1. Personnel Preparation in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education: An Overview of Credentialing, Training and Technical Assistance, and Provider Perspectives Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D. University of Connecticut Vicki Stayton, Ph.D. Western Kentucky University Cristina Mogro-Wilson, Ph.D. University of Connecticut Barbara J. Smith, Ph.D. University of Colorado at Denver Sylvia Dietrich, Ph.D. Western Kentucky University.

2. Information gathered will be utilized to identify critical gaps in current knowledge and design and conduct a program of research at the national, state, institutional and direct provider level to address these gaps. This program of research and policy formulation will yield information vital to developing policies and practices at all levels of government, including institutions of higher education. The Center to Inform Personnel Preparation and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education A five-year project established in January, 2003 and funded by the Office of Special Education Programs.

3. The Center’s Goals  To compile a comprehensive database of current licensure and certification standards for all EI/ECSE personnel.  To develop a comprehensive profile of current training programs for all types of personnel at the institutional, state, and national levels.  To describe the current and projected supply and demand for personnel.  To design and conduct a program of research to identify critical gaps in current knowledge regarding personnel preparation.  To develop and disseminate recommendations regarding personnel preparation policy and practice based on research findings.

4. The Center’s Purpose The purpose of this Center is to collect, synthesize and analyze information related to: certification and licensure requirements for personnel working with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who have special needs and their families, the quality of training programs that prepare these professionals, and the supply and demand of professionals representing all disciplines who provide both ECSE and EI services.

5. The Center’s Projects Study I: The National Landscape of Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Study II: The Higher Education Survey for Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Personnel Preparation Study III: The Analysis of Federally Funded Doctoral Programs in Early Childhood Special Education Study IV: The Impact of Credentials on Early Intervention Personnel Preparation (Credentialing Part C) Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619) Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers

6. Three Research Strands Research Strand I: Preservice/ Higher Education Research Strand II: Personnel Standards Research Strand III: Inservice/ Ongoing Training

7. Research Strand I: Preservice/Higher Education Status Study II: Higher Education Profile Study III: Doctoral Programs Profile Study IV: ECSE Programs Child/Family Outcomes Student Outcomes for ECSE Programs and Subsequent Practice Outcomes Collaborative Doctoral Program

8. Research Strand II: Personnel Standards Status Study I: Part C & 619 Profile Study IV: Part C Credentials Study V: 619 ECSE Certification Requirements Child/Family Outcomes Part C Credential/Outcomes

9. Research Strand III: Inservice/ Ongoing Training Status Study VI: Profile of State Technical Assistance and Training Networks Study VII: National Study of Competence and Confidence Child/Family Outcomes Comparisons of Professional Development Models

10. Overview of Today’s Presentation Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619)

11. Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators

12. Background: Study VI Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators The status of state-level training and technical assistance (TA) systems for early intervention/early childhood providers has not been systematically collected or organized. The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the current personnel preparation systems for EI/ECSE professionals in each state. Systems that provide and maintain effective and comprehensive personnel preparation and development will serve as models for national standards.

13. Methodology Part C and 619 coordinators were contacted to complete the survey via phone with trained interviewers. Survey consists of 31 discrete and open-ended questions about funding, delivery methods, content, needs assessment, quality assurance, and other areas pertaining to training and TA. Target sample was all 50 states, D.C., Virgin Islands & Puerto Rico Part C (n=51) 619 (n=45)

14. Definition of a Training System A systematic, sustainable approach to professional development that has: 1. dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-item; 2. staffing; 3. a dedicated agency that is responsible for the provision of the training; 4. policies or procedures for determining professional development expectations; 5. has training content; 6. quality assurance; 7. identifies and measures outcomes; 8. provides on-going, needs based professional development that is provided over-time; 9. a structure for the delivery of content (training modules, etc.), and 10. has work-place applicability.

