual disabilities.

  • So our education experience is much more limited, right, ‘cause we've only been in public school for two years. He's in First Grade. But I would say his first year, they were overwhelmingly underprepared for him. I think they had absolutely no idea what they were doing. They had no idea what to do. Jason — is my son's name — his maladaptive behaviors are typically aggression toward both adults and peers, and I think that as soon as they saw that, they just freaked out, and they had no idea what to do, because the first thing they wanted to do was punish him, really, and then this year we had an instance where he was suspended for aggression. So I don't think that that's necessarily gotten better, right? If you're gonna suspend a First Grader, there's something bigger going on there. He's six, like, come on. So that's been tough. I think that they are very underprepared for behavior management, and how to set up contingencies so that Jason is _____ a lot of positive reinforcement throughout his day, and I think that they sort of try that with their Gen Ed classrooms, but I think that just being on the spectrum requires a more frequent schedule of reinforcement, and it's not enough. I think that they're a little resistant to amping up that reinforcement schedule.
  • I would say the only – when Greta was in, started school at kindergarten, a child with a significant physical and mental disability, that person was not at all prepared, no way. Once we got older and teachers that were older, the first teacher was probably in her late 20s, I felt that once the teachers got older and when we were in the middle, like the, the like fifth, sixth grade when Greta was doing more of the inclusion, that teacher was really good at it, because she was older. I think she'd just had more teaching experience in general. But yeah I would say the regular ed. teachers have a lot less training on how to deal with special ed. kids, just even simple as holding a pencil.
  • So I think that gen ed teachers I know they take Intro to Exceptionality or something like that, the one course, but I really do believe that they need more courses on dealing with kids with the various, the various as we call them "disabilities" or varying abilities that they can get that have IEPs and 504s before they're even put in the service in the classroom, because you don't know what you're going to get and it's not fair to our kids when they have teachers who are unprepared and they want to succeed, but the teacher isn't equipped to help them be successful.
  • I would extend that to the intervention specialist as well. I do put some responsibility, or I guess expectation for the intervention specialist to have a better underlying foundational knowledge of a disability or disabilities and the intersections of those things and just of you know neurobiological diversity and other types of just diversity and disability.
  • A lot of times, you know, they don't know what to do with the diagnostic and the curriculum-based measures, how to marry those two together to write appropriate IEP goals that actually target the deficit areas that the students are demonstrating. And then, a lot of times the progress monitoring tools that they're using, those instruments are not aligned with the interventions that they're applying. And that I'm saying holds true for any of our tiered students, like, any of those preventative steps that you're taking to close gaps, so that children aren't identified for special education services. There's just a big disconnect between using our assessments to design our interventions, and then actually what is the intervention, understanding that difference.
  • We just can't keep measuring and measuring and measuring progress. What intervention are you actually applying that is grounded in science that actually works for kids? So, that's a really hard thing for all teachers, I think, to really grasp and understand, so a lot more emphasis on that. And I think we would see students make a lot more progress and a lot more positive student outcomes.

Table 22 shows parent focus-group responses to question five.

Table 22. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 5

Please share ideas for areas of growth in this area (teachers working with students with significant intellectual disabilities).

Theme 1: Teachers need more practical experience with students with significant intellectual disabilities.

  • I think too they definitely need more practical experience, especially dealing with kids with different needs and especially behaviors. You can reinforce a kid for behavior if you don't know what you're doing and create huge problems. I mean they need more practical experience analyzing behaviors, figuring out the function of the behaviors. That was a big problem for us in the public schools and there needs more help when these teachers get right out of school.
  • They need some practical experience, whether they do it outside a class or get it inside class. But they've got to interact with real people with real problems and make it a variety over time. So that you're not just seeing one thing, because so many kids have so many different things. And you have to approach them all differently because they're little individuals. And they have different needs, but I think they need more than just textbook and a university setting. They need some practical experience.
  • I don't think that teachers are trained in inclusion, and I think it really needs to come from the top, that's what I've experienced. It needs to be the superintendent, the principals, the student services.

Theme 2: Teachers need to communicate better with parents.

