National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve Children with Blindness and Low Vision EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mission and Focus of the National Plan T o overcome past and current deficiencies both in providing quality services to students and maintaining an adequate supply of qualified personnel to provide those services to children with blindness and low vision1, in 1997 the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded a 2-year planning process. The resulting National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve Children with Blindness and Low Vision2 that is presented here incorporates findings from that project's intensive needs assessment and strategic planning process. The efforts of OSEP and leaders within the field of blindness and low vision3 have been and continue to be directed toward an ultimate purpose of expanding and enhancing services to children with blindness and low vision. While the delivery systems face many challenges, OSEP and leaders in educating students with blindness and low vision agree that the National Plan must target the personnel shortage as a primary, critical area of focus. To alleviate the critical shortage of personnel who provide essential services to children with blindness and low vision in educational settings, the project called upon a group of key stakeholders. Those stakeholders-representing parents, consumers, university programs, researchers, schools for the blind, administrators, and related service personnel-explored dreams, knowledge and concerns during the 2 years of the project. As the plan targeting personnel shortages unfolded, three key goals and related priority objectives emerged in these areas: 1. Personnel preparation. 2. Leadership development. 3. Recruitment and retention. In addition, stakeholders identified three complementary goals that supplement and support the main goals. While relevant and important, the complementary goals extend beyond the central focus on personnel shortages. The three complementary goals address: 1. Consumer partnerships. 2. Human resource development. 3. Enhanced services to children. See Appendix C of the full text version of the National Plan (CEC, 2000) for a detailed description of the complementary goals. Project Origin Personnel who teach students with visual impairments require specialized training to meet the unique needs of these students. In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government initiated discretionary funding programs to encourage universities to develop and provide specialized training to prospective teachers of students with visual impairments. However, as changes were made in requirements for OSEP-funded proposals, some programs lost funding, and, for a number of reasons, it became more difficult to attract students into the remaining programs. This impacted the number of direct service personnel entering the field and contributed to the shortage of direct service personnel. To turn the tide, a broad coalition of stakeholders banded together in 1994 in the creation of eight national goals for improving the education of students with blindness and low vision (Corn, Hatlen, Huebner, Ryan, & Siller, 1995). One of the eight goals focused on the preparation of a sufficient number of personnel to serve students with blindness and low vision throughout the United States. A preferred course of action was discussed at a policy forum conducted by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). Subsequently, key stakeholders met and approached OSEP with their concerns and recommendations. OSEP issued a request for proposals to develop a national plan, and the National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve Children with Blindness and Low Vision (the NPTP Project) was funded in the fall of 1997. Problem Statement and Vision Through activities coordinated by the NPTP Project, a group of 57 stakeholders met over the course of the past two years to develop a National Plan to increase the number of personnel to meet the needs of children with blindness and low vision. One of their first activities was to agree upon the problem to be addressed in the National Plan. The Problem. Children with blindness, low vision, and deafblindness are entitled to appropriate educational services that prepare them for optimum functioning as adults. A large number of these students, however, never acquire the knowledge and skills essential for productive citizenship. Several factors contribute to this problem. To begin, students are underidentified and geographically dispersed, making it difficult to quantify and then address their actual needs. Direct service personnel are in critically short supply, while current recruitment and retention strategies fail to adequately address the shortage. Further, the programs designed to prepare these professionals are underfunded, and the number of leaders to sustain the programs is insufficient to meet the demand. The complacency and lack of accountability within the economic, political, advocacy, and educational systems that influence the services offered to students with visual impairments exacerbate the problem. Even more significant is evidence pointing to inadequate recognition or awareness of what "quality" services mean. Finally, fiscal constraints and conflicting educational philosophies, rather than the best educational interests of the students, often drive the structure and methods of educational services. Improving services for students with visual impairment will not only enhance their quality of life, but will also benefit the whole of society. If individuals who are visually impaired receive appropriate educational services as infants and children, they will flourish into independent adults with an increased capacity to contribute to their community and beyond. A Vision of the Future. To respond to the identified problem, the strategic planning stakeholders developed a vision that stressed values, services and programs, use of technology, and involvement of all levels of government (i.e., local, state, and federal). We envision a future world in which each individual is valued by society. In this society, the needs of each individual are respected and addressed. Individuals from diverse