15. Definition of Technical Assistance A system of technical assistance include all components as applied to TA: 1. dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-item; 2. staffing; 3. a dedicated agency that is responsible for the provision of the TA; 4. policies or procedures for determining professional development expectations; 5. has TA content; 6. quality assurance; 7. identifies and measures outcomes; 8. has work-place applicability; 9. provides ongoing TA; and 10. individualized professional development and problem-solving services to assist individuals, programs, and agencies in improving their services, management, policies, and/or outcomes.

16. Training and Technical Assistance by State: Part C When asked, 39 states reported having a training system Based on the definition of training applied by research staff to survey answers: 20 states (39%) had a training system When asked, 43 states reported having a technical assistance system Based on the definition of technical assistance applied by research staff to survey answers: 12 states (23%) had a technical assistance system

17. Part C: States with No Training System 31 states did not have a training system based on the definition  23 states did not have quality assurance measures  21 states did not identify and measure outcomes of the training  8 did not have policies to identify professional development needs

18. Part C: States with No TA System 39 states did not have a technical assistance system based on the definition 30 states did not have procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes 23 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance systems

19. Training and Technical Assistance by State: Section 619 When asked 35 reported having a training system Based on the training system definition applied by research staff to survey questions 23 states (58%) had a training system When asked, 23 reported having a technical assistance system Based on the technical assistance system definition applied by research staff to survey questions 20 states (42%) had a technical assistance system

20. Section 619: States with No Training System 22 states did not have a training system based on the definition 13 states did not meet the qualifications of a training system because they did not have methods of identifying and measuring outcomes 11 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their training systems 7 states did not provide trainings overtime

21. Section 619: States with No TA System 25 states did not have a technical assistance system based on the definition 17 of the states did not meet the qualifications of a system because they lacked procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes. 17 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance system 12 states lacked policies to identify technical assistance needs within their technical assistance system.

22. Conclusions Findings indicate the organizational structures within states vary greatly. Systems tend to be accessible throughout the states and target multiple disciplines. The most commonly offered training topics include Federal Regulations and agency-specific policies and procedures, transition, inclusion, child and family outcome measurements, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. The majority of training is provided through workshops and conferences; however, a growing number of states are using or developing distance learning methods. Determining training/TA needs, evaluation, and quality assurance pose challenges for states. Results indicate that there is a need for greater systemization of these processes.

23. Study VII: Competence & Confidence of Early Interventionist/Early Childhood Special Educators

24. Background The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the level of confidence and competence of personnel working with infants and toddlers with special needs and their families.

25. Methodology State coordinators of service providers were contacted and asked to forward the link to the online survey to service providers working with children ages birth to 5 with disabilities.  Approximately 27,700 e-mails were sent to direct providers  A total of 1,819 individuals completed the survey  Providers working with children birth to three: 1,084 in 44 states  Providers working with children three to five: 735 in 38 states The survey consists of 47 questions to assess the competence and confidence of service providers in the following areas:  Family-Centered Practice  Assessment and Evaluation  IFSP Indicators  Instructional Practice  Natural Learning Environmental  Collaboration and Teaming  Early Literacy Learning

26. Factor Analysis A preliminary exploration of the Competence and Confidence survey was performed using the principal component analysis (PCA) procedure.  All survey items were considered, with the exception of those related to early language and literacy.  Four principal component analyses were run on six items each.  Three of the four scales produced single factor solutions: competence and confidence regarding process items and competence regarding intervention items.  A single factor second order solution representing confidence regarding intervention items was produced.  Each of the four scales had good internal consistency, with Carmines Theta ranging from 0.6266 to 0.7952

27. Survey Participant Characteristics Providers Birth to Three Sample Size: n = 1,084 Demographics:  female (98%)  white (93%)  Age: 14% < 30 yrs. 26% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 30% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 31% > 51 yrs Educational Attainment:  BA 33%  High School or AA 1%  MA 63%  PhD 3% Providers Three to Five Sample Size: n = 735 Demographics:  female (97%)  white (94%)  Age: 13% < 30 yrs. 25% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 28% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 33% > 51 yrs Educational Attainment:  High School or AA 1%  BA 26%  MA 70%  PhD 3%

28. Survey Participant Characteristics Most practitioners (80%) report not getting the training they need to work with children with disabilities through higher education programs. Only 50% of respondents report being required by their state to complete specialized training to work with children above and beyond their professional licensure/certification requirements.

