View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Inclusive Educator Licensure Pathway to Meet the Educational Needs of All Students: Dual Residence Education Action Model

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Inclusive Educator Licensure Pathway to Meet the Educational Needs of All Students: Dual Residence Education Action Model
Language: English
Authors: Banks, Tachelle, Andrei, Elena, Dohy, Jennifer
Source: Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue. 2019 21(1-2):21-35.
Availability: IAP - Information Age Publishing, Inc. P.O. Box 79049, Charlotte, NC 28271-7047. Tel: 704-752-9125; Fax: 704-752-9113; e-mail: infoage@infoagepub.com; Web site: https://www.infoagepub.com/series/Curriculum-and-Teaching-Dialogue
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Education Programs, Teacher Certification, Inclusion, Early Childhood Education, Special Education, English (Second Language), English Language Learners, Second Language Instruction, Immigrants, Teacher Competencies, At Risk Students, Graduate Study, Culturally Relevant Education, Partnerships in Education, Student Diversity, Teacher Collaboration, Social Responsibility, Family Involvement, Student Centered Learning
Geographic Terms: Ohio (Cleveland)
ISSN: 1538-750X
Abstract: "The Dual Residence Education Action Model" (DREAM) is conceptualized as an inclusive educator preparation program. "Project DREAM" intends to prepare teachers with knowledge, skills, and experience in early childhood, special education, and teaching English to speakers of other languages. English learners are a growing school population in the United States, increasingly overrepresented in special education, thus the need for "Project DREAM." This article shares the initial stages for the development of "Project DREAM's" core values, the standards crosswalk, and student learning outcomes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Access URL: https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Curriculum-and-Teaching-Dialogue-Vol-21
Accession Number: EJ1247301
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHE8D9eowX9vHT4oobfu6LBAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKmutPYr5iuYjGZ3CwIBEICBmmxZj_uiftM0miNSdlj46DnZWfdWH_tMrGWSx7evoV-N87HytaHvi_Ip4KfoDM68GLQYilm4gTM-imrAVjX2cykBLCbuXB597Ef9rMMs5sE82bsyHMZLLTCEowQ7gLIYGxMd_IMvsj0IOGT_ZZ83CN_ZMv9N8NQH7vvtHHlSJs5P-z2pLjBvHUyk9EVy4agDrft_ddsTtUKoPcw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0138405267;i4c01sep.19;2019Sep04.12:01;v2.2.500</anid> <jsection id="AN0138405267-1"> VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1</jsection> <title id="AN0138405267-2">AN INCLUSIVE EDUCATOR LICENSURE PATHWAY TO MEET THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS </title> <sbt id="AN0138405267-3">Dual Residence Education Action Model</sbt> <p>The Dual Residence Education Action Model (DREAM) is conceptualized as an inclusive educator preparation program. Project DREAM intends to prepare teachers with knowledge, skills, and experience in early childhood, special education, and teaching English to speakers of other languages. English learners are a growing school population in the United States, increasingly overrepresented in special education, thus the need for Project DREAM. This article shares the initial stages for the development of Project DREAM's core values, the standards crosswalk, and student learning outcomes.</p> <p></p> <p>The number of English Learners (ELs) has grown dramatically in U.S. schools, where a 50% increase of the EL population in at least one school district in each state was noted (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). For instance, the population of ELs in Ohio public schools nearly tripled between the 2000/01 and 2010/11 school years (Ohio Department of Education, 2012). In 2014–2015, 13% of U.S. students received special education services (U.S. Department of Education, 2017a) and 13.8% of the number of ELs nationwide were also identified as students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2017b). As classrooms increasingly become more inclusive, teachers are responsible for teaching all students, including students receiving special education services (Harris-Murri, King, & Rostenberg, 2006) and ELs (Wright, 2015). In this context, all content area teachers will have special education and ELs students in their classrooms, as such teachers should be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to teach students who require special education services and English language instruction. It is essential for institutions of higher learning to consider this need when preparing teacher candidates to be equipped to educate all students. Project DREAM intends to address this issue.</p> <p>Project DREAM is conceptualized as a resident educator preparation model for institutions of higher education (IHEs) across the nation by unifying the early childhood education (ECE) and the special education program– specifically, the Early Childhood Intervention Specialist (ECIS) and teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) programs. Completion of Project DREAM will result in dual license in ECE and ECIS, as well as a TESOL endorsement. Project DREAM's goal is to prepare candidates to teach in high need schools and districts where students with disabilities and language needs are most prevalent.