Lyndal M. Bullock University of North Texas Mandy E. Lusk Wichita State University

1. Teachers of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders:Perceptions of Professional Standards of Practice Lyndal M. Bullock University of North Texas Mandy E. Lusk Wichita State University Presented at the Conference of the Teacher Education Division of CEC, Grand Rapids, MI, November 2012

2. Challenges in Teacher Preparation Alleged criticisms • Too much emphasis on pedagogy and not enough on teacher standards • Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) personnel too detached from classroom realities • Insufficient “practice” opportunities in preparation programs In general, IHEs are blamed for poor teacher performance

3. Challenges for Change • 1983 – “A Nation at Risk” alleged that our schools were not providing quality education for children • Other challenges to propel change • NCLB (2001) • Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008)

4. Challenges for Change Special Education has its own challenges • Teacher quality (fully certified vs. alternative routes) • Teacher retention • High quality personnel preparation programs

5. Standards for Personnel Preparation Programs • The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) provides standards—knowledge/skills–-needed by personnel who provide services to students with exceptionalities. • See What Every Special Educator Must Know

6. Standards for Personnel Preparation Programs • #1: Foundations of Special Education • #2: Development and Characteristics of Learners • #3: Individual Learning Differences • #4: Instructional Strategies • #5: Learning Environment/Social Interactions • #6: Language • #7: Instructional Planning • #8: Assessment • #9: Professional and Ethical Practice • #10: Collaboration

7. Graduates of One Master’s Programin Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) • Purpose of the Study • To determine how graduates who completed a NCATE and CEC approved master’s program specializing in EBD from one university, perceive the importance of CEC standards in working with students with EBD • To determine how graduates perceive their proficiency in using CEC standards when working with students with EBD

8. Research Questions • How do graduates perceive the importance of CEC standards in their work with students with EBD? • How do graduates perceive their level of proficiency of using CEC standards in their work with students with EBD? • What is the relationship, if any, between graduates’ level of perceived proficiency and the perceived importance of CEC standards?

9. Research Questions • To what extent do specific variables (i.e., years of teaching experience, position graduates currently held, graduates’ feelings about working with students with EBD, graduates’ feelings of causal factors) predict graduates’ perceptions of the importance of the CEC standards? • To what extent do specific variables (i.e., years of teaching experience, position graduates currently held, graduates’ feelings about working with students with EBD, graduates’ feelings of causal factors) predict graduates’ perceptions of their proficiency using CEC standards?

10. Selection of participants • Participants are graduates from a selected master’s degree program in special education with a focus on teaching students with EBD. • The names and addresses for 230 graduates of the master’s degree program from 1990 to 2011 were accessed through university databases. • A letter from the coordinator of the EBD program was sent to all 230 program graduate introducing the study and soliciting their online contact information. As of this date, 170 graduates responded to the requestand have received the survey. • 127 respondents attempted the survey - 21 surveys were not included in the data analyses due to excessive missing data (≥ 15%) • The participants’ response rate to the survey was 62%.

11. Instrumentation and data collection procedures • The survey instrument was developed utilizing the CEC standards and knowledge and skills statements for the preparation of teachers of students with EBD as delineated by the CEC (2009). • Part one: Demographic data • Part two: Nine CEC standards for professional practice followed by four knowledge and skills statements.

12. Graduate Survey in Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

13. Data analysis • Demographic Data Selected demographic data will be quantified (e.g., geographic setting: rural = 1, suburban = 2, urban = 3) • Responses to Survey Questions Responses will be quantified, based on the 4-point Likert Scale (e.g., “very important” = 1, “important” = 2… and “very well prepared” = 1, “adequately prepared” = 2…) Each response will be coded to the corresponding CEC standards • PASW Statistics 19 software

14. Data analysis • A reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha will be conducted at the conclusion of the data collection (Cronbach, 1953). • Preliminary Analyses * Pearson Product Moment Correlation * Crosstabulations with Pearson chi square analyses * MANOVAs

15. Data analysis Primary Analyses • Research Questions 1 and 2 – descriptive analyses (i.e., means and standard deviations) • Research Question 3 – Pearson Product Moment Correlation for each of the 9 standards • Research Question 4 – multiple linear regression (formula) • Research Question 5 - multiple linear regression (formula)