29. Method of Training

30. Survey Participant Characteristics Type of licensure or certification Providers birth to three: Education 53%, therapy 40%, and other 22% Providers three to five: Education 84%, therapy 22%, and other 8%

31. Overview: Providers Birth to Five

32. Family-Centered Practice Question0-33-5 I am able to get the families I work with to obtain supports and resources on their own 88 Families recognize and use their strengths to improve child outcomes because of how I work with them 2516 Getting families to talk to me about what is important for them to accomplish comes easy to me 5557 I am pretty sure that the families I work with will become more empowered because of my work with them 5539 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

33. Assessment & Evaluation Question0-33-5 I am able to “hit the mark” every time in terms of identifying children’s strengths and needs 4044 I am especially proficient at helping parents identify their children’s and families’ needs and concerns 4249 I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning 6259 I feel sure that my assessments of children’s capabilities are accurate 6264 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

34. IFSP/IEP Question0-33-5 The children with whom I work achieve the majority of their IFSP outcomes in six months or less 1231 I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves 3316 Writing IFSP outcomes that are functional and meaningful child behavior is a breeze 2726 It is easy for me to know which child and parent IFSP outcomes are most important to the families I work with 5345 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

35. Instructional Practices Question0-33-5 Because of my efforts, parents and other caregivers are better able to use responsive instructional practices with their children 2520 My efforts getting parents and other caregivers to promote child engagement with people and objects are very successful 2845 It is easy for me to get parents and other caregivers to use prompting and prompt fading procedures with their children 1558 It makes me feel good when I see parents using child- initiated and child-directed learning activities 9077 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

36. Natural Learning Environments Question0-33-5 I am able to get parents I work with to use everyday family and community activities as sources of child learning opportunities 2536 I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning 3124 I find parents’ use of natural child learning opportunities that we identified together professionally rewarding 6656 I feel that the children I work with benefit a great deal from everyday informal learning opportunities 7275 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

37. Collaboration & Teaming Question0-33-5 I am able to successfully implement interdisciplinary interventions taught to me by professionals from other disciplines 4953 Jointly planning and implementing interventions with other professionals insures that the children I work with get the right kind of practices 6872 Helping other team members do what I do best (role release) makes me feel good about the interventions children and families receive 5871 I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves 3733 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

38. Early Literacy Learning Question0-33-5 I make sure I help parents and other caregivers understand and use emergent literacy learning activities with their children 4140 I am able to get parents to understand why parent/child sound and word games are important for children’s early literacy learning 2622 I am pretty good at helping parents provide their children early literacy learning experiences 4950 Including pre-reading and pre-writing outcomes on children’s IFSP/IEPs comes natural to me 2539 % Reporting Almost always & All of the time First 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence

39. Conclusions A more comprehensive training model for personnel working with young children with disabilities Using training methods that we know work for adult learners Despite reported training needs, practitioners show many areas of strength in supporting children with disabilities and their families:  Family-Centered Practices  Assessment & Evaluation  Collaboration & Teaming  Instructional Practices

40. Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators

41. State Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators Research Questions 1. What are the certification requirements for Early childhood Special Educators? 2. What factors influence the type of certification that is developed? 3. How is the content of certification developed? 4. What are the facilitators and barriers to developing and implementing certification? 5. How do state’s certification requirements compare to national personnel standards?

