View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Dynamic Process Model for Continued Integration between ECE and EI/ECSE Teacher Preparation Programs

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Dynamic Process Model for Continued Integration between ECE and EI/ECSE Teacher Preparation Programs
Language: English
Authors: La Croix, Leslie (ORCID 0000-0001-5283-1736), Kidd, Julie K., Walter, Heather (ORCID 0000-0002-7390-2051), Stone, Deborah, Ferguson, Daniel (ORCID 0000-0001-7646-9831), Fisher-Maltese, Carley, Steen, Bweikia, Vesely, Colleen (ORCID 0000-0003-2230-2408)
Source: Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. 2023 44(2):216-233.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Early Childhood Teachers, Special Education Teachers, Teacher Education Programs, Preservice Teacher Education, Inclusion, Students with Disabilities, Course Content, Interdisciplinary Approach, Teacher Competencies, State Standards
Geographic Terms: Virginia
DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2023.2194246
ISSN: 1090-1027
1745-5642
Abstract: Early childhood and early childhood special education programs have predominantly been separate teacher preparation programs that prepare novice teachers for general or special education settings. However, with a growing shift toward inclusion, as well as a shortage of educators with training to teach all children, there is a need for teacher preparation programs to prepare all early childhood educators to support all children and engage all families. This article describes one institute of higher education's integrated program and the program's process to align coursework with both the "Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators" and "Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators." We do this by discussing (a) the landscape of teacher education and integrated programs, (b) one IHE's integrated program history, (c) our process for embedding standards, and (d) next steps.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1389268
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGd1EExzeRN7M51iUmClro9AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCvlzXJJUhS1bCn6EwIBEICBmwLQi6xMSSms6_s_EiGrekqMzduuJWFq4ThcuNXI140vM4wkUiaBZOu3pypgHkROKZvwEKdn-yLRo2XS6iW7vcqkyjWlH_RAmQYiZRxWy8wEE4ZwhAgyOJIVIUu2SftlTMkB9YHjRuICrDnDISTXc7aNYhfumqzbPKi3gakIV6BiCQqM0VgJ-YWpgplYzH3ESvjwk8kRMKJJ8UW1
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0164010692;[15u7]01apr.23;2023Jun02.06:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0164010692-1">A dynamic process model for continued integration between ECE and EI/ECSE teacher preparation programs </title> <p>Early childhood and early childhood special education programs have predominantly been separate teacher preparation programs that prepare novice teachers for general or special education settings. However, with a growing shift toward inclusion, as well as a shortage of educators with training to teach all children, there is a need for teacher preparation programs to prepare all early childhood educators to support all children and engage all families. This article describes one institute of higher education's integrated program and the program's process to align coursework with both the Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators and Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators. We do this by discussing (a) the landscape of teacher education and integrated programs, (b) one IHE's integrated program history, (c) our process for embedding standards, and (d) next steps.</p> <p>The release of the Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Early Childhood's (CEC/DEC, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]) <emph>Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators</emph> (2020 EI/ECSE standards) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children's (NAEYC, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]) <emph>Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators</emph> (2020 ECE standards) afford Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Early Childhood Special Education (EI/ECSE) teacher preparation programs a unique opportunity to reflect on and re-envision program curriculum and experiences. The latest standards represent the most recent collaborations between EI/ECSE and ECE professionals working together to articulate best practices for engaging and empowering young learners and their families. From a historical perspective, when PL 99–457 (1986) was passed, legislation went into effect authorizing EI services for children birth to age 3 and free appropriate public education and related services for children with dis/abilities ages 3 to 5 "in the least restrictive environment commensurate with their needs" (Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]). As efforts to include children with dis/abilities more fully into classrooms with their typically developing peers increased, ECE and EI/ECSE professionals began to work more closely together (Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]). In addition, ECE teacher preparation programs were encouraged and often required to integrate content and field placements focused on teaching children with dis/abilities.