language, cultural, ethnic, and disability backgrounds are perceived and see themselves as contributing members of society. They have high expectations for leading fulfilling lives. In this environment, individuals who are blind or visually impaired enjoy access to high-quality, comprehensive programs and services. Appropriately trained professionals support early education, education from kindergarten through grade 12, and lifelong learning. Collaborative partnerships, continuing research, and a wide array of nationally accredited personnel preparation programs ensure high standards in preparing personnel to serve students with blindness or low vision. Technological advances support independence, learning, and overall quality of life. As educational reform and societal changes unfold, collaborations at the federal, state, and local levels ensure political, fiscal, and legislative support for persons with blindness, low vision, and deafblindness. In such a society, complacency and lack of accountability have vanished. Resources to meet the needs of children and youth are distributed equitably through a broad and shared network of services. In this world, individuals who are blind or visually impaired are working with others at the local, state, and national levels not only to improve conditions for themselves but also to contribute to the betterment of all. Goals In the summer of 1999, the strategic planning stakeholders agreed to focus their final planning around three goal areas: personnel preparation, leadership development, and recruitment and retention. At a meeting held at the headquarters of The Council for Exceptional Children, they fleshed out descriptions of these goals and priority objectives in each area. Table 1 presents the central core of the National Plan. Table 1. Main Goals and Priority Objectives of the National Plan GOAL PRIORITY OBJECTIVES Goal 1: Personnel Preparation and Development To increase the number and diversity of qualified personnel to serve students with visual impairments. 1.1 To provide technical assistance that will stabilize and build capacity of current personnel preparation efforts to ensure preparation of a sufficient number of qualified personnel. 1.2 To establish models of collaborative relationships and alliances among personnel preparation professionals, SEAs, LEAs, CSPDs, SIPs, schools for the blind, parents, consumers, and industry representatives. 1.3 To stabilize personnel preparation programs and build capacity through federal (OSEP) funding policies. Goal 2: Leadership Development To increase the number and diversity of qualified leadership personnel in the education of children with visual impairments. 2.1 To provide innovative and collaborative leadership development opportunities at all career levels. 2.2 To initiate national research and data acquisition activities to increase the capacity of the field of blindness and low vision to maintain an accurate count of personnel and students. 2.3 To coordinate research related to personnel, services delivery, and student outcomes. Goal 3: Recruitment and Retention To increase the number and diversity of high-quality applicants to and graduates from personnel preparation programs serving all areas of education of students with visual impairments. 3.1 To launch a comprehensive, sustained national public relations/marketing campaign focused on career opportunities in the field of educating students with visual impairments. 3.2 To create an information and referral service that supports recruitment and retention activities. Note. SEA, state education agency; LEA, local education agency; CSPD, Comprehensive Systems of Personnel Development; SIP, State Improvement Plan; OSEP, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Key Challenges Currently five significant challenges need to be overcome for the proposed National Plan to be successful. The National Plan includes components addressing these challenges. * Funding. Clearly, resources are needed to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives outlined in this Plan. Funding needs to come from diverse sources, including all levels of government as well as private and corporate sources. * Research. The lack of information and research to inform the strategic planning process posed a challenge that was partially met through making rough estimates based upon the collection of needs data. However, to continue to address the personnel shortage and to achieve the vision as outlined, research must be valued, supported, and ongoing. * Diversity. The diverse needs of students and personnel in the field, including individuals from ethnically, linguistically, and culturally diverse backgrounds and individuals with disabilities, must be addressed at all levels to achieve the vision and assure relevant instruction for all segments of the population. * Collaboration. To address adequately the current personnel crisis and needs of students with blindness and low vision, well-planned, efficient, and effective collaboration is essential. Collaboration must be inclusive of all groups. * Governmental/Nongovernmental Coordination. Just as collaboration among all stakeholders is needed to achieve the vision, coordination among different levels of government (i.e., federal, state, local) and between government and private sectors is also essential. Intersector coordination is increasingly important with the emergence of charter schools and the involvement of business as a major stakeholder in education. Proposed Implementation To provide for an adequate supply of direct service personnel and address the three goals identified by the strategic planning participants, eight objectives were identified. These objectives form the basis for major components to implement the National Plan. Goal 1 * Personnel Preparation Technical Assistance Network in Blindness and Low Vision. The Personnel Preparation Technical Assistance Network (PPTAN) is intended to facilitate and support collaboration that meets the personnel preparation needs of the nation, facilitate the application of national program standards, and provide technical assistance to new and existing programs. (Objectives 1.1 and 1.2) * OSEP Funding Policies. The impact of OSEP-funded personnel preparation projects will be strengthened, and