  • So I think that there needs to be a lot more – the need for communication directly with families and inclusion and the decision making for those students needs to be part of the curriculum regardless of whether you're planning to teach special education or you're planning to teach gen ed.
  • To not be – teaching teachers to not be afraid to have as open communication with the parents as possible. Like I know a lot of teachers are resilient to like text with parents when that's not… We live in a world where everybody's texting each other, but I do know like there are program they can use that they don't have to like text. They can use like ClassDojo, which has a feature that's just like texting and then you can say that you're away and you can like dedicate a time to do that, so that's it’s not like on your personal time and that sort of thing. So yeah communicating as a team, including the parent is huge.
  • I would say just the importance of ensuring that our intervention specialists, our general education teachers, understand and communicate why they are instructing the way that they're instructing, why they're selecting the resources that they're choosing, is it cogent, is it logical, is it research-based, is it peer-reviewed. They have to be able to defend and stand behind their pedagogy and why they are choosing to teach the way that they teach. And also, with a sense of urgency. Because especially for our youngest students, they have this tremendous opportunity to close these gaps and help these children while their brains still have this plasticity level that they can really make a difference for these kids. Have the sense of urgency for the work that they're doing, and know that they do make a difference, but they have to understand and really be able to explain why they are choosing to teach the way that they teach.

Table 23 presents thematic findings from the analysis of parents’ responses to question 6.

Table 23. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 6

How do you think colleges/universities could better prepare teachers to work with students who have a significant intellectual disability?

Theme 1: Universities need to increase competencies and practical experience hours with students with significant intellectual disabilities.

  • You know, I think them seeing kiddos like mine in their training is probably key, ‘cause like everything, you know, what you get comfortable with, then you can start to make a plan for it, and what you've seen before you can try again, and I think what has saved us through particularly these weird middle school puberty years is collaboration with everybody, you know? So don't be afraid to ask for help. If you don't know what to do with him, ask me. If I don't know, we'll figure it out. Aiden has done ABA as well since he was three and diagnosed, and his behavior specialist for ABA has been with us that entire time. And so when it's hitting the fan at school, we call her and she goes in, you know, because I think there is like some expectation that the intervention specialists will know and maybe Gen Ed too, but his behavior is very complicated, and figuring out what to do about it is also very complicated, and I think having some experience in seeing kiddos like mine, and having some background information, and then if you don't know what to do, then ask for help, and collaborate with somebody else. Let these behavioral specialists come in who've known my kid for 11 years, you know, and be able to get the help from them too, ‘cause I don’t know —
  • Just that knowledge level of working with different types of students and procuring instructional strategies, those high-leverage strategies that work for all kids. Just having that expertise level and wanting – recognizing if they don't know something, where they go to find answers. And kind of going back to that mindset and that level of professionalism, wanting to get better at what they do, and being willing to seek those answers. Because you can't be an expert with every child but having that initiative to seek those answers and be able to work with that family and that child as successfully as possible.

Theme 2: Universities need to teach preservice teachers how to find resources, and how to collaborate with parents, paraprofessionals, and other specialists.

  • You know if the teachers can have a network of other professionals that help support them, they can maybe help us parents find better ways to network and support. Then that goes right down to our kids, because our kids need that network and support of friends. So that whole idea of how you can have a beneficial relationship you know with others that you give and take, and you help support each other, that's a tremendous skill for them to have that I'm hoping will help keep them moving forward.
  • Also, I think teaching teachers, whether it be gen ed or intervention specialists, how to work with aides, paraprofessionals.
  • Teachers need to be taught how to work with and value parents. I was in a class at BGSU with students who were soon to be teachers. The students had to spend time with my family as part of the class. I attended every class with other parents. The students assigned to me learned more by spending twenty hours during the semester at my house than they could in any book. This is what they need to learn how to work with parents.

Parents viewed inclusion as multifaceted, though with an emphasis on students’ social life and well-being. They clearly experienced the difficulties of accomplishing inclusion and just as clearly seemed to approve of inclusive arrangements. In reality, though, most children of interviewees spent most of their day in a segregated placement (“resource rooms”). Parents also clearly wished that educators would realize that parents know their children better than educators do and that educators’ collaboration with parents would be informed by this knowledge.

Nonetheless, they reported that collaboration did take place, even if it was difficult to achieve and sustain. Overall, parents did not believe teachers—in both general and special education—were well-prepared to work with children with significant cognitive disabilities. They believed that teacher education candidates needed to have more experience with children with significant cognitive disabilities and to learn to communicate better with parents. They advised IHEs to adjust their preparation programs accordingly.

Limitations

The present study has distinct limitations that affect both its findings and the interpretations that proceed from them. First, sample sizes are small and cannot be viewed as representative. Recruitment of faculty used a clustered method (faculty within institutions given the institutional option of participating or not participating). This design feature likely reduced sample size somewhat. Second, this was a single-state study, so the number of programs and faculty involved is smaller than would be required for a generalizable landscape study. Third, the faculty portion of the study was delimited to frequency of use; possible contextual influences on the use of HLPs were outside the study design.

