Teacher EduJocaantinone MQu. Vaartne rBlyo, xSteulmmer 2017 Common Core Expertise for Special Education Teachers What Do Special Education Administrators Think Is Important? Joanne M. Van Boxtel The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been described as the next chapter in American education with the promise to deliver “fewer, clearer, and higher” standards aimed at preparing all students for college and career (Roth- man, 2013). Though CCSS articulates minimum expectations for what college- and career-ready students should know and be able to do in the 21st century, it is beyond the scope of the standards to identify specific interventions and supports needed for students who are performing below grade-level expectations (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Students with disabilities represent a heterogeneous group of stu- dents whose instruction has always been guided by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) (California Department of Education [CDE], 2014a; McLaughlin, 2012). Thus, a clear path to providing rigorous access to CCSS for students with disabilities remains challenging. In preparation for CCSS implementation for students with disabilities, practices such as aligning IEP goals to CCSS, implementing Universal Design for Learning Joanne M. Van Boxtel is an assistant professor in the College of Education and Integrative Studies at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California. Email address: [email protected] 57 Common Core Expertise for Special Education Teachers (UDL), and utilizing evidence-based practices in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics have been advised by experts in the field (Graham & Harris, 2013; McLaughlin, 2012; Powell, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2013; Rose, Meyer, & Gordon, 2014). School leaders have also been urged to support practices such as collaboration between special education and general education teachers (McLaughlin, 2012). What is also recommended for immediate implementation is that teachers align curriculum and instruction with the “instructional shifts” of CCSS to ensure instruction is matched to the more rigorous expectations of the new standards (Alberti, 2013). Thus this study sought to investigate recommendations for CCSS and special education proposed in the research and those proposed by field-based sources to analyze the presence of or lack of alignment between recommended practices. Findings have implications for preservice teacher education and in-service teacher professional development (PD). Conceptual Framework An implicit assumption guiding this research was that special education administra- tors would have relevant perspectives for teacher education programs because of their roles and responsibilities for special education programs and services as conceived in Crockett’s (2002) conceptual framework for leadership in special education. Accord- ing to Crockett, a central tenet of special education administration is “providing and ensuring programming that makes a difference” (p. 162). The foundational pillars undergirding these principles are: (a) ethical practice that advocates for informed decisions and full educational opportunity; (b) individual consideration that attends to exceptional need, requiring extraordinary response of specialized instruction; (c) equity under law that provides child benefits through law, finances, and public policy; (d) effective programming that provides and ensures that programs produce positive student outcomes; and (e) productive partnerships with families formed by negotiating and collaborating on behalf of learners with exceptionalities. Thus special education administrators are instructional and programmatic leaders in implementing school reforms such as Common Core that impact special education teachers and students with disabilities. With limited research available on the implementation of CCSS and special education, teacher educator programs may glean insight into the current status of preservice and in-service special education teacher needs from leaders in the field with direct responsibility for ensuring that CCSS is implemented effectively for special education. Review of the Literature CCSS and Instruction In terms of general recommendations for CCSS and special education in- struction, some are designed for school leaders and some are geared more toward 58 Joanne M. Van Boxtel educators. To effectively implement CCSS-aligned instruction, leaders are advised to recognize the heterogeneity of students with disabilities by implementing UDL (McLaughlin, 2012; Rose, Meyer, & Gordon, 2014). Teachers are also urged to be skilled at unpacking the CCSS to create accessible learning targets, which can be achieved by discovering the “core purpose” of a standard (Konrad et al., 2014; Rose et al., 2014). Similar to prioritizing standards for instruction to create learn- ing targets, Haager and Vaughn (2013) suggested that teachers examine standards to determine the critical, most important elements to equip students with