</p> <hd id="AN0138405267-4">SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ENGLISH LEARNERS</hd> <p></p> <p>ELs may initially struggle in reading the English language due to discrepancies between first and second language literacy and age of arrival to the United States. Nearly 80% of the student population identified as having a reading disability are ELs (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2017). This over-representation may not be due to ELs having a disability, but rather, a lack of specialists who are familiar with and able to distinguish between learning disabilities and second language acquisition (Artiles & Klinger, 2006) to avoid incorrect classroom placements and identification (More, Spies, Morgan & Baker, 2016). Special education preparation programs must equip candidates with the knowledge and skills to educate ELs with and without disabilities while being concerned with overidentification (More, Spies, Morgan & Baker, 2016).</p> <p>Reasons teachers might refer ELs to special education services are complex and may include low academic expectations for ELs, lack of culturally responsive teaching, and lack of adequate teacher preparation (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2017). Distinguishing between second language learning stages and learning disabilities is no easy task (Klingner & Eppollito, 2011). When trying to refer ELs to special education services, teachers of ELs identify several barriers to successfully and accurately identifying ELs with disabilities through research-based interventions such as Response to Intervention (RTI) (Ferlis & Yaoying, 2016).</p> <p>There is a lack of research on ELs identified as requiring special education services (Artiles & Klinger, 2006) or on the effectiveness of RTI approaches for ELs. Universal screening and teachers' knowledge and skills about ELs and their needs and characteristics are essential (Vaughn & Ortiz, 2011). Teachers who are not trained in how to teach ELs do not seem to be implementing the RTI model in a way that benefits ELs, where a deficit-oriented view dominates the discourse (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Adherence to the RTI model could be useful in minimizing an overrepresentation of ELs in special education by taking into consideration their culture and language barriers (Harris-Murri, King, & Rostenberg, 2006). Special education teachers who have been prepared to teach ELs with learning disabilities (LDs) in their classroom can engage their students in reading interventions by using culturally responsive practices (Orosco & O'Connor, 2014). Collecting information about ELs, their language, learning history, and environment using a collaborative model comprised of teachers, specialists, and administrators may lead to identifying better individualized interventions for ELs (Hamayan, Marler, & Sánchez-López, & Damico, 2013). Hamayan et al. (2013) argue for identifying what works for individual students before referring them to special education or considering a language acquisition issue.</p> <hd id="AN0138405267-5">EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAMS</hd> <p></p> <p>New teachers need rigorous clinical preparation if they are to become confident and effective professionals. Clearly, educator preparation programs (EPPs) have been challenged to refine preservice teachers' attitudes toward diverse student populations (Case & Hemmings, 2005; Gay, 2018). EPPs are confronted with the challenge of preparing a cadre of predominantly White, middle-class, and female prospective teachers to successfully work with an increasingly diverse population of students (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Galman, Pica-Smith, & Rosenberger, 2010), and a major issue confronting America's schools is the lack of teachers capable of successfully teaching in diverse settings (Villegas, 2007; Weisman & Hansen, 2008). Earlier, Ladson-Billings (2001) urged EPPs to begin to examine ways to align their preparation with social and political changes taking place in K–12 institutions.</p> <p>Well-articulated programs are needed, whereby issues of cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversities are examined throughout the entire teacher and leadership preparation curriculum instead of in specialized courses (Villegas, 2007; Zeichner & Hoeft, 1996). EPPs must have a rigorous, research-based curriculum that requires candidates to understand differences in student learning across disciplines instead of relying on one "disconnected course, which often serves as the only exposure preservice teachers have to witness how students learn" (Blackwell, 2003, p. 363).</p> <p>The difficulties of changing teacher education, however, should not be mistaken with impossibilities (Ladson-Billings, 2001). Consequently, it is crucial for EPPs to challenge not only the teaching of academic skills necessary to increase students' learning, but also the provision of multiple experiences requiring candidates to critically examine issues of culture, linguistic diversity, poverty, and social justice (Obiakor, Grant, & Obi, 2010). This type of reform offers the best hope for EPPs and informed the conceptualization of Project DREAM, which is a clinical model in which content from different teaching licensure areas is integrated and blended.</p> <hd id="AN0138405267-6">CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE PROGRAM</hd> <p></p> <p>Project DREAM, an educator preparation graduate program at the University of this study, will prepare teachers with knowledge, skills, and experience in ECE, ECIS, and TESOL. Project DREAM is conceptualized to address the overrepresentation of ELs in special education by preparing teachers to teach both special education and ELs in an inclusive mainstream early childhood classroom. By using the term inclusive education, Project DREAM makes a commitment to classrooms, instruction, assessment and services offered to all students who are diverse on a variety of levels (Oyler, 2011).