The study’s focus-group design was kept simple on purpose. Both groups—teachers and parents—answered a coordinated set of questions. In other words, the two groups provided testimony from a perspective held by the researchers (i.e., concern for the use of HLPs in inclusive settings). The design was not intended to address, and the results cannot address, distinctions between teacher and parent perspectives on, for instance, the educational planning and experience of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Despite this limitation, the findings could help inform subsequent and related research efforts using, for example, survey or individual interview designs.

Discussion

This study asked four questions, and the narrative begins this section with the answers provided by the findings. Each question is given, in abbreviated form, together with a summary answer (italicized).

First Question

This question asked about the extent that faculty (of programs that prepare preservice candidates to teach students with significant intellectual disabilities) teach candidates to use HLPs in inclusive settings. The findings show that the representation of HLPs in programs is inconsistent. As a result, many pre-service candidates are missing out on an important prerequisite for effective and extensive inclusion of students with significant cognitive disabilities (see McLeskey et al., 2018).

Second Question

The second question asked about the extent to which special educators in Ohio believe they were prepared to teach students with significant intellectual disabilities in inclusive settings. Overall, they reported being inadequately prepared to teach such students.

Third Question

The third question asked in-service special educators about the extent to which they believe they use HLPs to support students with significant intellectual disabilities in inclusive environments. Teachers exhibited no confidence in the use of HLPs because they did not know what HLPs were. Most students, moreover, were not served in inclusive environments. Determining the extent to which failure to learn about HLPs influenced limited use of inclusion was beyond the scope of the current study, but it is an important question for further study.

Fourth Question

This question asked about the extent to which parents of students with disabilities believe their children’s teachers are using HLPs to support their children in inclusive environments. Parents were emphatic that teachers were not using HLPs (they too were uncertain about the term), were poorly prepared to teach their children, and that children were served in segregated, not inclusive, environments.

Interpretation

Findings suggest, overall, that responding faculty (and IHEs) are inconsistently teaching HLPs. IHEs are, perhaps, more consistently implementing the Browder team’s version than the Saunders team’s version, but the small sample size does not support generalization to the state as a whole, nor to the set of Ohio institutions offering relevant preparation programs.

Responding faculty who were more consistently teaching HLPs were teaching those practices that might be construed as low-hanging fruit—such practices as task analysis, graphic organizers, and technology-aided interventions. Arguably, these practices are more easily taught than other HLPs. HLPs that are harder to teach include embedded trial and constant time delay. These practices were implemented more inconsistently. HLPs, moreover, seemed to be implemented more consistently in the moderate-intensive programs than in the mild-moderate programs. Review of syllabi also suggested that IHEs were inconsistently providing instruction using HLPs in their special education programs. Because the ability to use HLPs may be an important prerequisite to competence and comfort with inclusion, this inconsistency represents a serious setback for Ohio students with significant cognitive disabilities.

The overall findings from the faculty survey and the syllabus review are not encouraging, shortcomings of generalizability notwithstanding. Indeed, some faculty did not mention teaching some HLPs at all in their programs. Therefore, the findings from in-service teachers and parents are hardly surprising. High expectations for implementation are necessary if HLPs are to be generally encouraged and supported. Support for HLPs is growing, even if their emergence (particularly the 22-practice specificity in the 2017 CEEDAR work) is a recent phenomenon. In this light, findings from this study might be interpretable as representing the early stages of adoption.

Focus group contributions of teachers tend to reinforce the impression of early adoption. None of the teachers could adequately define “high-leverage practices,” and none referenced the formalized sets of HLPs. Overall, the teachers wanted preparation programs to provide more clinical experience, including with students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Parents, despite being a lay group, were in a similar position. They too advised that preparation programs include more clinical experience to include interaction with students with significant cognitive disabilities. At any rate, according to the three groups included in this study, professional preparation and educational practice have a long way to go to meet the needs of the most vulnerable students, whom the system continues to confine in segregated placements.

Recommendations

This study offers two practical recommendations. It also suggests a recommendation for further research.

Recommendations for Practice

When reviewing curricula, faculty members and leaders of preservice preparation programs at Ohio IHEs should incorporate HLPs much more carefully into course syllabi and instruction. Organizations that provide leadership to Ohio IHEs (e.g., Ohio Department of Higher Education) could consider sponsoring initiatives to address this need.

Success in the use of HLPs, however, depends on usage by practicing teachers and on increases in inclusive practices for students with significant cognitive disabilities. For this reason, continued monitoring of the influence of HLPs must include ongoing efforts to collect data from teachers and parents, and the focus group approach appears to be an efficient and effective way to provide such data.

Recommendations for Research

This study, despite its limitations, suggests that HLPs may not be widely known or used by special educators in Ohio. Further research would be needed for a representative landscape study. Based on the inference that the present represents an early-adoption phase, planning now for a nationally representative landscape study would prove wise. Such a study should be designed, as well, to investigate likely influences on the representation of HLPs in preservice coursework and field experiences as well as in educational practice in PreK-12 schooling.

