A Compilation of Research on States’ Licensure Models for Special Education Teachers and Special Education Requirements for Licensing General Education Teachers William L. Geiger University of Texas at Tyler 1 A Compilation of Research on States’ Licensure Models for Special Education Teachers and Special Education Requirements for Licensing General Education Teachers Introduction Mackey and McHenry (1994) observed that credentialing teachers in the United States dates back to the first quarter of the nineteenth century when local school districts and counties established agencies to examine and license teachers. Decades later state agencies entered the arena in order to standardize evaluations of teacher candidates. The involvement of these agencies has continued since that time. Interest in states agencies’ models and requirements for licensing teachers of students with disabilities was evident in the 1950s. The primary purpose of this report is to summarize research on models and requirements for licensure* of special education teachers. The report also includes summaries of studies of special education preparation required for certification of general education teachers. The studies in this report are organized chronologically – prior to 1980, the 1980s, the 1990s and the early 2000s. Within each period studies have been clustered according to type or area of investigation. Licensure studies in three areas (categorical and non-categorical models of licensure, required special education preparation for general educators, and comprehensive studies of special education licensure) are common to each of the periods reviewed. Research on models of non-traditional/alterative approaches to preparing and licensing special education teachers that multiplied in the 1990s is not included in this report. Licensure of Special Education Teachers Prior to 1980 Licensure in specific areas. In the early 1950s Marjorie Young (1952) reviewed state manuals for the purpose of compiling and analyzing certification standards for teachers of children who were partially seeing. She noted that although 39 states and territories had facilities for children who were partially seeing, 20 of the jurisdictions** reported no specific certification standards for teachers of these children. The certification requirements adopted by the 19 remaining jurisdictions typically included general education, related courses in special education, courses in the area of visual impairment, and personal qualifications. However, three of the 19 jurisdictions did not require courses in the area of visual impairment. In 1969 Schwartz studied licensure standards for teachers of students with learning disabilities. Forty-five states, nine Canadian Provinces, and Mexico responded to a written survey. Schwartz provided reports from each of the jurisdictions. There was _______________________________________________________________________ *The terms “licensure” and “certification” will be used interchangeably in this report. **Because the literature on special education licensure models, includes many studies of states and similar governmental units of the United States, and, in at least one instance, other countries, the term “jurisdictions” will be used instead of “states,” except in quotations and when a statement applies only to a state or states. 2 considerable variation in licensure standards for teachers of students with learning disabilities. Twenty-one of the respondents reported having no licensure standards for teachers of students with learning disabilities. Only 12 jurisdictions reported licensing teachers in the area of learning disabilities. The remaining respondents licensed teachers for students with learning disabilities under another disability category, e. g., orthopedically disabled, mental retardation. Schwartz surmised that the practice of classifying teachers of students with learning disabilities under other categorical headings indicated “a need for education of legislators and educators to the unique problems of these children” (p. 35). Shortly after P. L. 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was enacted, Russo and Stark (1976) published a study of state licensure in the area of severe/profound disabilities. They found that four jurisdictions licensed teachers in this area. Seven jurisdictions anticipated licensing in this area in the near future. Thirty jurisdictions indicated they would not license teachers in severe/profound disabilities in the near future, and nearly half of the jurisdictions saw no need to do so. In the same year Spungin (1976) conducted a “thorough investigation of how states issue certificates for teachers of the visually handicapped” (p. 438). She summarized information on the following licensure requirements: degrees required, courses, certificates, duration of certificates, renewal procedures, availability of a provisional certification, and duration of provisional certificate. Five jurisdictions did not require special certification of teachers of students with visual disabilities. Thirty-four states reported that a certificate in general education was required prior to obtaining a license in the area of visual disabilities. The amount of specialized preparation in visual disabilities ranged from 8-28 semester hours. Joint certification for teachers of the blind and partially sighted was reported as being less common than distinct certificates for the two areas. In 1978 Morgan published the results of research on the delivery of educational services to children with severe emotional disturbances and on the certification of teachers for these children. She found information on guidelines for certification to be confusing. Fourteen jurisdictions (of the 40 that responded) indicated that they had “separate standards for certification in the area of severe disturbance, in contrast to the category of behavioral disorders or social/emotionally maladjusted” (p. 270). However, when examining jurisdictions’ guidelines, she found this separate area of licensure in only three jurisdictions. Six jurisdictions awarded non- categorical licenses for teachers of all children with disabilities, excluding those with visual or hearing impairments. Categorical and non-categorical models of licensure. Belch (1979) reported the results of a national study designed to determine whether there was a trend toward “comprehensive teacher certification in special education” (p. 129). Eleven jurisdictions reported non-categorical certification equivalent to comprehensive certification for special educators. Another 12 jurisdictions reported that they were moving toward a form of non-categorical certification. 