16. Multiple Linear Regression Formula for RQ#4 The regression formula is ŷ = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + constant Where: ŷ= graduates’ perceptions of importance of CEC standards x1 = years of teaching experience x2= position graduates currently hold x3 = graduates’ feelings about working with EBD students x4 = graduates’ feelings of causal factors

17. Multiple Linear Regression Formula for RQ#5 The regression formula is ŷ = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + constant Where: ŷ= graduates’ perceptions of their proficiency of CEC standards x1 = years of teaching experience x2 = position graduates currently hold x3 = graduates’ feelings about working with EBD students x4 = graduates’ feelings of causal factors

18. Results • RQ1: Respondents rated overall perceived Importance as 3 or above, meaning that all respondents rated their perceived Importance of Standards as important or very important. • RQ2: Respondents rated overall perceived Proficiency in using CEC standards as 3 or above, meaning that all respondents rated their perceived Proficiency as important or very important.

19. Results • RQ3: Majority of respondents who had higher scores ratings on their perceived Importance tended to have higher ratings on their perceived Proficiency scores for the CEC standards. • All of ratings were positive relationships

20. Results Added significant covariates from the preliminary analyses • RQ4: The multiple regression model did not predict the graduates’ perceived Importance in using the CEC standards; however, graduates’ years of teaching experience with students with EBD shows to be the most significant predictor.

21. Results Added significant covariates from the preliminary analyses • RQ5: The overall multiple regression model did not predict the graduates’ perceived Proficiency in using the CEC standards except for • Standard Two of Proficiency: Development and Characteristics of Learners, which had significant predictors (total years teaching experience [negative], feelings about working with students with EBD, years teaching experience with students with EBD) • Standard Three of Proficiency: Individual Learning Differences was significant (however, no significant predictors)

22. Implications • These participants are the most viable references for this study • Contradicting to what the literature speaks to (Brownell et al., 2005; Carlson, 1996), these participants felt well-prepared in using the CEC standards with their work with students with EBD. Meaning, teacher preparation programs are preparing effective teachers • Multiple linear regression showed that years teaching experience with students with EBD would be a significant predictor for both models, meaning teacher preparation programs may need to add longer field experience placements et cetera

23. Recommendations • Replicate this study (i.e., various teacher preparation programs, assortment of disability categories, current/former employers) • Qualitative data – focus groups, semi-structured interviews, observation field notes • One time versus over time (do their perceptions change over time?)

24. Thank you for your participation! Questions/Comments

25. References • Adera, B. A., & Bullock, L. M. (2010). Job stressors and teacher job satisfaction in programs serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(1), 5–14. • Bullock, L. M., Ellis, L. L., & Wilson, M. J. (1998). Knowledge/skills needed by teachers who work with students with severe emotional/behavioral disorders: A revisitation. In L.M. Bullock, R.A. Gable, & R. B. Rutherford, Jr. (Eds.),Preparation of teachers of students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Reston, A: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. • Council for Exceptional Children. (1995). What every special educator must know: The international standards for preparation and certification of special education teachers. (1st ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. • Council for Exceptional Children. (1996). What every special educator must know: The international standards for preparation and certification of special education teachers. (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. • Council for Exceptional Children. (1998). What every special educator must know: The international standards for preparation and certification of special education teachers. (3rd ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. • Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). What every special educator must know: The standards for preparation and licensure of special educators. (4th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. • Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators. (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. • Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). What every special educator must know: Ethics, Standards, and Guidelines. (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

26. References • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Partnership. (2011). Topics database: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Public law 108-446, 108thCongress (2004). National Commission on Excellence and Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperatives for educational reform. Washington, DC; U.S. Government Printing Office. • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008). • Prater, M. A., & Sileo, T. W. (2004). Fieldwork requirements in special education preparation: A national study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 251–263. • Rosenberg, M. S., Sindelar, P. T., & Hardman, M. L. (2004). Preparing highly qualified teachers for students with emotional or behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA. Behavioral Disorders, 29(3), 266–278. • Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 8-24 • U. S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary’s annual report on teacher quality • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (March, 2010). The Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act: A Blueprint for Reform. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publicationtoc.html