References

  • Agar, M. (1980). Stories, background knowledge and themes: Problems in the analysis of life history narrative. American Ethnologist, 7(2), 223–239.
  • Billingsley, B., Bettini, E., & Jones, N. D. (2019). Supporting special education teacher induction through high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518816826
  • Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M., & Florian, L. (2011). Preparing general education teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/aacte_ncld_recommendation.pdf
  • Browder, D. M., Wood, L., Thompson, J., & Ribuffo, C. (2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IC-3_FINAL_03-03-15.pdf
  • Brownell, M. T., Benedict, A. E., Leko, M. M., Peyton, D., Pua, D., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2019). A continuum of pedagogies for preparing teachers to use high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824990
  • Brownell, M. T., Ciullo, S., & Kennedy, M. J. (2020). High leverage practices: Teaching students with disabilities—and all students who need a learning boost. American Educator, 44(4), 12–19.
  • Brownell, M. T., Jones, N. D., Sohn, H., & Stark, K. (2020). Improving teaching quality for students with disabilities: Establishing a warrant for teacher education practice. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 43(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419880351
  • Bruggink, M., Goei, S. L., & Koot, H. M. (2016). Teachers’ capacities to meet students’ additional support needs in mainstream primary education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practices, 22(4), 448–460.
  • Byrd, D. R., & Alexander, M. (2020). Investigating special education teachers’ knowledge and skills: Preparing general teacher preparation for professional development. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(2), 72–82.
  • CEEDAR Center. (2020). Every student deserves an equitable opportunity to achieve. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/
  • Council for Exceptional Children. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(5), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917713206
  • Council for Exceptional Children. (2021). High leverage practices. https://exceptionalchildren.org/topics/high-leverage-practices
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
  • Farley, C. (2020). Special educators’ perceptions of high-leverage practices [Publication No. 27838168). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii]. ProQuest.
  • Firestone, A. R., Aramburo, C. M., & Cruz, R. A. (2021). Special educators’ knowledge of high-leverage practices: Construction of a pedagogical content knowledge measure. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100986
  • Herburger, D., Holdheide, L., & Sacco, D. (2020). Removing barriers to effective distance learning by applying the high-leverage practices: Tips and tools. WedtEd. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610374.pdf
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1350/text?q=H.R.+1350+%28108%29
  • Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598782
  • Matzen, K., Ryndak, D., & Nakao, T. (2009). Middle school teams increasing access to general education for students with significant disabilities: Issues encountered and activities observed across contexts. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327457
  • McLeskey, J., Barringer, M.-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC-HLP-Web.pdf
  • McLeskey, J., Billingsley, B., & Ziegler, D. (2018). Using high-leverage practices in teacher preparation to reduce the research-to-practice gap in inclusive settings. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42(01), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.3
  • Meyer, L. H., Eichinger, J., & Park-Lee, S. (1987). A validation of program quality indicators in educational services for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12(4), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698701200401
  • Park, M.-H., Dimitrov, D. M., & Park, D.-Y. (2018). Effects of background variables of early childhood teachers on their concerns about inclusion: The mediation role of confidence in teaching. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1417926
  • Rock, M. L., Spooner, F., Nagro, S., Vasquez, E., Dunn, C., Leko, M., Luckner, J., Bausch, M., Donehower, C., & Jones, J. L. (2016). 21st century change drivers: Considerations for constructing transformative models of special education teacher development. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416640634
  • Saunders, A. F., Wakeman, S., Reyes, E., Thurlow, M. L., & Vanderccook, T. (2020). Instructional practices for students with the most significant disabilities in inclusive settings. TIES Center. https://files.tiescenter.org/files/gMyqghMkcj/ties-center-report-104
  • Schaller, M. R. (2020). An examination of the role of leaders in special education teachers’ implementation of high-leverage instructional practices [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/216839.
  • Thomas, R., & Rose, J. (2019). School inclusion and attitudes toward people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 17(2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12322
  • Yang, C.-H., & Rusli, E. (2012). Teacher training in using effective strategies for preschool children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i1.6715

Appendix A

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) High-Leverage Practices in Special Education

Area: Collaboration

HLP 1: Collaborate with professionals to increase student success.

HLP 2: Organize and facilitate effective meetings with professionals and families.

HLP 3: Collaborate with families to support student learning and secure needed services.

Area: Assessment

HLP 4: Use multiple sources of information to develop a comprehensive understanding of a student’s strengths and needs.