</p> <p>Concurrent with the increased call for inclusive instructional practices, teacher preparation programs in the United States began working to respond to the emerging performance-based standards movement. Born out of the work by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards created in 1987 to recognize the intentional practices evidenced by expert teachers, the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) published the first set of professional teaching standards in 1992 (CCSSO, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]; Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]). Revised in 2011, the InTASC standards are integrated into the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation(CAEP, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]) Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge to inform the accreditation processes for institutions of higher education and thereby shape the curriculum, clinical field experiences, and assessment practices for initial and advanced licensure programs for many institutions of higher education across the nation.</p> <p>While InTASC and CAEP accreditation standards guide all educators, professional associations develop national standards for specific populations. Accordingly, the 2020 ECE and 2020 EI/ECSE standards enhance and extend InTASC 2011 to articulate and promote the unique professional practices ECE and EI/ECSE teachers need to enact when working with diverse young children and their families (Early Childhood Personnel Center, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]). The new 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards are an outgrowth of collaborations among 15 national organizations, including DEC and NAEYC, serving on the Power to the Profession Task Force, which formed to develop a unifying framework designed to define and guide ECE as an interdisciplinary profession (DEC, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]; Mickelson, Correa, & Stayton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>]; NAEYC, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>]; P2P, 2020). These standards help realize recommendations included in a position statement by DEC and in 2022 encouraging programs to promote ECE and EI/ECSE teachers' professional practices facilitating effective inclusive learning environments (DEC, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Over time, inclusion has been defined more broadly to include children from marginalized backgrounds or with diverse abilities, racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Mickelson, Correa, & Stayton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]; Pugach, Blanton, Mickelson, & Boveda, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]). Pugach, Blanton, Mickelson, and Boveda ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]) explain that "learners are often marginalized – and jeopardized – based on multiple, intersecting social markers of identity" (p. 86). Embracing expanded conceptualizations of learners' intersectionalities is critically important for educators seeking to create equitable spaces for all children to learn together (Sullivan, Kulkarni, & Chhuon, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]). As Kozleski ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]) underscores, "These intersections impact student identity, motivation, interest, and connection to education" (p. 340).</p> <p>Given the shift toward inclusive education, there has been a simultaneous call for unified teacher preparation programs that prepare early educators to work effectively with all young children and their families in inclusive settings (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]; Gargiulo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]; Miller & Stayton, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]; Stayton & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref21">29</reflink>]). Stayton and Miller ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]) argued "that all children's abilities and needs occur along a broad continuum and that educators who work with heterogeneous groups of young children will encounter, on a daily basis, special needs that require specialized instructional skill" (p. 373).</p> <p>Throughout this time, ECE and EI/ECSE teacher educators' commitment to equitable and inclusive collaborations aligned philosophically; however, policy initiatives, funding practices, and norms that keep ECE and EI/ECSE separated impeded cohesive program integrations nationally (Blanton, Pugach, & Boveda, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]). Nonetheless, since the late 1980s, preparatory programs have moved toward building collaborative programs to unify ECE and EI/ECSE standards and practices (Mickelson, Correa, & Stayton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]). Over the years, programs have used a variety of terminology to document and describe their collaborative programs, including blended, dual, inclusive, merged, unified, and integrated (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]; Mickelson, Correa, & Stayton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]). While collaborative programs have existed, research examining their effectiveness is scarce; therefore, there is limited evidence to inform the development and refinement of integrated programs (Mickelson, Correa, & Stayton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]). Despite the lack of research on the outcomes of integrated programs, it is clear that teacher preparation programs must prepare ECE and EI/ECSE professionals who have the knowledge and competencies to work with all young children in inclusive settings (Mickelson, Correa, & Stayton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>In response to the need for early childhood and early childhood special educators who are prepared to provide inclusive educational experiences, some ECE and EI/ECSE teacher preparation programs created unified programs blending ECE and