programs stabilized, by extending project periods to five years and increasing the size of these awards. (Objective 1.3) Goal 2 * Leadership Development Institute in Blindness and Low Vision. The Leadership Development Institute will develop mechanisms and programs to support the professional development of present and future leaders in the field of blindness and visual impairment. This Institute and related OSEP-funded projects to prepare doctoral students will enhance mentoring and collaboration among doctoral students in the field of blindness and visual impairment. (Objective 2.1) * Research to Practice Institute in Blindness and Low Vision. The Research to Practice Institute will design, collect, analyze, and disseminate data affecting personnel needs in blindness and visual impairment. This Institute will ensure coordinated efforts in utilizing research to validate practices and to enable transfer of this information to the professional development community. Activities will include empirical studies of program methodologies, analysis of educational outcomes for students, and contribution to an annual count of children and service providers. (Objectives 2.2 and 2.3) Goal 3 * Recruitment and Retention Project. The Recruitment and Retention Project is intended to ensure appropriate special education and related services by developing a comprehensive, cohesive recruitment campaign to increase the number of personnel serving infants, children, and youth with blindness and low vision. (Objectives 3.1 and 3.2) A Cross-Goal Initiative * National Personnel Preparation Coordinating Council. To strengthen outcomes of the National Plan as it is implemented, a National Personnel Preparation Coordinating Council (NPPCC) is recommended. The Council will be composed of representatives from each of the other components depicted in Figure 1 as well as other organizations and stakeholders in the field of blindness and visual impairment. The NPPCC is charged with guiding and providing formative evaluation to facilitate implementation and outcomes of the National Plan. (This Council will work with external evaluators to provide advice on how to strengthen the impact of the Plan, but will not have compliance monitoring responsibilities.) Figure 1 depicts the relationship of these components to other key elements that provide services benefiting students with blindness and low vision. Replace this page with Figure1 from Bethanna Impact and Funding While the proposed National Plan is most dependent upon funding from OSEP, it will only be successful if others share in its implementation and contribute resources in its support . For maximum effectiveness, federal, state, and local governments must coordinate efforts, each assuming responsibility for different levels of activity. Furthermore, partner alliances among professional and consumer organizations, specialized schools for the blind, and agencies outside of the U.S. Department of Education can strengthen a diversified funding base. On a macro level, productivity, efficiency, and accountability will be key to the outcomes obtained with the proposed National Plan. To ensure improvements in the supply of qualified personnel, funding priority must be given to quality programs that prepare significant numbers of personnel, prepare personnel from diverse backgrounds, or prepare personnel to serve in areas of highest need. While this National Plan was designed to be implemented over a 5-year period, participants realized that total solutions to the problem of supplying personnel will not be achieved within 5 years. However, the National Plan was designed to be realistic, and calculations indicate that it is realistic to anticipate a 36-55% reduction in the shortage within 5 years after its implementation. The lower rate factors in an annual 7.3% attrition rate (Smith-Davis & Billingsley, 1993); at 5% attrition, the shortage would be reduced by 41%; the 55% reduction does not factor in attrition. Based on discussions and activities with strategic planning stakeholders, as well as data on supply and demand for direct service personnel, a conceptual model for implementation was developed. (See Figure 2.) Replace this page with Figure 2 - the chart from Bethanna (Sequence for Implementation and Impact) The Plan includes six major national components. Five of the six components address Goals 1-3 through overlapping spheres of influence: the Recruitment and Retention Project, the National Technical Assistance Network, strengthening Personnel Preparation Programs, the Leadership Development Institute, and the Research to Practice Institute. The National Coordinating Council, the sixth component, provides a mechanism to facilitate implementation of the National Plan across the three goal areas. However, the impact of these components is interdependent. For example, * Recruitment of students into certification and degree programs is a key linchpin upon which the effective resolution of personnel shortages rests. * More individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds are needed at all levels of personnel serving individuals with blindness and low vision. Targeting specific recruitment strategies to diverse populations should be a key factor in achieving the goal of more diversified personnel. Additionally, the stakeholders recommended that OSEP strengthen its support for preparing personnel from underrepresented groups. * For the total number of personnel to be increased, the number of individuals graduating with doctorates must increase. The Leadership Development Institute will provide an avenue for encouraging professionals to enter doctoral programs. Realizing how critical an increase in individuals with doctorates is to the field, it must be emphasized that the primary impact of all initiatives will only occur once a class of doctoral candidates graduates, four years after the beginning of these initiatives. Based on the model in Figure 2 and the analysis of the interrelationship of components, an approach was designed to portray the impact of initiatives implemented between Project Years 2002 and 2006 (see Figures 3 and 4). To provide for an analysis of trends, these data are graphed on a logarithmic chart. Figure 3 displays the projected increase in personnel by