</p> <p>Project DREAM is positioned to become a resident EPP that hopes to address the problem of overrepresentation of ELs in special education and the call for a new approach in accountability in teacher education (see Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). Project DREAM is a dual license clinically-based program that may produce classroom ready teachers who can bridge the gap between special education and TESOL. The goals of Project DREAM are, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) to promote a transformative model for developing teachers through the collaborative efforts of EPPs and school-based practitioners and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) to graduate classroom ready teachers who can teach and create inclusive classroom environments for early childhood students with a variety of characteristics. The unique combination of knowledge and skills Project DREAM teachers will acquire from ECE, ECIS, and TESOL could better position teachers to serve in classrooms with students with diverse needs, and address the overrepresentation of ELs identified as having a disability. Project DREAM teachers will meet all program and state standards for ECE, ECIS, and TESOL professional credentialing, which will provide them with an extensive range of knowledge and skills in three different licensure areas. In addition, what may make these teachers stand out is the extensive field work in a variety of educational settings and the expertise to bridge the gap between special education services and TESOL.</p> <p>The purpose of Project DREAM aligns with our funder's stated goal of improving the capacity of all educators to work together to meet the instructional needs of all students in inclusive education classrooms. The development and conceptualization of the program is supported by a funder incentive grant, awarded on a competitive basis to develop inclusive educator preparation programs at institutions of higher learning (Ohio Deans Compact on Exceptional Children, 2017).</p> <p>Sustainability of the efforts is supported by current programmatic structures that are currently in place in the Department of Teacher Education for the University in this study. The University has acknowledged the importance of meeting the educational and socio-emotional needs of a diverse student population through the development of highly effective and prepared educators. For Project DREAM, the project designers intend to be transformative in re-envisioning how to educate teacher candidates to meet diverse learning needs.</p> <p>The University has led efforts in educator preparation reform by redesigning licensing programs to advance educator preparation. Project DREAM dovetails these efforts by unifying ECE, ECIS and TESOL curricula. The amalgamated program is expected to have a long-lasting, positive impact on the children and youth in the greater metropolitan area, the new teachers, and new programs within the college.</p> <p>Steps in the Conceptualization Process</p> <p>There are three ways to prepare teachers: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>) through traditional university-based teacher education programs; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>) through training while teaching; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>) thought university-based programs in collaboration with the local schools (Zeichner & Bier, 2018). Project DREAM is a clinical model conceptualized and developed as a university-based program in partnership with school-based practitioners. In addition, Project DREAM candidates will be trained and prepared to serve a diverse student population—those in general education, students identified as having special educational needs, and English learners, while bridging the knowledge gap between special education and TESOL. Components of the conceptualization process described below dovetail on previous efforts at the university also described in Banks, Jackson, and Harper (2014, pp, 12–14).</p> <p>A collaborative process. A vital component of Project DREAM is a collaborative process. Project DREAM intends to promote a transformative model for developing teachers in the areas of special education and TESOL through the collaborative efforts of educator preparation providers and school-based practitioners. Such an approach builds directly on creating local strategic partnerships for the placement of effective teachers in high needs areas across the nation. Local strategic partnerships can lead to what is needed for successful clinical models—better collaboration and coordination of coursework, clinical practices and sustainable mentorships, which are important for teacher education (Zeichner & Bier, 2018). The project designers of Project DREAM are Tachelle Banks and Elena Andrei who formed the Leadership Team. Dr. Banks has been the leader and successfully led and implemented the University's clinically based model of educator preparation. The University in this study recently received CAEP accreditation resulting in a nationally recognized clinically based model of educator preparation. Dr. Andrei conceptualized, developed, and secured state approval for a new TESOL EPP at a previous University. Based on prior experience from the establishment and implementation of clinical EPPs at the University in this study, the Leadership Team and the Implementation Team of Project DREAM adhered to the following criteria that informed prior efforts and contributed to this effort, including (a) identifying appropriate partnerships, (b) reciprocity, (c) awareness of existing models, (d) redefining faculty roles and modeling collaboration, and (e) transparency. The following briefly describes each criterion in the collaborative process.</p> <p>Identifying appropriate partnerships. The success of a clinical model of EPP is highly dependent upon the establishment of effective field placements. Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Ronfeldt, and Wyckoff (2009) assert that this experience is the most influential aspect of the EPP. In recognition of the importance of field placements, it is essential that both P–12 administrators and classroom teachers are encouraged and participate in the transformative process of developing a new EPP in the context of strong school-university partnerships. Partnerships serve two purposes. First, they enable university faculty to communicate curricular goals that will help to eliminate the disconnection between university instructional methodology and the P–12 pedagogical practices. Second, P–12 faculty and administrators are uniquely positioned to identify schools and individual classrooms and teachers who can serve as mentors for teacher candidates. These stakeholders are uniquely positioned within the districts and are most knowledgeable as those individuals who will best carry out the vision and mission of the EPP.</p> <p>Reciprocity. In a criticism of a number of existing EPPs, Ronfeldt (2012) argues against the ineffectiveness of the unidirectional interactions that dominate university P–12 partnerships. This arrangement, he argues, will not only serve to increase the disconnection between pedagogical instruction and pedagogical practice, but will also foster a climate of distrust between the university and the schools in which teacher candidates are placed. Addressing this discrepancy required a reconceptualization of this relationship. The previously-utilized monologue of "take" is to be replaced by that of reciprocity; the university will work closely with teachers and administrators in the partner schools to discern how our faculty, administrators, and teacher candidates can assist in helping our partner schools meet their day-to-day challenges. Thus, a hybrid space, as defined by Zeichner (2010), will be created. Zeichner argues for "hybrid spaces in preservice teacher education programs that bring together school and university-based teacher educators and practitioner and academic knowledge in new ways to enhance the learning of prospective teachers" (p. 92).</p> <p>Awareness of existing models. Great efforts were made to investigate existing curricular models for the training of teachers in special education and TESOL within colleges of education across the country. Our research of EPPs that train teachers in both special education and TESOL did not return a significant number of programs.</p> <p>Redefining faculty roles/modeling collaboration. For a number of faculty members, the transformative process might bring with it the prospect of a vastly different set of responsibilities as the role and responsibilities of many will change. For some who have grown accustomed to the autonomy of teaching stand-alone, non-field-based courses, these changes may inspire trepidation. To address these concerns related to change, the Implementation Team will work to establish a means by which faculty may be supported during the transition to a dual license clinically-based program. Specifically, careful attention will be afforded to the collaborative process. In the newly designed program, faculty will be expected to work extensively with colleagues in the university as well as teachers and administrators in the field in designing and communicating course content.</p> <p>Transparency. Finally, it is critical that university faculty who would be directly impacted by the redesigned program be continuously made aware of the process and invited to share suggestions and concerns. Utilizing available technologies (i.e., discussion board, and website postings) as well as more traditional means of communications (frequent updates during faculty meetings) informs faculty of proposed changes. The deliberate openness serves to quell concerns and dispel misconceptions, which hopefully can bring about a greater level of faculty engagement. This faculty-led initiative will result in the development of a transformed dual clinically based EPP model in ECE and ECIS licenses and a TESOL endorsement that parallels what Ravitch (2008) summarizes in her goal for EPPs:</p> <p>An institution where future teachers become masters of their craft; where they learn the best ways to teach their subjects; where every course is infused with the ideals of liberal education; where there is no distinction made between what to teach and how to teach it; where the entire institution is organized to attract, prepare, and educate the best teachers in the land. (p. 1315)</p> <p>The Leadership Team worked closely with the Implementation Team, whose members have a variety of expertise and represent different stakeholders. The contribution of all relevant stakeholders—university faculty, administrators, and field supervisors, as well as P–12 teachers, who were members of Implementation Team—was deliberately solicited and integrated into the design of Project DREAM through meetings. The collaborative process was coupled with transparency and clear communication of DREAM goals and purpose. Each potential Implementation Team member who was invited received a "Terms of reference" (State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practice, 2010) letter in which the goal, purpose and expected workload was shared. Finalizing the Implementation Team membership allowed the Leadership Team to plan and implement Project DREAM's next steps. The Terms of Reference was a useful tool. It made the work and expectations for the Implementation Team members transparent and clear. The Implementation Team held six meetings during the 2017–2018 academic year. The next sections will describe the process of conceptualizing and developing Project DREAM Core Values, Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), and Course Titles.