EI/ECSE pedagogy and embedding evidence-based practices (Dunne, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]; Gargiulo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]; Kemple et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>]; Stayton & McCollum, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]). To delineate differences among integrated programs, Blanton and Pugach ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]) describe a continuum of program models including discrete, integrated, and merged programs. Discrete programs retain a curricular division between courses required for students pursuing general education and students seeking special education degrees (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]; Pugach, Blanton, Mickelson, & Boveda, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]). Integrated programs "engage in intentional and coordinated program-level efforts to accomplish a significant degree of curricular overlap, which is designed to strengthen the preparation of general education and special education teachers" (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>], p. 224). In integrated programs there is no intention for students to exit preparatory programs with both general education and special education licensure (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]). Alternatively, students enrolled in merged preparatory programs complete the same curricular program of studies and exit with licensure in both areas (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]). Hallmarks of integrated and merged programs include developing a coherent curriculum, promoting faculty collaboration, considering depth of knowledge needed to develop expertise, designing student performance assessments incorporating general and special education standards, and establishing intentional partnerships with PK-12 schools (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-2">Description of our integrated ECE and EI/ECSE program</hd> <p>Here, we highlight one innovative approach to early childhood and early childhood special educator preparation through detailing our integrated ECE and EI/ECSE initial-licensure program. We use the term integrated ECE and EI/ECSE program in alignment with Blanton and Pugach's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]) description that recognizes faculty within a program work with intentionality to "integrate curricula to better prepare all teachers with a solid foundation in content and pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogy, diversity, and professional skills of collaboration" (p. 224). Guided by state licensure requirements, our integrative approach provides the knowledge and competencies all early educators need to possess as well as specialized knowledge and competencies for teacher candidates seeking ECE, EI/ECSE licensure, or licensure in both ECE and EI/ECSE. Accordingly, candidates in our integrated program complete five courses that explicitly incorporate DEC and NAEYC professional standards. Our program serves undergraduate and graduate students and integrates ECE and EI/ECSE licensure concentrations to prepare educators to work in concert with one another to engage young children in inclusive educational settings that meet their individual learning needs and support their family's goals for them. Like Pugach, Blanton, Mickelson, and Boveda ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>]), our program embraces "inclusion as a <emph>broad, shared, equity agenda</emph> designed to assure educational success for every group of marginalized learners" (p. 86). Therefore, central to our program is a vision of inclusive educational spaces with a commitment to preparing educators to "engage in advocacy for equity, access, and participation to support young children, families, communities, and other professionals" (Early Childhood Education Program Principles, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>].). In doing so, we apply a strength-based approach to working with all young children and families. Throughout our coursework and field experiences, we engage ECE and EI/ECSE educators in reflective practices that result in informed decisions about evidence-based practices and approaches that will best meet each individual child's needs. Our goal is to develop knowledgeable and highly effective ECE and EI/ECSE educators who work collaboratively with families, each other, and other professionals to provide inclusive experiences for all children. Over the almost 30 years in existence as an integrated program, we have remained committed to our original vision of preparing ECE and EI/ECSE educators who use their knowledge of evidence-based practices and their reflections on the impact of a variety of diversities (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, language, socioeconomic status, and dis/ability) to create responsive, inclusive environments for young children and their families (Kidd, Sánchez, & Thorp, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Since 1995, our program has transitioned from a unified 60-credit, 2-year, full-time program leading to triple licensure in ECE, EI/ECSE, and English as a Second Language to an integrated model that honors the depth of expertise ECE and EI/ECSE educators need in their respective fields while providing opportunities for ECE and EI/ECSE educators to learn with and from each other (Pugach, Blanton, Mickelson, & Boveda, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]). The shift from a unified triple licensure program to an integrated program took place when enrollment dropped due to factors described by Mickelson, Correa, and Stayton ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]), including scarcity of funding to support full-time students and the number of credit hours needed to integrate knowledge and competencies across the licensure areas. As the unified program was phasing out, we engaged in intensive program redesign that reconceptualized our licensure pathways as integrated concentrations that included coursework and field experiences common to ECE and EI/ECSE and coursework and field experiences specific to each licensure area that integrated standards and evidence-based practices from both fields.