category. Figure 4 depicts the projected cumulative impact on personnel under three conditions: no attrition, an attrition rate of 5%, and an attrition rate of 7.3%. Several differing sets of data regarding trends in faculty, training, research, and funding served as the basis for making projections. Differences in the data sets reflect such differences as focusing only on OSEP-funded training programs, only on AER-approved programs, a larger set of training programs that include programs which are not AER-approved, or data including Masters degree programs versus undergraduate programs. The starting point for projections in Figures 3 and 4 is the number of individuals recruited into programs. Given that no data are available on the number of recruitments in the field of blindness and low vision, that number is based on an extrapolation from the average number of students receiving degrees or certification from IHEs in 1998-1999. Figure 3. Projected Increase in Personnel Figure 4. Projected Impact of the National Plan The projections in Figures 3 and 4 were also based on the following assumptions: * The incidence of blindness and low vision will remain constant. While conflicting projections have been made, no firm, reliable evidence is available to support either an increase or decrease in prevalence (Kirchner, 1999). * No intervention is expected to produce a significant change until the first year of implementation by OSEP in 2002. Implementation will not begin until 2002 because of the amount of lead time needed by OSEP for developing new initiatives. * The number of individuals recruited each future year will at least equal the number of individuals receiving certification or degrees. (This number is used for calculations in the absence of any other data.) * The number of training programs will gradually increase beginning in 2002. * The greatest impact will only begin to be realized after one year of implementation of the recruitment campaign and the National Technical Assistance Network, at which time sharing course materials and distance education modules will facilitate expansion of programs and the ability of each IHE to instruct a larger number of students. * A sufficient number of faculty will be retained to prepare direct service personnel over the next 7 years, and over the next few years leadership initiatives will result in an increase in individuals preparing to teach at IHEs. * All graduates are expected to assume full time positions with full caseloads. Furthermore, current and historical information also provided some rationale for additional assumptions. These key assumptions follow: * A minimum of 33 programs in visual impairments (Corn & Silberman, 1999) will be sustained. * The percentage of individuals certified or receiving degrees in each area (TVI, O&M, TDB, dual, and doctorate) will remain constant with the relationship found in 1998-99: 70% combined TVIs and TDB, 20% O&M specialists, 9% dual certificates, and 1% doctoral candidates. The data have been presented two ways: with and without consideration of attrition. If attrition is not considered, then a total of 5,015 personnel should be added to the pool of existing 8,000 direct service personnel, resulting in 13,015 direct service personnel. If attrition is factored in, the overall number of direct service personnel should reach 9,691 by 2006. An attrition rate of 5% was used based on the following information: * The number of new professionals entering the field has been approximately 400 a year (Ferrell, 1999). * The total number of professionals in the field has remained relatively constant over the past few years at 8,000. * The ratio of new professionals to total numbers of professionals has been 400 to 8,000, or 5% (or 8 per state). The annual entry of an additional 400 professionals appears to just offset the number leaving the field each year. In checking these assumptions and determining an overall impact statement, project staff were not able to locate specific data on attrition in the field of blindness and low vision. However, the most recent data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (U.S. Department of Education, 1999) on attrition for full-time teachers included an overall attrition rate of 6% for public school teachers. When considering the impact of attrition, it is important to note that the greatest attrition for teachers in general (31-32%) was reported for teachers over the age of 60, when retirement is the primary source of attrition. Furthermore, data from 1987 to 1995 documented an increase in the percentage of teachers retiring from 27% to 31%, indicating an accelerating trend towards a greater number of retirements. Other data (Smith-Davis & Billingsley, 1993) have indicated an attrition rate of 7.3% for the overall special education field. Because of the lack of specific information on either attrition or retirement in the field of blindness and low vision, no specific formulas have been used to factor in an anticipated impact in preparing projections in Figure 4. Figure 4 has been designed to indicate the projected impact with no attrition, attrition rates of 5%, and attrition rates of 7.3%. According to the projections made, if the National Plan is implemented as recommended over the next 7 years (until 2006), it is anticipated that the number of TVIs will increase from 273 to 715, the number of O&M specialists will increase from 77 to 202, the number of dually certified professionals will increase from 38 to 90, and the number of doctoral candidates will increase from 5 to 13. (These figures do not reflect attrition rates.) Limitations In proposing the National Plan and estimating its cost benefits, stakeholders and project staff have been limited by factors that are common to most such futures planning. A primary limitation has been the lack of current and historical data on a number of factors that may impact outcomes of the project. Included in this realm are such key information items as the current number of personnel from culturally diverse backgrounds, the number of training stipends that remain unused due to failure to recruit students, the number of individuals recruited into personnel preparation programs each year, and the total number of individuals trained through non-IHE programs annually. The