</p> <p>The conceptualization and development of Project DREAM curriculum followed an Understanding by Design (UbD) framework (Heineke & McTighe, 2018) in which student learning outcomes are planned and identified before the learning and assessment activities. Student learning outcomes (SLOs) refer to what students should know, understand and be able to do at the end of instruction (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). SLOs are unpacked and translated from standards (Estes, Mintz, Gunter, 2011; Oliva, 2005) relevant to the area of licensure/endorsement: ECE, ECIS, TESOL.</p> <p>Step 1. Core values. "Core Values" are leading values, principles, and philosophy that lead and inform the curriculum development work (Boyle & Charles, 2016). The word "curriculum" is Latin and means race, course, or running (Egan, 1978); a race has a destination, a starting point and an ending point. Curriculum has goals guided by values. According to Tyler (2009) the goals of curriculum could be identified in several places: within the learners' themselves and their needs, within the society and its realities, in the basic values of life, and in the body of knowledge mankind accumulated over centuries. Work of curriculum development includes curriculum planning, implementation, and evaluation (Oliva & Gordon II, 2013). While Project DREAM includes all these stages, in this manuscript the planning is explored. The work of curriculum development happens in a team with various stakeholders and experts who bring a variety of knowledge, skills, and traits (Oliva & Gordon II, 2013). The role of the Core Values for Project DREAM was twofold: the Core Values acted as purposes of the curriculum and as part of the collaborative group process (Oliva & Gordon II, 2013): first, the Core Values are the purpose of Project DREAM and its graduates; second, identifying the Core Values allow stakeholders to share commonalities related to curriculum development (Oliva & Gordon II, 2013), specifically the principles and values they see required for successful EPP curricula. The Project DREAM Implementation Team was a volunteer task-oriented group who worked on curriculum development (Oliva & Gordon II, 2013).</p> <p>During the first Implementation Team meeting, faculty revisited and looked at the Terms of Reference and goals of Project DREAM. They discussed what excited and brought stakeholders together in relation to EPPs and, in particular, Project DREAM, which lead to the development of the Core Values. The Core Values were revisited with the Implementation Team for possible revisions. The finalized list of the conceptual model of the Core Values (see Figure 2.1) includes Commitment to Excellence as a central value which intersects and lead to other core values: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>) commitment to teaching and learning, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>) focus on family and student centered, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>) commitment to inclusive education, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>) emphasis on societal responsibility.</p> <p>Step 2. Standards crosswalk. The faculty defined and used a standards crosswalk as a tool to identify the commonalities between the standards used for curriculum development. Crosswalks allow for the development and representation of "cross-comparison data" (Audet, 2005, p. 8). "A crosswalk is a means to examine relationships by arraying two sets of statements orthogonally in a matrix format and then examining the intersection of each element of each statement" (Conley, 2011, p. 1). The standards crosswalk document provides all three professional, state, and EPP required standards in order to identify similarities and differences.</p> <p>The goal of Project DREAM is to develop a rigorous curriculum beginning with the standards (Ainsworth, 2010). Project DREAM is a graduate program which hopes to prepare candidates to become inclusive educators who will be eligible for dual licensures in ECE and ECIS as well as a TESOL endorsement. Project DREAM candidates may graduate prepared with the knowledge and skills to teach all students, including students identified as having special education needs and ELs, in an inclusive classroom environment, and be prepared to bridge the gap between special education and TESOL certifications. The professional standards involved in the curriculum process are as follows:</p> <olist> <item> The 2010 National Association for Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Standards for Initial & Advanced Early Childhood Professional Preparation Programs for ECE;</item> <item> Council for Exceptional Children Initial Preparation Standards (Council for Exceptional Children, 2015) for ECIS;</item> <item> Standards for the recognition of initial TESOL programs in P–12 ESL teacher education (TESOL, 2010) for TESOL.</item> </olist> <p>The Project DREAM members also included the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession (Ohio State Board of Education, 2005) and Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011). The process of aligning all these standards was accomplished by using a Standards Crosswalk.</p> <p>The Standards Crosswalk Activity allowed the Implementation Team to find commonalities and distinctions among all five sets of standards. The Leadership Team looked at the similarities and differences between the Standards Crosswalks. Most crosswalks submitted had similar outcomes, so only where there were distinctions, the Leadership Team made a determination with respect to the final product. The process of creating the finalized Standards Crosswalk and Standards Crosswalk were shared with the Implementation Team for approval and final comments.</p> <p>Step 3. Student learning outcomes (SLOs). As noted earlier, Project DREAM followed an UbD framework (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) where SLOs are designed and identified prior the instruction and assessment. Rigorous curriculum development calls for "specific learning outcomes" (Ainsworth, 2010) and SLOs are Project DREAM's learning outcomes. Based on the finalized Standards Crosswalk, the Leadership Team proposed Project DREAM SLOs. The SLOs were unpacked from the professional standards to get feedback and the Leadership Team solicited feedback from the Implementation Team. The role of the SLOs is to inform course content.