3 Required special education preparation for general education teachers. In 1978 Sargent reported 18 states and the District of Columbia required preparation of general educators in order to better educate students with disabilities in their classrooms. Another ten states had requirements pending. A year later Patton and Braithwaite (1979) found that ten jurisdictions had requirements for special education courses or experiences for the initial licensure or relicensure of regular classroom teachers. Some jurisdictions required specific courses in special education; others required that content in special education be incorporated in all approved teacher education programs. Four jurisdictions had pending requirements for the preparation of general education teachers in special education, and two had pending requirements for preparation in special education for the relicensure of general education teachers. Comprehensive studies of special education licensure. In 1954 Mackie and Dunn provided a “national overview of State certification requirements for teachers of exceptional children” (p. vii) in a Bulletin published by through the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The intent of the report was to provide information on the status of certification for teachers of exceptional children and allow comparisons to be made across jurisdictions and across areas of exceptionality. The Bulletin contained summaries of certification requirements for teachers in each of ten areas of exceptionality (blind, partially seeing, crippled, special health problems, deaf, hard-of-hearing, speech handicapped, socially maladjusted, mentally retarded, and gifted) for the 48 states and the District of Columbia. The Bulletin also contained a brief chapter in which the results of a survey of the desirability of different models of certification were reported. The report provided summaries of certifications required by jurisdictions. Thirty- three jurisdictions reported special certification requirements for teachers in one or more of the ten types of exceptionality. Pennsylvania had certification standards for all ten areas. Twenty-one other jurisdictions had certification standards in at least four areas of exceptionality. Nine states had standards for one to three of the areas of exceptionality, and two states awarded single credentials for teaching all types of exceptional children. The authors observed that many jurisdictions adopted joint or combined certificates that allowed individuals to be certified to two areas of exceptionality, for example, blind and partially seeing. Eighteen jurisdictions reported no special certification according to areas of exceptionality. However, Mackie and Dunn noted that some of these jurisdictions required “local school systems to employ teachers with specialized preparation satisfactory to the State department of education” (p. 9). Mackie and Dunn concluded that certification requirements for teachers of exceptional children had three major components: 1) personal characteristics, 2) general requirements and prerequisites, and 3) specialized requirements and related course work. The authors summarized jurisdictions’ general requirements and specialized requirements for certificates in all areas of exceptionality. 4 Nearly 20 years after the report my Mackie and Dunn, Abeson and Fleury (1972) edited State Certification Requirements for Education of the Handicapped. The report was prepared to meet the need for a single document that identified jurisdictions’ requirements for credentialing special education teachers. The authors believed their report would enable comparisons of licensure standards and requirements to be made among jurisdictions. Also, they hoped that the information they compiled would serve as a “baseline” for understanding future changes in licensure requirements for special education teachers. The report contains information excerpted from states’ published certification documents. A three-part structure was designed to organize requirements for licensure of special educators. The structure consisted of 1) type of certificate required for special education, 2) general requirements, and 3) categories of disability. The report revealed that most states’ licensure regulations were based on categories of disabilities. The number of special education licensure areas ranged from one to eight. The most commonly reported categories of licensure were mental retardation, hearing-impaired, speech/language, visual impairment, and physical impairments. Less than 30 jurisdictions were identified as licensing teachers in the area of emotional disturbance with some jurisdictions indicating that licensure requirements in this area were the same as those for other areas of disability. Less than half of the jurisdictions reported having licensure in the area of learning disabilities. Fewer than ten jurisdictions had some form of non-categorical licensure for special educators. Five years after the study by Abeson and Fleury, Gilmore and Aroyros (1977) provided a comprehensive report on the special education certification. They