essential skills in ELA. For mathematics instruction, Powell et al. (2013) recommended that teachers focus on CCSS core clusters at students’ grade levels and assess for “base camp” standards applicable to individual students. To accomplish the goals of CCSS instruction for ELA, teachers are also advised to have a thorough understanding of grade-level expectations and curriculum to adapt appropriately. In addition to creating targeted ELA instruction based on assessment of student needs with the foundational skills of CCSS, another endorsed strategy is to provide students with disabilities with experiences developing essential ELA skills using accessible materials in the general education environment (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Likewise, prioritizing instruction through a solid understanding of the CCSS math standards is advocated for teachers working with students with disabilities, who may be performing well below grade-level expectations. To target math inter- ventions for elementary students with disabilities, teachers must become familiar with CCSS math standards to better understand foundational skills (Powell et al., 2013). Within literature on practices effective for elementary CCSS math instruc- tion is also the recommendation to strengthen students’ mathematical reasoning and ability to perform mental math (Burns, 2013). CCSS and Collaboration Collaboration between general education and special education teachers is noth- ing new to the field; however, it could be argued that this practice is more urgent due to this sweeping change in standards-based instruction that applies to all students. School leaders are charged to create collaboration and coteaching opportunities so that general and special education teachers might complement each other in areas of expertise and learn together. In the area of ELA, Haager and Vaughn (2013) suggested that special education teachers should plan collaboratively with general education teachers to determine CCSS instruction in ELA and appropriate interventions. Collaboration and joint responsibility for student achievement as implementa- tion of evidence-based practices are also recommended to ensure that students with disabilities are receiving appropriate CCSS instruction (Graham & Harris, 2013; McLaughlin, 2012). Finally, in terms of capacity building and shared responsibility of student achievement, the provision of PD opportunities and ensuring an in-depth 59 Common Core Expertise for Special Education Teachers understanding of the standards are also suggested by experts in special education and educational leadership research and practice (Graham & Harris, 2013; Haager & Vaughn, 20130; McLaughlin, 2012; Mercado & Britt, 2013; Powell et al., 2013). CCSS and IEP Alignment In light of providing meaningful access to the general curriculum and general context (Courtade & Browder, 2011), it is likely that no other expertise is more critical for special education teachers in the Common Core era than is the art and craft of designing a meaningful IEP. Along with understanding the differences be- tween accommodations and modifications, McLaughlin (2012) suggested a six-step process to develop a CCSS-aligned IEP. The steps are as follows: (a) Consider the student’s grade-level content standards, (b) examine collected data to determine students’ level of functioning in relation to the standards, (c) identify present levels of academic and functional performance, (d) develop measurable goals aligned with the grade-level standards, (e) assess and report progress, and (f) identify specially designed instruction that includes appropriate accommodations and modifications necessary to access the general curriculum and make progress. Moreover, assessing students’ current knowledge and skills related to grade-level CCSS and comparing them to grade-level CCSS expectations enables educators to design goals that “fill in the gap” (CDE, 2014a). Teacher Preparation and CCSS Alignment of practices between general education and special education has been cited as an increasingly important trend for teacher preparation in a Core Standards–based area (Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015). Though this line of research is still emerging, some studies have examined educator perceptions of the CCSS as well as CCSS preparation in special education teacher education. Re- sults of these studies have investigated factors such as in-service teacher knowledge and perceptions of CCSS and current knowledge and perceived ability of preser- vice teachers to implement CCSS (Murphy & Marshall, 2015; Nadelson, Pluska, Moorcroft, Jeffrey, & Woodard, 2014). Nadelson et al. (2014) found that hours of PD are correlated with CCSS knowledge and that K–12 teachers are more likely to turn to their districts and district leaders for sources of CCSS information than they are to colleges of education. Murphy and Marshall (2015) discovered that (a) professors report varying levels of confidence in their preparation and knowledge in CCSS, (b) preservice general and special education