</p> <p>Over the past decade, program development and refinement were ongoing to (a) ensure the quality and relevancy of our offerings; (b) align our coursework and experiences with the 2010 NAEYC Standards, 2012 Initial CEC Standards, and EI/ECSE Specialty Set; and (c) respond to changes in state regulations governing state-approved licensure programs. Due to these efforts, our graduate program is nationally recognized by CEC and NAEYC and approved by the state. Currently, we offer 36-credit, state-approved, licensure graduate concentrations that lead to ECE (PreK through third grade) or EI/ECSE (birth through age 5) licensure. Each concentration includes 18 credit hours of integrated coursework, 12 credits of coursework specific to the licensure area, and 6 credits of internship in the licensure area. We also have an option for ECE and EI/ECSE dual licensure. More recently, in response to changes in state legislation, we developed and implemented an undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Education with three licensure concentrations: ECE, EI/ECSE, and ECE and EI/ECSE (dual). In addition to general studies requirements and electives, there are 21 credit hours of integrated coursework and 12 credits of coursework specific to each licensure area. All undergraduate students engage in 12 credits of internship.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-3">Release of professional standards</hd> <p>The Blue Ribbon Panel Report (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]) suggested that one of the key elements to teacher preparation is providing candidates an interactive professional community of practice based on standards. When teacher candidates are provided with opportunities to reflect upon the standards through rich collaboration, exposure, experiences, and implementation, they begin to make connections between the standards and future practice. As a way to ensure ECE and EI/ECSE preparation programs meet the diverse needs of all young children within inclusive settings and to sustain a well-equipped workforce, DEC (2020) developed the <emph>2020 EI/ECSE standards</emph> and NAEYC ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref47">22</reflink>]) developed the <emph>2020 ECE standards</emph>. Consequently, ECE and EI/ECSE teacher preparation programs have a unique opportunity to reflect on and re-envision their program curriculum and experiences as they integrate the new professional standards and competencies.</p> <p>This is an especially exciting time in program curriculum development because it is the first time professional standards specifically focusing on EI/ECSE standards have been available. The development of the 2020 EI/ECSE standards was an outgrowth of collaborations among 15 national organizations, including DEC and NAEYC, serving on the Power to the Profession Task Force, which was formed to develop a unifying framework for ECE (NAEYC, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]; Power to the Profession, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref49">25</reflink>]). The new 2020 EI/ECSE standards continue to support teacher educators' intentional collaborations to provide high-quality curricular experiences that prepare ECE and EI/ECSE professionals to work in inclusive environments with young children who bring a variety of diversities to early care and education contexts (Pugach, Blanton, Mickelson, & Boveda, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]). As a result of the collaboration, the 2020 ECE standards were developed with the intention that they would "be explicitly positioned as the foundation for the standards and competencies of the unified early childhood education profession" (NAEYC, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>], p. 1). Because EI/ECSE professionals require specialized knowledge and competencies, the 2020 EI/ECSE standards were developed as a unique set of standards that builds upon the 2020 ECE standards (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The 2020 EI/ECSE standards specifically target the knowledge (i.e., content), skills (i.e., field experience), and dispositions (i.e., reflection) related to professional practice and highlight pre-service and in-service inclusive curriculum and a high-quality EI/ECSE workforce (DEC, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>]). The standards intentionally promote diversity, equity, and inclusive practices that put the development and learning outcomes for young children at the center of the decision-making process. Interagency and multidisciplinary collaboration and partnerships are also recognized as critical for providing appropriate access, participation, and support to children and families with diverse needs. The revised standards include terminology and competency expectations that create a clear description for teacher education programs. These standards help to ensure that early childhood teacher education programs of study are inclusive of varied learning opportunities for candidates to acquire appropriate knowledge, understanding, and application within multiple early childhood settings and age groups (DEC, 2020).