shared the results of an analysis of certification documents from jurisdictions and described models of special education licensure. When they compared regulations across jurisdictions, they found many differences. The most evident and basic differences were in the number and types of categories of licensure in special education. Consequently, they created a classification system based on the number of categories of special education licensure within jurisdictions. Two primary models of licensure of special education teachers emerged from their analysis. The first model consisted of six or more licensure categories based on disabilities. This model was adopted by at least 35 jurisdictions. The second model consisted of structure with six or fewer categories of disability and a generic license in special education. Nine jurisdictions used this model. Two states, California and Massachusetts were identified as having unique models. The most frequently reported number of licensure categories reported by jurisdictions was seven. The most common categories of licensure identified by Gilmore and Aroyros were hearing impairments (43), vision impairments (39), speech/language impairments (37), mental retardation (35), emotional disturbance (33), physical disabilities (33), and learning disabilities (31). 5 The authors observed that jurisdictions usually awarded “free-standing “ licenses in special education, i. e., other licenses were not prerequisite to special education licenses. However, they noted this practice was not uniform among jurisdictions. When information was available from jurisdictions, Gilmore and Aroyros reported on age or grade ranges for special education licenses. A preponderance of the jurisdictions had a K-12 or Prek-12 model for licensing special education teachers. Ten jurisdictions were identified as offering separate special education licenses at the elementary and secondary levels. In 1979 Barresi and Bunte published a report similar to that prepared by Gilmore and Aroyros. Barresi and Bunte also used “number of categories” to analyze models of special education licensure. Jurisdictions with six or more areas of licensure in special education were classified as having a “categorical model.” Those with less than six categories were considered to have a “generic model.” Thirty-five jurisdictions had “categorical models;” 14 used “generic models;” one used both; and three had other models. They noted that some jurisdictions classified as having a “categorical model” had a generic certificate as one of their categorical certificates. Barresi and Bunte also reported that 34 jurisdictions treated special education licensure as freestanding, and 34 treated it as an endorsement to another license. Twenty- one jurisdictions required elementary or secondary licensure for special education teachers. In 17 jurisdictions special education licensure was both freestanding and an endorsement to another license. Nineteen jurisdictions reported that courses in special education were required for licensure of general education teachers. Many jurisdictions had added this requirement recently, and six jurisdictions were considering such a requirement. All but one jurisdiction reported that approval of higher education programs was the basis for licensing teachers. Completion of required courses was an additional basis for licensure in 22 jurisdictions; and proof of the acquisition of competencies was required in 14 jurisdictions. Satisfactory performance on statewide tests was required in nine jurisdictions. Barresi and Bunte reported that 13 jurisdictions licensed teachers for gifted/talented children. Ten licensed preschool special education teachers, and six had some form of credential for paraeducators in special education. Licensure of special education teachers of adolescents or young children with disabilities. Clark and Oliverson (1973) conducted one of the earliest studies of issues related to the preparation of secondary special education teachers. An objective of their study was to determine certification requirements for secondary special education teachers. Questionnaires were mailed to persons responsible for mental retardation programs in states’ departments of education. Responses were received from 47 states. Seventy-four per cent of the respondents reported “regular elementary certificates and special education (K-12) certificates were the most commonly approved combinations of 6 certification” (p. 545). Eight states reported issuing special education certificates for grades 6-12; seven states issued special education certificates for grades 9-12. In 1977 Hirshoren and Umansky published the results of a study designed to assess teacher certification practices for teachers of preschool children with disabilities. Twelve states had certification requirements for these teachers. The authors noted that many more states had higher education preparation programs for teachers of preschool children with disabilities than had certification requirements in this area. Observations. Early researchers on the topic of licensure of special education teachers discovered that jurisdictions used a variety of models for licensing teachers for students with different types of disabilities. Categorical, various forms of non- categorical, and other models of certification were adopted by jurisdictions. Researchers attempted to create frameworks in order to better understand and study the array of licensure practices they encountered. Number of licenses and categorical vs. generic options were key factors in these frameworks. A case can be made that prior to 1980 there was growth in both categorical areas and non-categorical options for special education licensure. For example, Schwartz reported only 12 jurisdictions licensed teachers for students with learning disabilities in 1969. Eight years later Gilmore and Aroyros reported 