teachers reported limited training in CCSS, and (c) the need for better preparation depends on preservice teachers’ experiences with CCSS implementation in K–12 settings. Given the growing body of research guiding best practice for CCSS and spe- cial education and the reality that many urban districts have been focusing on the implementation of the “instructional shifts” (Council of Great City Schools, n.d.), 60 Joanne M. Van Boxtel this researcher was interested in exploring recommendations for CCSS and special education found in the literature and their impact on current practice in the field. Four research questions guided this research: 1. How frequently is professional development and collaboration regarding CCSS occurring for general and special education teachers as reported by administrators? 2. What are the perceptions of the instructional expertise needed for special education teachers in regard to implementing the ELA CCSS as reported by administrators? 3. What are the perceptions of the instructional expertise needed for special education teachers in regard to implementing the mathematics CCSS as reported by administrators? 4. What are the perceptions of the professional development needs of special education teachers in regard to implementing CCSS-aligned IEPs as reported by administrators? Methods An exploratory survey was employed to answer the research questions (Creswell, 2015). The self-administered, Web-based survey was crafted by incorporating both closed- and open-ended questions, and responses were collected over a 5-month period. Because this study was exploratory in nature, only descriptive results were collected and analyzed to describe the characteristics of the sample of administra- tors (Mertens, 2015). First, results of the forced-choice questions were analyzed. Next, open-ended responses were analyzed to further explain data based on cultural and social experiences of the administrators instead of the researcher’s experiences (Neuman, 2000). Participants Participants in this study represent a purposive sample in order to yield deeper information and unique perspective (Collins, 2010), as they represent administra- tors with direct responsibilities related to special education programs and teachers. Moreover, based on Crockett’s (2002) conceptual framework for special education administration, an implicit best practice assumption of the researcher was that participants would be those who “ensure that beneficial specialized programming and supports are provided for individuals with disabilities” (p. 162). Administrators were recruited via e-mail using a combined homogenous, snowball sampling technique (Mertens, 2015). The researcher first began by con- tacting five local special education and district administrators within her personal 61 Common Core Expertise for Special Education Teachers network. The purpose of the study and implications of the study were explained in the e-mail, and the e-mail included a hyperlink to the survey, which was adminis- tered via SurveyMonkey. A request to forward the e-mail to other relevant special education or district administrators who may have been within the network of the initial participant was also included in the e-mail. Additional participants were re- cruited at random through contact information posted on local southern California district Web sites. A total of 18 administrators participated, with a response rate of 23.5%, which included partial responses from the 61 administrators recruited. Of those 18, all answered the forced-choice survey questions, 16 answered open-ended questions 21–24, and 13 answered the final question regarding additional recommendations. Nine participants identified as special education directors, 3 identified as special education local plan area (SELPA) directors (i.e., a consortium of districts that pro- vides special education services), 4 identified as district-level administrators, and 2 identified as other administrator/coordinator, specialist. Participant identities were not obtained, and no other demographics about the administrators were collected. District Demographics Of the 1,022 school districts in California, this sample is representative of elementary school districts, a high school district, K–12 school districts, a SELPA office, and 2 county offices of education. Locations of the districts were predominantly within the southern California region, and two were from northern California. District size ranged from approximately 3,000 total students enrolled to nearly 80,000 total students enrolled. Reported demographics in Table 1 were collected through the California Department of Education’s (CDE) DataQuest Web site using 2014–2015 data. Instruments and Procedures A self-administered survey was created using SurveyMonkey. It consisted of 26 questions, with 20 required-response items and 1 optional item. The first item was consent to participate in the research. Items 2–4 obtained demographic information about the participants, which included administrative role, district type, and name of the district, so