</p> <p>One critical example of how DEC and NAEYC standards work together to support knowledge, skills, and dispositions development is the ever-expanding understanding of authentically engaging families in their young children's learning. As the early childhood field has moved from parent involvement to family engagement to family partnership, teacher preparation programs must ensure early educators are prepared to build strengths-based partnerships, as guided by the 2020 ECE and the 2020 EI/ECSE standards. These standards continue to include some of the earliest ideas related to communication that were a part of the original NAEYC standards (Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref54">4</reflink>]) such as DEC 2.2 which states that "candidates communicate clear, comprehensive, objective information about resources and supports that help families to make informed decisions and advocate for access, participation, and equity in natural and inclusive environments," with a focus on two-way communication, advocacy, and joint decision-making (EI/ECSE Standards, 2020). To ensure early educators build reciprocal, culturally responsive partnerships with families, NAEYC 2b addresses collaboration by stating educators "collaborate as partners with families in young children's development and learning through respectful, reciprocal relationships and engagement" (ECE Standards, 2020). Similarly, educators understand the nuances and strengths of each family system's dynamic by incorporating standard DEC 2.1: "Candidates apply their knowledge of family-centered practices, family systems theory, and the changing needs and priorities in family's lives to develop trusting, respectful, culturally responsive and affirming partnerships with all families that allow for the mutual exchange of knowledge and information" (EI/ECSE Standards, 2020). These standards ensure early educators work to build reciprocal, culturally responsive partnerships with families (NAEYC 2b, DEC 2.1) by understanding the nuances and strengths of each family system's dynamics (DEC 2.1).</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-4">A collaborative action: re-envisioning</hd> <p>The release of the 2020 EI/ECSE and the 2020 ECE standards, provided our program the opportunity to reflect and consider programmatic revision. We used the crosswalk of the standards to refine, revise, and redesign our coursework and field experiences (Early Childhood Personnel Center, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>]). Our program includes full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty who bring multidisciplinary expertise to the collaborations, including ECE, EI/ECSE, human development, counseling, curriculum and instruction, family science, language and literacy, mathematics, policy, psychology, science, and social studies. Collaborating as a multidisciplinary team enables us to work in "relationship, rather than in opposition" as we bring overlapping and differing knowledge and expertise from our fields to inform the evolution of our program (Blanton, Pugach, & Boveda, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>], p. 361). We drew upon the expertise of our multidisciplinary team of teacher educators, capitalized on our commitment to inclusion of every child and their family, and used the new standards to inform revisions to our ECE and EI/ECSE licensure concentrations.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-5">Our process</hd> <p>In Fall 2020, we began faculty discussions of standard alignment across the 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards within courses. The following sets of questions guided our analysis and allowed us to consider where and how we introduced, developed, and assessed each standard:</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>) How do the standards align with the course content?</p> <p>a. Which elements of the standards are introduced?</p> <p>b. Which elements of the standards are currently assessed in this class?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>) What suggestions do instructors have, if any, for the assessments used in each course?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref59">3</reflink>) How does this course support content in other courses? How are the elements further developed, emphasized, reinforced, and/or applied in other courses?</item> </ulist> <p>These questions work to bring about curricular coherence, an important component of integrated programs (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]). In this process, we focused on designing a curricular progression to develop candidates' knowledge and skills and establish "a common, clear vision of good teaching that permeates all course work and clinical experiences, creating a coherent set of learning experiences" (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>], p. 305). Throughout this process, we worked to align our curriculum to both sets of standards and re-envision where to assess specific standards (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>]). We progressed through the revision process in phases. In our first phase (Fall 2020-Summer 2021), we focused on four of five foundational courses all ECE and EI/ECSE students complete. The fifth foundational course in early literacy instruction for preschool and kindergarten students was held for revisions until a later date due to expected revisions to state regulations. In the second phase (Summer-Fall 2021), we focused on the EI/ECSE specialized coursework. In our final phase (anticipated Fall 2023), we will focus on the content methods courses for ECE licensure, along with our early literacy foundation course. We will first discuss the revision processes for our integrated ECE and EI/ECSE foundation courses. Then, we will examine the intensive redesign of coursework supporting the expertise for EI/ECSE teacher candidates. Finally, we will consider our lessons learned and share the steps we anticipate using to revise coursework supporting the expertise of ECE teacher candidates.