42. Certification Definitions Certification – the set of regulated requirements that lead to initial preparation in ECSE Endorsement – the set of regulated requirements that are in addition to the requirements for a specific certification (e.g., ECE, SPE) Blended ECE and ECSE – the set of regulated requirements that lead to initial preparation in both ECE and ECSE through a single certification

43. Methodology Web searches Telephone interviews

44. Sample Part B 619 coordinators  50 states  District of Columbia Response rate - Telephone interviews (n=37, 73%) - Certification tables (n=38, 75%)

45. State’s Participating ArizonaIndianaMontanaTennessee ArkansasIowaNebraskaVermont CaliforniaKentuckyNevadaVirginia ColoradoLouisianaNew Hampshire Washington ConnecticutMaineNew JerseyWest Virginia DelawareMarylandNew YorkWisconsin FloridaMassachusettsNorth DakotaWyoming GeorgiaMichiganOhio HawaiiMinnesotaOklahomaIdaho – table only IllinoisMississippiOregon

46. Certification Models – States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%) Certification Modeln% ECSE1350 ECSE endorsement623 Blended ECE & ECSE312 Special education28 ECSE & Special Education Endorsement 14 ECE & Special Education Endorsement 14

47. Age Ranges – States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%) Age Rangen% Birth – 5 years830 Birth – 8 years415 3-5 years415 Birth – 6 years14 Birth – grade 214 3-20 years14 Birth – grade 414 Birth – grade 614 3 years – Grade 214 3 years – Grade 314 3 years – Grade 1214

48. Content Requirements– States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%) Content Requirementsn% Standards or Competencies2077 Course-Driven311.5 None identified311.5

49. Certification Models – States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=12, 32%) Certification Modeln% Blended ECE & ECSE – 2 age ranges217 ECSE; ECSE endorsement217 Blended ECE & ECSE; 2 ECSE endorsements18 Blended ECE & ECSE 2 age ranges; ECSE endorsement 18 ECSE; ECE18

50. Certification Models – States with Multiple Certification Routes (Cont.) Certification Modeln% ECSE, ECSE endorsement; Special Education18 ECSE – 3 age ranges; ECSE endorsement - 2 age ranges; Special Education 18 ECSE; Special Education18 Special Education-Severe/Profound; Special Education–Mild/Moderate 18

51. Age Ranges – States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=9 age ranges) Age Rangen% Birth – 5 years889 3 - 8 years (grade 3)556 Birth – 8 years (grade 3)556 P-grade 12444 3 - 5 years333 Birth – grade 2222 Birth – 4 years111 3 years – grade 5111 5 – 21 years111

52. Content Requirements– States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=12, 32%) Content Requirementn% Standards or Competencies975 Standards or Competencies for 1 Model, None for 2 Models 18.3 Standards or Competencies for 4 Models, None for 2 Models 18.3 None Identified18.3

53. Requirements for Induction to the Field (n=25, 66%) Induction Requirementsn% Mentorship - One year1232 Mentorship – Two years411 Mentorship – Three years25 Mentorship – Years not specified13 Mentorship–1 Yr, Courses, Seminars13 Mentorship and PD Plan13 Mentorship, PD Plan, Portfolio13 Individualized with LEA and IHE13 Pass state performance assessment13 None specified13

54. Alternative Routes to Certification (n=20, 53%) Coursework in a specified timeframe Collaborative program with IHE/LEA Coursework and supervised teaching Portfolio review PD plan with oral and written exams Certification exam 90 clock hours of training, one year internship, relevant PRAXIS II

55. Certification Requirements and University Programs – Degree Level Degree Leveln% Baccalaureate3592 Baccalaureate or Post- Baccalaureate (endorsements) 821 Post-Baccalaureate411

56. Certification Requirements and University Programs – Admission Requirements (n=38) Admission Requirementn% PRAXIS I exam 1847 None specified 821 IHE determined 718 State developed exam 513

57. Certification Requirements and University Programs – Certification Exams (n=27, 71%) Certification Examn% PRAXIS II1745 State developed924 PRAXIS II and state developed13

58. Certification Requirements and University Programs – Accountability (n=38) Accountability System/Processn% State review and accreditation1539 National accreditation – NCATE38 National and state accreditation25 National or state accreditation13 Informal meetings to discuss25 Don’t know411 No response1129