</p> <p>SLOs were unpacked from the three professional standards (NAEYC, CEC, and TESOL) and aligned with the Ohio Teaching Standards. In TASC, SLOs were shared with the Implementation Team for feedback during two working meetings. Team members worked in groups and provided feedback to the Leadership Team. The Leadership Team incorporated all feedback and edits from the first SLO meeting and presented the updated SLOs for a second round of review and feedback. Again, the Leadership Team incorporated all feedback and edits from the Implementation Team and presented a final version for approval.</p> <hd id="AN0138405267-7">IMPLICATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND NEXT STEPS</hd> <p></p> <p>Project DREAM can become a model for the state and the nation that redefines and creates a new definition of inclusive educator teaching in diverse classrooms where teachers are equipped in ECIS and TESOL. As Project DREAM was conceptualized and developed, the variety of knowledge, skills, and experiences in different aspects of the classroom and licensure areas provides teacher candidates the opportunity to be flexible, knowledgeable, and agile in making informed theory and practice-based decisions that stem from the different areas of expertise of three teaching licensures and standards. The goal is for Project DREAM candidates to be equipped with knowledge and skills to serve and support all students and to be able to distinguish between special education needs and the English language learning process. This understanding can reduce the overrepresentation of ELs in special education. Project DREAM's charge is for the development of in-depth knowledge, skills, and experience with diverse populations for teacher candidates in an effort to support the diverse students in U.S. schools. Once Project DREAM is implemented and candidates graduate, both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected on candidate practices and their students' success, which may point to the need to support more inclusive EPPs. Due to increasingly diverse classrooms, findings may inform future policy and practices about EPPs locally at the university, the state, and national levels.</p> <p>Project DREAM could bring systemic change to the professional development of practicing teachers through (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>) the collaboration of university faculty, teachers, principals, and teacher candidates and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>) preparing teachers to teach both students with disabilities and ELs in an inclusive classroom. Faculty anticipate that Project Dream will influence state and local policies related to evaluating and approving inclusive educator preparation programs, funding authorization, teacher licensing, and ongoing professional development.</p> <p>DIAGRAM: Figure 1. Project DREAM Core Values.</p> <ref id="AN0138405267-8"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ainsworth, L. (2010). Rigorous curriculum design. How to create curricular units of study that align standards, instruction, and assessment. Englewood, CO: The Leadership and Learning Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Artiles, A. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Forging a knowledge base on English language learners with special needs: Theoretical, population, and technical issues. Teachers College Record, 108, 2187–2194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00778.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Audet, R. H. (2005). Inquiry: A continuum of ideas, issues, and practices. In R. H. Audet & L. K. Jordan (Eds.), Integrating inquiry across the curriculum (pp. 5–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Banks, T., Jackson, D., & Harper, B. (2014). Responding to the call to prepare highly effective teacher candidates in the United States: The curriculum redesign effort in advancing teacher education. Higher Education Studies, 4(2), 9–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blackwell, J. (2003). Three steps forward: Adopt a teacher. Childhood Education, 80(1), 28A–28K. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2003.10521247">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2003.10521247</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H. Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416–440. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709353129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boyle B., & Charles, M. (2016). Curriculum development: A guide for educators (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Case, K., & Hemmings, A. (2005). Distancing strategies: White women preservice teachers and antiracist curriculum. Urban Education, 40(6), 606–626. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085905281396">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085905281396</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., Cummings Carney, M., Stringer Keefe, E., Burton, S., Wen- Chia Chang, W., … Baker, M. (2018). Reclaiming accountability in teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conley, D. T. (2011). Crosswalk analysis of deeper learning skills to Common Core Standards. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537878.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300–314. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Echevarría, J., Short, D., & Vogt, M. (2017). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Model (SIOP) (5th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egan, K. (1978). What is curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1978.11075558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Estes, T. H., Mintz, S. L., & Gunter, M. A. (2011). Instruction. A models approach. Boston, MA: Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferlis, E., & Yaoying, X. (2016). Prereferral process with Latino English language learners with specific learning disabilities: Perceptions of English as a second language teachers. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(3), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v18i3.1113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galman, S. A., Pica-Smith, C., & Rosenberger, C. (2010). Aggressive and tender navigations: Teacher educators confront whiteness in their practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 225-236. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109359776">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109359776</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamayan, E., Marler, B., & Sánchez-López, C., & Damico, J. (2013). Special education considerations for English language learners: Delivering a continuum of services (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heineke, A. J., & McTighe, J. (2018). Using understanding by design in the culturally and linguistically diverse classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klingner, J., & Eppollito, A. (2014). English language learners: Differentiating between language acquisition and learning disabilities. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris-Murri, N., King, K., & Rostenberg, D. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority representation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances: Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 779–799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> More, C. M., Spies, T. G., Morgan, J. J., & Baker, J. N. (2016). Incorporating English language learner instruction within special education teacher preparation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451215589183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NAEYC. (2010). 2010 NAEYC Standards for initial and advanced early childhood professional preparation programs. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/higher-ed/NAEYCProfessional-Preparation-Standards.pdf">www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/higher-ed/NAEYCProfessional-Preparation-Standards.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obiakor, F. E., Grant, P., & Obi, S. O. (2010). Voices of foreign-born African American teacher educators in the United States. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ohio Deans Compact on Exceptional Children. (2017). Incentive grant: Improving the capacity of Ohio institutions of higher education to prepare all educators to better meet the needs of all learners. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ohiodeanscompact.org">www.ohiodeanscompact.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ohio State Board of Education. (2005). Ohio standards for the teaching profession. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/">http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/</ulink> Educator-Equity/Ohio-s-Educator-Standards/Rev_TeachingProfession_aug10.pdf.aspx</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ohio Department of Education (2012). Profile of Ohio's English language learners (ELL)/ limited English proficient (LEP) students. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/English-Learners/Research/Profile-of-Ohio-s-English-Language-Learners-ELL">http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/English-Learners/Research/Profile-of-Ohio-s-English-Language-Learners-ELL</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliva, P. F., & Gordon, W. R., II. (2005). Developing the curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school's implementation of RTI with English language learners: "Referring into RTI." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940935547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosco, M. J., & O'Connor, R. (2014). Culturally responsive instruction for English language learners with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413476553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oyler, C. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive and critical (special) education. Teacher Education and Special Education. 2011(34), 201–218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravitch, D. (2008). A reflection on the professional preparation of teachers. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 1313–1315). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronfeldt, M. (2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(1), 3–26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practice. (2010). Tools to support the development of a coherent and aligned system. FPG Child Develop Institute, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, The National Implementation Research Network. Retrieved from https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/sites/implementation.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/SISEP-ToolsTo SupportTheDevelopmentOfACoherentAndAlignedSystem-02-2011.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> TESOL. (2010). Standards for the recognition of initial TESOL programs in P–12 ESL teacher education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyler, R. W. (2009). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton, (Eds). The curriculum studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 69–77). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education 2014: English language learners (NCES 2014-083). Retrieved from: <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator%5fcgf.asp">http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator%5fcgf.asp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017a). Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017b). The condition of education 2017 (2017-144), English language learners in public schools. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, S., & Ortiz, A. (2011). Response to Intervention in reading for English language learners. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/">http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/</ulink> englishlanguagelearners</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 370–380. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0022487107308419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisman, E. M., & Hansen, L. E. (2008). Student teaching in urban and suburban schools: Perspectives of Latino preservice teachers. Urban Education, 43, 653–670. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085907311834">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085907311834</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, W. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy and practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89–99. doi:10.1177/0022487109347671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. M., & Bier, M. (2018). Opportunities and pitfalls in the turn toward clinical experience in US teacher education. In K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), The struggle for the soul of teacher education (pp. 197–223). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K., & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In J. S. Kula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 525–547). New York, NY: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p></p> <p>Cleveland State University</p> <p>Cleveland State University</p> <p>Cleveland Metropolitan School District</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1247301
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Inclusive Educator Licensure Pathway to Meet the Educational Needs of All Students: Dual Residence Education Action Model
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Banks%2C+Tachelle%22">Banks, Tachelle</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrei%2C+Elena%22">Andrei, Elena</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dohy%2C+Jennifer%22">Dohy, Jennifer</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Curriculum+and+Teaching+Dialogue%22"><i>Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue</i></searchLink>. 2019 21(1-2):21-35.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: IAP - Information Age Publishing, Inc. P.O. Box 79049, Charlotte, NC 28271-7047. Tel: 704-752-9125; Fax: 704-752-9113; e-mail: infoage@infoagepub.com; Web site: https://www.infoagepub.com/series/Curriculum-and-Teaching-Dialogue
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Certification%22">Teacher Certification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Immigrants%22">Immigrants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Study%22">Graduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culturally+Relevant+Education%22">Culturally Relevant Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partnerships+in+Education%22">Partnerships in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Responsibility%22">Social Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Involvement%22">Family Involvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Centered+Learning%22">Student Centered Learning</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ohio+%28Cleveland%29%22">Ohio (Cleveland)</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1538-750X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: "The Dual Residence Education Action Model" (DREAM) is conceptualized as an inclusive educator preparation program. "Project DREAM" intends to prepare teachers with knowledge, skills, and experience in early childhood, special education, and teaching English to speakers of other languages. English learners are a growing school population in the United States, increasingly overrepresented in special education, thus the need for "Project DREAM." This article shares the initial stages for the development of "Project DREAM's" core values, the standards crosswalk, and student learning outcomes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Curriculum-and-Teaching-Dialogue-Vol-21" linkWindow="_blank">https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Curriculum-and-Teaching-Dialogue-Vol-21</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1247301
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1247301
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Certification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Immigrants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Culturally Relevant Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Partnerships in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Involvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Centered Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ohio (Cleveland)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Inclusive Educator Licensure Pathway to Meet the Educational Needs of All Students: Dual Residence Education Action Model
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Banks, Tachelle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrei, Elena
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dohy, Jennifer
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1538-750X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1-2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue
              Type: main
ResultId 1