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-6">Phase one: foundation courses</hd> <p>Committed to preparing preservice teachers to work within inclusive settings, all students pursuing a degree in ECE, regardless of licensure path, must complete a set of five foundational courses that strategically integrate the new 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards. The five foundational courses include a course in (a) child development, (b) early literacy, (c) inclusive curriculum, (d) family engagement, and (e) assessment (see Table 1). In four of the five introductory courses, students participate in structured field experiences to develop initial understandings and skills early educators use to engage young learners and their families. The field experiences are tightly connected to course objectives, and instructors use the diverse field placement contexts and experiences to intentionally bridge theory into practice (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref63">9</reflink>]). In this way, the foundational courses introduce students to new content and skills, open spaces for guided implementation opportunities, and provide contexts for assessing individual candidates' enacted standards-based practices.</p> <p>Table 1. Foundational coursework with structured field experiences.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Foundational Course</td><td>Field Placement Context</td><td>Enriched Experience After Faculty Collaboration</td><td>DEC Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for EI/ECSE Assessed</td><td>NAEYC Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators Assessed</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Child Development</td><td>Video Case Study (no field experience)</td><td>Integrated culturally & ability sensitive developmental progressions chart</td><td>Building Knowledge and Skills</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Early Literacy</td><td>PreK and K Full class context</td><td>Piloting revisions Spring 2022</td><td>Building Knowledge and Skills</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Inclusive Curriculum</td><td>Variety of ECE settings Full class context, 2 years − 3<sup>rd</sup> grade</td><td>Enhanced universal design practices in the lesson plan frame for key assessment</td><td>DEC 1.1 DEC 1.2</td><td>NAEYC 1a NAEYC 1b NAEYC 1d</td></tr><tr><td>Family Engagement</td><td>Variety of contexts 1 family</td><td>Home Visit Project added Family Centered Resource Tool and Family Engagement Plan</td><td>DEC 2.1 DEC 2.2</td><td>NAEYC 2a NAEYC 2b NAEYC 2c</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>2 years − 3<sup>rd</sup> grade 1 child</td><td>Enhanced family engagement in the Child Case Study Key Assessment Portfolio Project with a family survey</td><td>DEC 4.1 DEC 4.2 DEC 4.3</td><td>NAEYC 3a NAEYC 3b NAEYC 3c</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To ensure thoughtful standard integration occurred, we worked in teams to critically analyze and revise four of the five foundational courses. Course leads (i.e., faculty members responsible for coordinating curriculum development and supporting instructors for specific courses) facilitated a series of meetings with all of the instructional faculty associated with each of the four courses. Each team included ECE and EI/ECSE instructional faculty as well as instructors with expertise in disciplines, such as counseling, educational psychology, family science, and psychology. Critical conversations via face-to-face and Zoom video conference calls focused on understanding how students were engaging in the essential concepts articulated in the course objectives, which integrated the state licensure professional and content area standards with the 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards. In addition, we used Microsoft Teams as a platform to document changes to courses and a vehicle for instructional faculty within and across courses to provide input and feedback. Conversations and feedback provided across courses led to shifts in how specific standards were embedded, emphasized, and assessed in each course. These intentional faculty collaborations allowed us to consider how best to ensure students develop the depth of knowledge necessary for supporting and engaging all learners (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]). For example, under our dually recognized CEC and NAEYC integrated program, we assessed four professional standards focused on understanding the unique influences on individual learners' developmental progressions and pathways (i.e., CEC 1.1, CEC 1.2, NAEYC 1a, and NAEYC 1b). However, as we collaboratively worked to integrate the 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards across courses we discussed the need for building in developmental spaces for our teacher candidates to acquire foundational pedagogical and content knowledge (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref65">8</reflink>]). We found this necessary for intentional instructional planning and assessment practices. Accordingly, we moved our key assessment evaluating teacher candidates' knowledge of child development from our developmental pathways course to our inclusive curriculum course where teacher candidates would have the opportunity to integrate their emerging understandings of children's developmental progressions with universal design instructional practices to engage young learners during an initial field experience. The shift opened spaces for instructors facilitating the developmental pathways course to engage students in video case studies and guide students' examinations of children's developmental progressions with sensitivity to ecological influences, differences in functional abilities, and cultural diversities.