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

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?

Related Literature

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

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)

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Table 10. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 2

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

Table 11. Teacher Focus Group Findings Question 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 20. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 3

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

Table 21. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 4

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

Table 22. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 5

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

Table 23. Parent Focus Group Findings Question 6

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?

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

Mild Moderate 3 Aspect 2: Assessment

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

Mild Moderate 5 Aspect 4: 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?

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?

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

Mod Intensive 3 Aspect 2: Assessment

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

Mod Intensive 5 Aspect 4: Instruction

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

• Murray, M., & Seals, M. (2023). How Preparation Programs for Moderate-Severe Disabilities in Ohio Incorporate High-Leverage Instructional Practices. TIES Center, University of Minnesota. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/ties/hlp-article/how-prep-programs-incorporate-hlp

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.