HLP 5: Interpret and communicate assessment information with stakeholders to collaboratively design and implement educational programs.

HLP 6: Use student assessment data, analyze instructional practices, and make necessary adjustments that improve student outcomes.

Area: Social/Emotional/Behavioral Practices

HLP 7: Establish a consistent, organized, and respectful learning environment.

HLP 8: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students’ learning and behavior.

HLP 9: Teach social behaviors.

HLP 10: Conduct functional behavioral assessments to develop individual student behavior support plans.

Area: Instruction

HLP 11: Identify and prioritize long- and short- term learning goals.

HLP 12: Systematically design instruction toward a specific learning goal.

HLP 13: Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals.

HLP 14: Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support learning and independence.

HLP 15: Provide scaffolded supports.

HLP 16: Use explicit instruction.

HLP 17: Use flexible grouping.

HLP 18: Use strategies to promote active student engagement.

HLP 19: Use assistive and instructional technologies.

HLP 20: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students’ learning and behavior.

HLP 21: Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning across time and settings.

HLP 22: Provide intensive instruction.

Council for Exception Children (CEC). (2017). TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(5), pp. 355–360.

Appendix B

High-Leverage Practices (IHE Survey)

The information that follows is a text equivalent of the High-Leverage Practices (IHE survey). Formatting varies slightly from the actual survey.

Interest 1 Are you interested in participating in the study of Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) for the inclusion of best practices for students with disabilities?

  • Yes, I am interested in participating.
  • No, I am not interested in participating.

CONSENT 1 The IHE Faculty Consent document details the research study and what participation entails. Click on the document below and carefully read the consent document to determine if you consent to participate in the research.

CONSENT 2 By continuing to the survey, you are indicating your consent to participate in the research.

  • Continue to the survey.
  • Do NOT continue to survey.

Introduction

Personnel Preparation – High-Level Practices Survey

The survey focuses on special education High Leverage Practices (HLP) in Educator Preparation Programs in Ohio. We are seeking to identify the degree to which EPPs incorporate HLP’s into their programs to meet the needs of students with significant intellectual disabilities. The following survey should take no more than 10-15 minutes to complete.

Directions: Due to the nature of the survey it is best to complete the survey on desktop, laptop, iPad (either MAC or PC is ok) and not a mobile phone.

Q3 What is your position at your institution?

  • Chair/Director
  • Faculty- Tenure Track
  • Faculty – Non-Tenure Track
  • Adjunct Faculty

Q4 Is your institution public or private?

  • Public Institution
  • Private Institution

Q5 (If Public) What is the name of your institution?

[drop down menu]

Q6 (If Private) What is the name of your institution?

[drop down menu]

Q7 What programs are offered at your institution?

  • Mild/Moderate Needs (K-12) Only
  • Moderate/Intensive Needs (K-12) Only
  • Both Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Intensive Needs (K-12) (NOT Dual)
  • Dual Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Intensive Needs (K-12)

Mild Moderate 1

This section pertains only to your mild-moderate needs program.

In their literature review, the TIES Center identified practices and then placed each into one of three categories: Evidence-Based Practices, Research-Based Practices, and Promising Practices.

How frequently do you teach the identified practices below within your mild-moderate needs program?

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Always

Embedded Trial (Embedded Instruction)

Constant Time Delay (CTD)

System of Least Prompts

Task Analytic Instruction

Chained Tasks Using Task Analytic Instruction with Embedded System of Least Prompts (SLP)

Simultaneous Prompting

Peer Support Interventions

Technology-Aided Instruction

Graphic Organizers

Mild Moderate CEC This section pertains only to your mild-moderate needs program.

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), in collaboration with the CEEDAR Center, developed a set of 22 high-leverage practices (HLPs) in special education to better support the classroom practices of teacher candidates. Those practices were categorized into four aspects of practice: collaboration, assessment, social-emotional practices, and instruction.

Please complete the next four questions by identifying: (1) the HLPs currently taught within your mild-moderate needs program; and (2) the courses where each HLP is taught.

Mild Moderate 2 Aspect 1: Collaboration

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the mid/moderate needs program?

Can the identified high-leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 1: Collaborate with professionals to increase student success

HLP 2: Organize and facilitate effective meetings with professionals and families

HLP 3: Collaborate with families to support student learning and secure needed services

Mild Moderate 3 Aspect 2: Assessment

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the mid/moderate needs program?

Can the identified high-leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 4: Use multiple sources of information to develop a comprehensive understanding of a student's strengths and needs

HLP 5: Interpret and communicate assessment information with stakeholders to collaboratively design and implement educational programs

HLP 6: Use student assessment data, analyze instructional practices, and make necessary adjustments that improve student outcomes

Mild Moderate 4 Aspect 3: Social/Emotional/Behavioral Practices

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the mid/moderate needs program?