59. PRAXIS II Exams Required by States (17 states) PRAXIS II Examn*% Special Education: Preschool/Early Childhood529 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge635 Special Education: Knowledge-Based Core Principles16 Special Education: Application of Core Principles Across Categories of Disability (Exceptional Children 1-8) 212 Exceptional Needs: Mild Intervention16 Education of Young Children318 Early Childhood Education212 Elementary Education: Content Knowledge318 Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment212 Reading Across the Curriculum: Elementary16 Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6212

60. Rationale for ECSE Certification - Themes National and state policies Changes or trends in the field Depth of content knowledge and skills for adequate preparation

61. Rationale for ECSE Endorsement - Themes Legislative mandates Political climate in the state

62. Rationale for Blended ECE and ECSE Certification - Themes Inclusion/least restrictive environment Collaboration Professionalism

63. Rationale for Special Education Certification - Theme Supply and demand - Rural states - Primarily itinerant model of services - Maintaining the status quo

64. Rationale for Two Endorsements (ECSE or ECE and Special Education)- Themes Inclusion Adequate preparation to teach preschool

65. Rationale for Multiple Models of Certification - Theme Flexibility in staffing within community programs

66. Certification Development Process - Themes Committees with representation from relevant stakeholder groups Statewide input into the proposal Articulation between 2 & 4 year IHEs Too long ago to “remember”

67. Development of Certification Content - Themes Review of professional standards and recommended practices of professional organizations Review of other states’ standards Review of other certification & regulations specific to ECE programs Review of research and literature

68. Certification Development: Facilitators and Supports - Themes Financial support Legislative mandates Systemic supports Demand from the field Higher education support

69. Certification Development: Barriers - Themes Systemic barriers Philosophical barriers Supply and demand Programmatic concerns

70. Certification Implementation: Facilitators and Supports - Themes Financial supports Systemic supports Professionalization of the field

71. Certification Implementation: Barriers - Themes Systemic barriers Programmatic barriers IHE related barriers

72. Comparison of State Standards with National Standards Conducted policy analysis of states’ standards Sample: 17 states that represent all 5 certification models Inter rater reliability: 3 senior investigators compared 3 state policies to national standards with inter rater reliability of.64 (range.53-.70) Method: 1 senior investigator compared States’ certification standards to CEC (common core and early childhood special education) and NAEYC standards

73. Comparison of State Standards with National Standards – Issues Limited use of national standards (4 out of 18 sets of standards met 80% or better) Lack of specificity in wording – open to interpretation of reader Inconsistency in depth of wording specific to ECE and ECSE Identification of and access to the necessary documents Potential for inconsistent application of national (e.g. CEC, DEC, NAEYC, NCATE) standards in IHE program

74. Percentage of CEC Standards Met by State (Coded 1-17)

75. Percent of CEC Standards Met by Each State (Arranged by Certification Model) ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg EdEarly Childhood Special Education (ECSE)Special Education (SPED) Blended ECSE and ECECSE Endorsement on SPED

76. Percentage of CEC Common Core and Early Childhood Standards Met by Each State

77. Percentage of NAEYC Standards Met by States (Coded)

78. Percent of NAEYC Standards Met by Each State (Arranged by Certification Model) ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg Ed Blended

79. More Information http://www.uconnucedd.org/ http://www.uconnucedd.org/per_prep_center/publications.html Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service University of Connecticut Health Center 263 Farmington Ave, MC-6222 Farmington, CT 06030 (860) 679-1500

80. Contact Information Mary Beth Bruder 860-679-1500 bruder@nso1.uchc.edu Vicki Stayton 270-745-3450 vicki.stayton@wku.edu Cristina Mogro-Wilson 860-679-1500 cmwilson@uchc.edu Barbara Smith 303-556-3324 barbara.smith@cudenver.edu Sylvia Dietrich 270-745-2317 sylvia.dietrich@wku.edu