31 jurisdictions awarded such a license. Similarly, Abeson and Fleury (1972) reported that only seven jurisdictions had some form of non-categorical licensure for special educators. In 1979 Barresi and Bunte reported 15 jurisdictions had some form of “generic” model of licensure. Toward the end of this period we see the emergence of interest in requirements that general education teachers become familiar with special education and in licensure requirements for teachers of young children with disabilities. Attention to these issues will continue in the decades that follow. Licensure of Special Education Teachers in the 1980s In the 1980s research on special education licensure continued to explore previously established paths. In addition to the areas addressed in earlier research, an interest in assessment of teacher candidates’ knowledge of special education emerged in the 1980s. Licensure in specific areas. In 1982 Bagwell continued the line of investigation into licensure requirements for teachers of students with learning disabilities. Fifty state directors of special education in the United States and District of Columbia responded to the mail survey. Information on required courses and competencies for certificates in learning disabilities was obtained and summarized for each responding jurisdiction. Bagwell discovered that the “vast majority of the states” (p. 57) had the same certification requirements for elementary and secondary teachers of students with learning disabilities. Seven states reported having differentiated requirements for elementary and secondary teachers. Sixteen jurisdictions reported that a change in 7 certification requirements was being considered. Eighteen states indicated that the needs of adolescents in secondary programs were not addressed in the requirements for a license in the area of learning disabilities. Geiger and Justen (1983) reported on states’ certification models for teachers of students with severe disabilities. State agencies utilized one of three models of licensure in this area. Twenty-one states licensed teachers in specific categories of disability, e. g., mental retardation. An equal number of states offered a specialized license in the area of severe disabilities, and eight states issued generic special education licenses for teachers of students with disabilities. Salend and Fradd (1985) conducted a survey for Commissioners of Education of the 50 states and the District of Columbia in order to determine the existence of certification and training programs for bilingual special educators. The authors summarized their findings by jurisdiction. Only one jurisdiction (California) reported having formal licensure in bilingual special education; and one (New Mexico) reported having a bilingual component in its special education licensure requirements. In 1986 Leigh and Patton added to the literature on licensure patterns for teachers of students with learning disabilities. They observed that the titles of state licenses for these teachers varied considerably across jurisdictions. While a majority of the jurisdictions offered a specific endorsement in learning disabilities, approximately 40 percent of them used a more generic credential. Information was obtained on the number of credit hours of required preparation for teachers. For jurisdictions with credit hour requirements, the range was from 18-41 semester hours. Twenty-seven semester hours was the mean. Although a majority of the jurisdictions reported that licensure was based on completion of courses in specific areas, seventeen jurisdictions had specific competency standards, rather than courses, in their licensure requirements. In 1987 Huebner and Strumwasser reported the results of a study of certification requirements for teachers of children who were blind or visually impaired. Questionnaires were sent to all the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin Islands. Forty-five jurisdictions reported that they offered specific licenses for teachers of blind and visually impaired. Only one jurisdiction reported offering more than one type of license in the area of vision. All but one jurisdiction reported that licensure was K-12. Twenty jurisdictions offered initial licensure in the area of vision; 23 required regular elementary or secondary teacher licensure. At least four other jurisdictions required a generic special education license in addition to the credential in the area of visual impairment. Also, four jurisdictions reported they certified orientation and mobility teachers. The authors examined other dimensions of credentialing including reciprocity, number of credit hours required in vision, and student teaching requirements. Categorical and non-categorical models of licensure. In 1986, McLaughlin, Smith-Davis, and Burke reported on the categorical and non-categorical licensure requirements for the fifty states, District of Columbia and United States’ Territories. From a total of 56 jurisdictions, 30 had categorical models of licensure. The remaining 26 8 had non-categorical models. The authors noted that the licensure standards for many jurisdictions included both categorical and non-categorical options. They also observed trends toward “creating separate endorsements or increasing requirements for teachers of severely handicapped, including the autistic” (p. 37) and “certifying special education teachers from grades K-12” (p. 37). Although K-12 models of special education licensure were very common, some jurisdictions awarded special education licenses based on developmental levels (age or grades), especially early childhood. Two years later McLaughin and Stettner-Eaton (1988) reported that jurisdictions appeared to be “moving toward more non-categorical models of certification”(p. 12). When they compared studies conducted in 1977 and in 1986, they found that a minimum of ten states had shifted from