Can the identified high-leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 7: Establish a consistent, organized, and respectful learning environment

HLP 8: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students' learning and behavior

HLP 9: Teach social behaviors

HLP 10: Conduct functional behavioral assessments to develop individual student behavior plans

Mild Moderate 5 Aspect 4: Instruction

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the mid/moderate needs program?

Can the identified high-leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 11: Identify and prioritize long- and short-term learning goals

HLP 12: Systematically design instruction toward a specific learning goal

HLP 13: Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals

HLP 14: Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support learning and independence

HLP 15: Provide scaffolded supports

HLP 16: Use explicit instruction

HLP 17: Use flexible grouping

HLP 18: Use strategies to promote active student engagement

HLP 19: Use assistive and instructional technologies

HLP 20: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students' learning and behavior

HLP 21: Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning across time and settings

HLP 22: Provide intensive instruction

Mild Moderate 6 This section pertains only to your mild-moderate needs program.

Browder, Wood, Thompson, and Ribuffo (2014) agreed with a panel of experts who identified the following five practices for educating students with severe disabilities: Inclusion, home- school collaboration, staff development, data-based instruction, and the criterion of ultimate functioning (i.e., preparing students for their current and future environments).

How frequently do you teach the identified best practices within your mild-moderate needs program?

Never (0)

Rarely (1)

Sometimes (2)

Often (3)

Always (4)

Inclusion

Home-School Collaboration

Staff Development

Data-Based Instruction

The Criterion of Ultimate Functioning (i.e., preparing students for their current and future environments)

Moderate Intensive 1

This section pertains only to your moderate-intensive needs program.

In their literature review, the TIES Center identified practices and then placed each into one of three categories: Evidence-Based Practices, Research-Based Practices, and Promising Practices.

How frequently do you teach the identified practices below within your moderate-intensive needs program?

Never (0)

Rarely (1)

Sometimes (2)

Often (3)

Always (4)

Embedded Trial (Embedded Instruction)

Constant Time Delay (CTD)

System of Least Prompts

Task Analytic Instruction

Chained tasks taught using task analytic (TA) instruction with embedded system of least prompts (SLP)

Simultaneous Prompting

Peer Support Interventions

Technology- Aided Instruction

Graphic Organizers

Moderate Intensive CEC This section pertains only to your moderate-intensive needs program.

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), in collaboration with the CEEDAR Center, developed a set of 22 high-leverage practices (HLPs) in special education to better support the classroom practices of teacher candidates. Those practices were categorized into four aspects of practice: collaboration, assessment, social-emotional practices, and instruction.

Please complete the next four questions by identifying: (1) the HLPs currently taught within your moderate-intensive needs program; and (2) the courses where each HLP is taught.

Mod Intensive 2 Aspect 1: Collaboration

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the moderate/intensive needs program?

Can the identified high- leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 1: Collaborate with professionals to increase student success

HLP 2: Organize and facilitate effective meetings with professionals and families

HLP 3: Collaborate with families to support student learning and secure needed services

Mod Intensive 3 Aspect 2: Assessment

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the moderate/intensive needs program?

Can the identified high- leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 4: Use multiple sources of information to develop a comprehensive understanding of a student's strengths and needs

HLP 5: Interpret and communicate assessment information with stakeholders to collaboratively design and implement educational programs

HLP 6: Use student assessment data, analyze instructional practices, and make necessary adjustments that improve student outcomes

Mod Intensive 4 Aspect 3: Social/Emotional/Behavioral Practices

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the moderate/intensive needs program?

Can the identified high- leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 11: Identify and prioritize long- and short-term learning goals

HLP 12: Systematically design instruction toward a specific learning goal

HLP 13: Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals

HLP 14: Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support learning and independence

HLP 15: Provide scaffolded supports

HLP 16: Use explicit instruction

HLP 17: Use flexible grouping

HLP 18: Use strategies to promote active student engagement

HLP 19: Use assistive and instructional technologies

HLP 20: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students' learning and behavior

HLP 21: Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning across time and settings

HLP 22: Provide intensive instruction

Mod Intensive 5 Aspect 4: Instruction

Is the identified high-leverage practice taught within the moderate/intensive needs program?

Can the identified high- leverage practice be located in course syllabi?

Where is the identified high-leverage practice taught?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Course Name(s) and/or Course Number(s)

HLP 7: Establish a consistent, organized, and respectful learning environment

HLP 8: Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students' learning and behavior

HLP 9: Teach social behaviors

HLP 10: Conduct functional behavioral assessments to develop individual student behavior plans

Mod Intensive 6 This section pertains only to your moderate-intensive needs program.