projections are also limited by uncertainties related to cost of living, competing activities, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed initiatives. This Plan will also be either supported or impeded by factors such as: * The effectiveness of collaborative efforts with professionals outside the field of blindness and low vision. * The response of others such as state directors of education to the National Plan. * The systemic capability to create the number of positions needed in individual school districts to reach recommended caseloads. And, finally, as is often the case, the interrelationships of the initiatives will have a significant impact on the effectiveness of each. Failure to recruit an adequate number of individuals into the field of blindness and low vision, for example, will reduce the overall effectiveness of the other initiatives. Similarly, a skillful blending of traditional on-campus programming with distance education, successful program mentoring, and successful grant applications will all increase the overall impact of the proposed Plan. Note on Methodology To arrive at this National Plan, the NPTP Project has been guided by the collaborative efforts of the Steering Management Committee composed of representatives of The Council Exceptional Children's Division on Visual Impairment (CEC-DVI) and the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER - Division 17 - Personnel Preparation Division), and staff from CEC and the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB). A multifaceted research approach included interviews and surveys with state vision consultants4, university faculty and direct service personnel, formal focus groups with key stakeholders, a series of national stakeholder dialogues, a 17-state survey of key stakeholders, a survey of the 50 state directors of special education, and case studies of individual state training delivery models (Project FORUM, in press). The NPTP strategic planning process was undertaken by 57 leaders from all key stakeholder groups, with additional input from an economist and the project evaluator. The process used scenario-based planning (Schwartz, 1996) and relied upon scenarios-stories about possible futures in which we may have to live. The planning process, facilitated by Marianne Hughes, Executive Director of the Interaction Institute for Social Change, was implemented over a 10-month period of time. The facilitator led the group from a discussion of problems to visioning outcomes and obstacles under alternative future scenarios, discussing promising solutions, and developing consensus recommendations. A strength of this planning process is that it leads to strategic conversations about multiple futures and supports the identification of strategies that are robust because they are responsive to several possible futures. Summary For more complete information on the proposed National Plan the reader is referred to the National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve Children with Blindness and Low Vision (The Council for Exceptional Children, 2000). Paraphrasing the poet John Donne from the 16th-17th century, "no person is an island, entire of itself." Throughout the strategic planning process, the vision community has rallied together and has reached out to dialogue with others as well. Through those activities, awareness and understanding grew. Just as collaboration was essential to developing this Plan, collaboration will be key to its implementation and its ultimate effectiveness. References Corn, A. L., Hatlen, P., Huebner, K. M., Ryan, F., & Siller, M. (1995). The national agenda for the education of children and youths with visual impairments, including those with multiple disabilities. New York: American Foundation for the Blind Press. Corn, A. L., & Silberman, R. K. (1999). Personnel preparation programs in visual impairments: A status of report and national challenges. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 93, 755-769. The Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). National plan for training personnel to serve children with blindness and low vision. Washington, DC: Author. Ferrell, K. A. (1999). Goal 3 survey of personnel preparation enrollments and graduates, 1998-99. (Available from the Division of Special Education, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639) Kirchner, C. (1999). Prevalence estimates for visual impairment: Cutting through the data jungle. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 93, 253-259. Project FORUM. (in press). Personnel serving children with blindness and low vision: State efforts to address shortages. QTA Report. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday. Smith-Davis, J. B., & Billingsley, B. (1993). The supply-demand puzzle. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 205-220. United States Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (1999). School and staffing survey, 1987-88, 1990-1, and 1993-94 and Teacher follow-up survey, 1988-89, 1991-92, and 1994-95. [on-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98/c9859a01.html 1 The term children with blindness and low vision will be used in this report to include infants, toddlers, and youth through the age of 21 who are blind, those who have visual impairments that require specialized accommodations, and those who are deafblind. Some of these children also have other disabilities and may also be classified for funding purposes as having multiple disabilities according to another disability label. All of the children have impairments that result in their entitlement to special services according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. 2 Hereafter referred to as the National Plan, or the Plan. 3 The field refers to parents, consumers, and professionals in vision education and rehabilitation who advocate, provide direct service, train specialized personnel, and administer programs for students with visual impairments. 4 State vision consultants refers to professionals who work for state departments of education or other entities having statewide responsibilities in the areas of blindness and low vision. The actual job titles for these professionals vary from state to state. National Plan for Training Personnel 02/24/00 i