that special education and English language learner data could be obtained. Items 5–9 were forced-choice, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always) to examine frequency of collaboration and PD. A quantified range of occurrences was not specified for the choice options as there was no existing litera- ture available to draw from regarding suggested frequency of collaboration and PD. However, a 6-point scale was selected over a 5-point scale to allow for “never” and “always” extremes, given the varying roles of administrators in the sample and the varied contexts of the districts represented. Items 6–20 were forced-choice Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to examine agreement 62 Joanne M. Van Boxtel about implementation of CCSS. The last five questions were intentionally open ended to probe and illuminate more specific recommendations regarding Common Core expertise for special education and general education teachers. The self-administered instrument was designed using development principles Table 1 District Demographics District Region District Total Students receiving Students identified in type enrollment special education as English California services (%) learners (%) 1 South County 5,306 17.2 27.6 office 2 North K–12 18,610\ 10.5 22.2 3 North County 140 n/a** 26.4 office 4 South K–8 6,124 13.9 19.4 5 South K–12 29,028 11.4 16 6* South K–12 29,028 11.4 16 7 South Elem. & 22,521 10.2 40 middle 8 South K–12 14,532 8.3 11.3 9 South High 16,343 10.0 8.9 school 10 South Elem. 6,305 9.1 12.8 11 South K–12 3,074 9.6 4.3 12 South K–12 9,914 9.0 2.6 13 South Elem. 4,491 11.6 34.8 14 South K–12 34,170 12.6 23.1 15 South K–12 31,392 9.0 17.0 16 South SELPA n/a** n/a** n/a** 17 South K–12 42,339 11.0 17.2 18 South K–12 79,709 11.8 23 Note. SELPA = special education local plan area. *Participant also from District 5. **Data not obtainable from CDE DataQuest. 63 Common Core Expertise for Special Education Teachers set forth by Fowler (2014). Survey length was also a consideration in item devel- opment to be mindful of participants’ time. Draft items were field tested among colleagues to obtain critical feedback regarding wording of the questions. Analytic Techniques Quantitative data obtained from the forced-choice questions were analyzed first using basic descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviation. All 18 respondents completed all of the forced-choice options on the survey. Because Items 5 and 6 did not include specific reference to CCSS, they were omitted from the internal consistency reliability calculation. Internal consistency reliability was calculated using the split-half method of even and odd items 7–20 as a subscale of the instrument, because all of these items were related to CCSS-specific practices. Split-half reliability yielded a correlation coefficient of .87, which indicates good reliability of items measuring CCSS-specific practices. Cronbach’s alpha was .76 for all items, which is acceptable. Of the six open-ended questions, 16 respondents completed Items 21–25, and 10 respondents completed Item 26. Items 21–23 probed for further, specific sugges- tions regarding PD needs of special education and general education teachers. Items 24 and 25 probed further regarding essential CCSS instructional expertise, and Item 26 concluded with any other general recommendations regarding CCSS and special education. Mean and standard deviation were calculated for the forced-choice re- sponses. Because forced-choice options included a mix of frequency scale items and level of agreement scale items, no further statistical analysis was performed. Qualitative data obtained from the open-ended responses to three questions were analyzed second. Each response was first analyzed for in vivo codes from each respondent (Creswell & Clark, 2011). In vivo codes were then tallied for similarities and transformed into a table constructed by the researcher. Tallies were totaled and in vivo codes were analyzed for redundancies to develop general themes for each research question (e.g., ELA PD, math PD, IEP PD). To establish reliability, the researcher invited a peer to examine the original responses and the coded tables and themes developed by the researcher. Level of agreement on coding themes between this researcher and the second scorer was 100%. Member checks of the major themes for the three research questions were also communicated to 17 of the 18 participants via e-mail. Participants were invited to respond to the e-mail if they did not agree with the general themes and were asked to provide feedback if the themes were not an accurate representation of their comments. No administrators reported that the themes were inaccurate. Results Professional Development and Collaboration The first research question asked, “How frequently is professional development 64 Joanne M. Van Boxtel and collaboration regarding CCSS occurring for general and special education teachers as reported by administrators?” Items examining PD were Items 7 (PD in ELA), 8 (PD in Math), and 9 (PD in CCSS-aligned