Browder, Wood, Thompson, and Ribuffo (2014) agreed with a a panel of experts who identified the following five practices for educating students with severe disabilities: Inclusion, home- school collaboration, staff development, data-based instruction, and the criterion of ultimate functioning (i.e., preparing students for their current and future environments).

How frequently do you teach the identified best practices within your moderate-intensive needs program?

Never (0)

Rarely (1)

Sometimes (2)

Often (3)

Always (4)

Inclusion

Home-School Collaboration

Staff Development

Data-Based Instruction

The Criterion of Ultimate Functioning (i.e., preparing students for their current and future environments)

Q26 Are you willing to be re-contacted for further clarification on this survey and syllabi, if needed?

  • Yes
  • No

Q27 Please provide your contact information (Name, e-mail, and phone number) so you can be contacted for clarification of survey responses or syllabi.

Appendix C

The information that follows is a text equivalent of the Intervention Specialist Demographic Survey. Formatting varies slightly from the actual survey.

Interest Are you interested in participating in the study of Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) for the inclusion of best practices for students with disabilities?

  • Yes, I am interested in participating.
  • No, I am not interested in participating.

CONSENT 1 The Intervention Specialist Consent document details the research study and what participation entails. Click on the document below and carefully read the consent document to determine if you consent to participate in the research.

CONSENT 2 By continuing to the survey, you are indicating your consent to participate in the research including the intervention specialist focus group.

  • Continue to the survey.
  • Do NOT continue to survey.

Intro High Leverage Practices (HLP's) are foundational practices essential to the effective teaching and learning in special education (Council for Exceptional Children and CEEDAR Center, 2017).

We are interested in understanding the degree to which HLP's are taught to pre-service teachers. Additionally, we would like to know the degree to which students with disabilities are benefiting from HLP's.

In order to gain this insight, we first need to gather some demographic data from the educator focus group regarding their student(s). All responses are confidential.

Q1 At what higher-level institution(s) did you receive your intervention specialist licensure training (Undergraduate and/or Graduate)?

______________________________________________________________________________

Q2 What is your current licensure? (Please select all that apply)

  • Early Childhood Intervention Specialist (P-3)
  • Primary Intervention Specialist (P-5)
  • Intervention Specialist: Mild/Moderate Need (K-12)
  • Intervention Specialist: Moderate/Intensive Needs (K-12)
  • Other (Please Specify): _____________________________

Q3 What is your current school district? Please provide name and location of school/district.

______________________________________________________________________________

Q4 Type of School:

  • Public
  • Private
  • Charter

Q5 What students do you currently teach? (Please select all the apply)

  • Students with mild disabilities
  • Students with moderate disabilities
  • Students with significant disabilities
  • Other (Please Specify) _____________________________

Q6 What grade level(s) do you currently service? (Please select all that apply)

  • Kindergarten
  • 1st Grade
  • 2nd Grade
  • 3rd Grade
  • 4th Grade
  • 5th Grade
  • 6th Grade
  • 7th Grade
  • 8th Grade
  • 9th Grade
  • 10th Grade
  • 11th Grade
  • 12th Grade

Q7 How many years have you been in the special education field?

  • 0-3 Years
  • 4-6 Years
  • 7-9 Years
  • 10+ Years

Q8 Please select all environments where you service students and identify the percentage of time you spend within that specific environment.

Percentage of Time

Yes

No

Self-Contained Classroom/Resource Room

Supportive Role within General Education/Inclusive Environment

Co-Teaching in the General Education/Inclusive Environment

Other (Please Specify):

Q9 Optional: Are you willing to be re-contacted for further clarification on this survey, if needed?

  • Yes
  • No

Focus Group Consent I consent to participate in the intervention specialist focus group via Zoom.

  • Yes
  • No

Focus Group Dates In order to schedule a date and time for focus group participation, we need to determine your availability. Please complete the table below identifying your possible availability for focus group participation. Remember that the focus group is roughly one hour in length. Please select ALL that apply.

Morning (8:00 - 11:00AM)

Afternoon (12:00 - 4:00PM)

Evening (5:00 - 8:00 PM)

Unavailable on this date.

Monday, October 25th

Tuesday, October 26th

Wednesday, October 27th

Thursday, October 28th

Friday, October 29th

Saturday, October 30th

Contact Information Please provide your contact information (Name, e-mail, and phone number) so you can be contacted for clarification of survey responses and/or with a date and time for participation in the intervention specialist focus group.

Appendix D

The information that follows is a text equivalent of the Parent Demographic Survey. Formatting varies slightly from the actual survey

Parent Demographic Survey

Interest 1 Are you interested in participating in the study of Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) for the inclusion of best practices for students with significant disabilities?