categorical to non-categorical models of certification for special education teachers. Non-categorical licensure was reported as being most common for teachers of students with mild disabilities. Licensure models for teachers of students with moderate and severe disabilities often required specific categorical endorsements added to generic requirements in special education. In 1988 another study of categorical and non-categorical licensure models was published. Mauser and Cranston-Gingras (1988) reported the results of a nationwide study in which State Special Education Directors and State Directors of Teacher Certification were respondents. Although they reported finding “two distinct models of special education teacher certification, categorical and non-categorical” (p. 2), Mauser and Cranston-Gingras noted that many jurisdictions used both options. The authors perceived a preference for categorical certification; yet they discerned a developing trend toward non-categorical options. These options were particularly noteworthy for teachers of students with mild disabilities. Inconsistencies were observed in the responses from special education personnel and certification personnel in the states. For example, directors of special education in 17 jurisdictions reported that their models for licensure were categorical; certification personnel in 22 jurisdictions reported categorical licensure systems. Different responses were also reported regarding non-categorical systems of licensure and combined categorical and non-categorical options. Mauser and Cranston-Gingras reported that approximately 30% of the jurisdictions required that special education teachers also be certified in regular elementary and/or secondary education. They also noted that approximately 50% of the jurisdictions had some form of competency examinations for applicants for certification in special education. Required special education preparation for general education teachers. Smith and Schindler (1980) explored jurisdictions’ requirements for the preparation of general education teachers to instruct exceptional students. All of the states and the District of Columbia responded to questionnaires. Nearly one-half (25) of the jurisdictions had no certification requirements in this area nor were they considering such requirements. Fifteen states had requirements in this area, and 11 were considering such requirements 9 or anticipated implementing such a requirement in the near future. Only Oklahoma required more than one course on the topic. Four years later Granschow, Weber, and Davis (1984) reported on a study of certification requirements for elementary and secondary teachers regarding preparation in the field of special education. Responses were received from all 50 states. Fourteen jurisdictions reported having no specific certification requirements related to the preparation of general education teachers to provide instruction to students with disabilities. Thirty-four states had some type of requirement. Seventeen of those states required a single course on exceptionalities; two states required two courses on the topic; seven states had specific guidelines; and eight states had general references to competencies about students with disabilities in their guidelines. The two remaining states had requirements for a single course on exceptionalities pending. The authors noted a trend for states to require that general education teachers receive preparation to provide instruction to students with disabilities. Two years later Tait (1987) found that 33 jurisdictions had requirements that general education teachers receive “exposure” to the needs and characteristics of exceptional learners. One jurisdiction anticipated adding such a requirement. The methods of “exposure” adopted by the states varied considerably. Some jurisdictions required that content be included in regular courses in the curriculum; others required that a specific course(s) in special education be completed. Some jurisdictions required practica with field experiences that included students with exceptionalities, and some required assessment of special competencies related to the education of students with exceptionalities. Tait concluded that the number of jurisdictions requiring “exposure” to information about exceptional children had increased substantially since the late 1970s. Comprehensive studies of special education licensure. Chapey, Pyszkowski, and Trimarco (1985) published the results of a national study of certification and training of special education teachers. They found that licensure of special educators varied noticeably across jurisdictions. Although 26 respondents indicated they were would maintain categorical teacher certification, twenty-five jurisdictions reported they were moving toward “a generalist concept of certifying teachers non-categorically or generically” (p.204). The authors asked the representatives of jurisdictions to identify changes in special education licensure they would like to see. Seventy per cent reported a preference for non-categorical certification. The authors concluded that licensure practices for special education teachers were changing throughout the United States. The report by Chapey et al. provided information on the number of jurisdictions issuing licenses in specific categorical areas. The areas of visual disabilities and hearing disabilities were reported most frequently. Forty-three jurisdictions issued licenses in each of these areas. Other areas in which categorical licenses were frequently awarded included speech/language impairments (38), mental retardation (34), emotional disturbance (34), learning disabilities (34), physical/multiple disabilities (31). Chapey et al. also discovered differences in how jurisdictions’ interpreted licenses for teachers of students with learning disabilities. In some jurisdictions the designation 10