IEPs). Analysis of the means and standard deviations for these items revealed that special education teachers are receiving more PD in ELA and math content than they are receiving PD in develop- ing CCSS-aligned IEPs, with means and standard deviations for these items at 3.83 (SD = 0.96), 3.56 (SD = 0.90), and 3.28 (SD = 1.10), respectively. Administrators rated PD in ELA as the most frequent topic of PD for special education teachers. These data suggest that, overall, administrators perceive that special education teachers are sometimes receiving PD related to CCSS. Regarding collaboration with general education teachers, analysis of means and standard deviations of Items 5 and 6 also revealed that collaboration between general education and special education teachers in ELA is occurring sometimes with a mean of 3.67 (SD = 1.25) and that collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers in mathematics is also occurring sometimes with a mean of 3.44 (SD = 1.34). Results of these data suggest that collaboration between special education and general education teachers occurs slightly more frequently in ELA. A summary of results is presented in Table 2. Common Core Instructional Expertise Research Questions 2 and 3 explored Common Core instructional expertise in ELA and math. Several items were designed to answer these question to examine recommendations in the literature and level of agreement by current administrators. The items included those examining proficiency in (a) implementing the “instruction shifts” of ELA and math (Items 10 and 11), (b) teaching the CCSS standards in ELA and math (Items 12 and 13), (c) adapting the CCSS standards (Items 14 and 15), (d) implementing response to intervention (RTI) in ELA and math (Items 16 and 17), (e) implementing evidence-based practices (Item 18), and (f) constructing learning targets for CCSS-based instruction (Item 20). Lowest scoring items regarding CCSS expertise were items regarding pro- ficiency in implementing RTI in ELA (Item 16) and math (Item 17). Both items averaged 3.89 (SD = 1.05). These results reveal that administrators in the sample neither agree nor disagree that special education teachers need to be proficient in RTI for both content areas. Two additional items with the same mean of 4.28 were Items 12 and 13, which explored proficiency in teaching CCSS in ELA and math. Analysis of these items reveals agreement that special education teachers need to be proficient in teaching CCSS in ELA and math. When it comes to proficiency in adapting the grade-level CCSS in ELA and math, there is even stronger agreement with both Items 14 and 15 among the highest scoring items with means at 4.72 (SD = 0.93). Regarding constructing learning targets for CCSS-based instruction, adminis- 65 Common Core Expertise for Special Education Teachers trators agreed that special education teachers need to be proficient with a mean of 4.33 (SD = 0.94) for Item 20. Among the highest scoring items were those exploring implementing the “instructional shifts” of CCSS in ELA and math. Administrators agreed that special education teachers need proficiency in these practices with both items averaging 4.72 (SD = 0.93). Finally, administrators in the sample also agreed that special education teachers need to be proficient in implementing evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, which was examined with Item 18 (mean 4.72, SD = 0.93). CCSS-Aligned IEPs The item that examined proficiency in developing CCSS-aligned IEP goals yielded a mean of 4.30 (SD = 1.06). This suggests that administrators agree that special education teachers need to be skilled in this area. These results are presented in Table 3. Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Items Examining Frequency of Professional Development and Collaboration: Low to High Scoring Item M (SD) 9. Considering professional development aligning IEPs to CCSS for your special education teachers, how often are special education teachers receiving professional development in developing CCSS-aligned IEPs? 3.28 (1.10) 6. Taking into account collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers in your school/district, where both general and special education teachers are working together in the same classroom, how often is collaboration currently occurring in mathematics? 3.44 (1.34) 8. Considering professional development in CCSS for your special education teachers, how often are special education teachers receiving professional development in math content? 3.56 (.90) 5. Taking into account collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers in your school/district, where both general and special education teachers are working together in the same classroom, how often is collaboration currently occurring in English language arts (ELA). 3.67 (1.25) 7. Considering professional development in CCSS for your special education teachers, how often are special education teachers receiving professional development in ELA content? 3.83 (.96) Note. 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). 66