  • Yes
  • No

CONSENT 1 The Parent Consent document details the research study and what participation entails. Click on the document below and carefully read the consent document to determine if you consent to participate in the research.

CONSENT 2 By continuing to the survey, you are indicating your consent to participate in the research including the parent focus group.

Intro High Leverage Practices (HLP's) are foundational practices essential to the effective teaching and learning in special education (Council for Exceptional Children and CEEDAR Center, 2017).

We are interested in understanding the degree to which HLP's are taught to pre-service teachers. Additionally, we would like to know the degree to which students with the most significant intellectual disabilities are benefiting from HLP's.

In order to gain this insight, we first need to gather some demographic data from the parent focus group regarding their child(ren). All responses are confidential.

Q1 How many PK-12 children do you have who qualify to receive special education services?

  • One
  • Two
  • Three
  • Other (Please Specify) _________________________________________

Q2 Under what disability category does your PK-12 child(ren) qualify to receive special education services? Please select all the apply.

  • Autism
  • Deaf-blindness
  • Deafness
  • Emotional Disturbance
  • Hearing Impairment
  • Intellectual Disability
  • Multiple Disabilities
  • Orthopedic Impairment
  • Other Health Impairment
  • Specific Learning Disability
  • Speech or Language Impairment
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Visual Impairment including blindness
  • I don't know

Q3 How would you categorize your child(ren)'s disability? Please select all that apply.

  • Mild
  • Moderate
  • Significant
  • Other (Please Specify) _________________________________________

Q4 What grade(s) is/are your child(ren) who receive special education services in? Please select all that apply.

  • Kindergarten
  • 1st Grade
  • 2nd Grade
  • 3rd Grade
  • 4th Grade
  • 5th Grade
  • 6th Grade
  • 7th Grade
  • 8th Grade
  • 9th Grade
  • 10th Grade
  • 11th Grade
  • 12th Grade

Q5 How long has your child(ren) been in their current special education program? Please select all that apply.

  • 0-3 Years
  • 4-6 Years
  • 7+Years

Q6 Inclusion is the practice of educating all children in the same classroom, including children with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities.

Does your child(ren) receive any special education services in an inclusive environment within the general education classroom?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure

Q7 What subjects and/or activities does your child(ren) participate in within the general education classroom?

______________________________________________________________________________

Q8 A special education paraprofessional provides instructional, behavioral, and other support to students in and outside of the classroom under the supervision of a teacher.

Does your child(ren) have a special education paraprofessional supporting their individualneeds during the school day?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure

Focus Group 1 I consent to participate in the parent focus group via Zoom.

  • Yes
  • No

Focus Group 2 In order to schedule a date and time for focus group participation, we need to determine your availability. Please complete the table below identifying your possible availability for focus group participation. Remember that the focus group is roughly one hour in length. Please select ALL that apply.

Morning (8:00 - 11:00AM)

Afternoon (12:00 - 3:00PM)

Evening (5:00 - 7:00 PM)

Unavailable on this date.

Monday, November 1st

Tuesday, November 2nd

Wednesday, November 3rd

Thursday, November 4th

Friday, November 5th

Saturday, November 6th

Contact Information Please provide your contact information (Name, e-mail, and phone number) so you can be contacted with a date and time for participation in the parent focus group.

Authors

Dr. Mary Murray Professor Emerita, Bowling Green State University

Dr. Mark Seals Professor, Bowling Green State University

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our appreciation to the following individuals who shared their expertise to inform the development of this report: Jennifer Asmus (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Aaron Fischer (University of Utah), Terisa Gabrielsen (Brigham Young University), Dan Gadke (Mississippi State University), Jessica Kendorski (Philadelphia College of Osteopathic), Rachel Lee (University of Detroit Mercy), Amy Matthews (Grand Valley State University), Maryellen McClain Verdoes (Utah State University), Elizabeth McKenney (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville), Keith Radley (University of Utah), Dave Richman (Texas Tech University), Kristin Rispoli (Michigan State University), Kasee Statton-Gadke (Mississippi State University), and Devadrita Talapatra (University of Denver).

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

TIES Center is supported through a cooperative agreement between the University of Minnesota (# H326Y170004) and the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) which is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration (ICI) at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. The contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officer: Susan Weigert

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) leads the TIES Center partnership. There are six additional collaborating partners: Arizona Department of Education, CAST, University of Cincinnati, University of Kentucky, University of North-Carolina–Charlotte, and University of North Carolina–Greensboro.

TIES Center, University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, 2025 East River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone: 612-626-1530

www.tiescenter.org

This document is available in alternate formats upon request.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.