</p> <p>At this time, we also enhanced our engaging families and assessment courses to expand students' opportunities to value "reciprocal relationships with families, and to engage with them as partners in their young children's development and learning" (NAEYC, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref66">22</reflink>], p. 13). Accordingly, in our family engagement course, the students complete a home visit project that strategically guides students' reflection practices to surface implicit biases and strengthen practices to "develop trusting, respectful, affirming, and culturally responsive partnerships with all families that allow for the mutual exchange of knowledge and information" (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>], p. 127). As a result of faculty collaborations working to integrate the new standards, the home visit project now culminates in students' generation of a family-centered resource tool uniquely developed to support the family's expressed needs. Students continue to build practices for engaging families in our assessment course by inviting their case study child's family to share their child's "strengths, priorities, ... [and] goals they have for their family and their young child's development and learning" (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>], p. 130). Students leverage this knowledge to complete a series of child-centric assessments that are "developmentally, culturally and linguistically appropriate, [with] valid, reliable tools ... responsive to the characteristics of the young child [and] family" (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>], p. 137).</p> <p>The structured field experiences within the foundational courses work in systematic ways to blend the 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards. This integrated approach provides the theoretical framework that supports students as they progress through their coursework. The theoretical framework acknowledges students are grounded in ongoing dialog with faculty. This coursework is intentionally designed to strengthen initial understandings and develop students' pedagogical practices and professional expertise as they pursue specific coursework in EI/ECSE (serving children birth through age 5) and/or ECE (serving children in prekindergarten through third grade). The EI/ECSE specialization courses honor the specialized knowledge and competencies EI/ECSE professionals need to fully leverage to support and engage young learners within inclusive settings (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>]). Likewise, the ECE specialization courses provide the specialized knowledge and competencies ECE professionals need.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-7">Phase two: EI/ECSE specific courses</hd> <p>Upon release of the 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards, our program faculty identified a need to revisit coursework specific to EI/ECSE licensure. Our goal was to ensure the standards were embedded in a systematic and intentional manner to intentionally provide candidates additional exposure and practice with this set of standards. We collaboratively engaged in an intentional, iterative process that included four steps.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-8">Step one</hd> <p>To ensure cohesive integration of the new 2020 EI/ECSE standards, we used the resources provided by the Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC), and we identified four themes in which the seven standards could be embedded. These resources included (a) the ECPC curriculum planning tool (ECPC, 2020), (b) ECPC's crosswalk with the 2020 EI/ECSE standards (ECPC, 2020), and (c) DEC's Recommended Practices (DEC, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]). These tools supported a cohesive process by allowing us to look across standards, recommended practices, and state standards to ensure alignment across competencies. The themes included (a) etiology, development, and theory; (b) data-based decision making; (c) individualized interventions; and (d) collaboration and teaming. Using our existing state-approved EI/ECSE licensure pathway, we reviewed the existing course learning objectives and reorganized them by placing them in each of the four category themes to ensure we would address our existing strengths using a purposeful, systematic approach. We used the ECPC Planning Tool and crosswalk materials to align the 2020 EI/ECSE standards, 2020 ECE standards, DEC Recommended Practices, state competencies, previous and additional learning objectives, course materials, and assignments. Referencing the crosswalk resource while completing the curriculum planning tool provided by ECPC made the process manageable and feasible. Once we identified how content was aligned with the EI/ECSE standards, we were able to efficiently identify where the Professional Standards and the Recommended Practice were embedded across courses as the Crosswalk tool contains this information. This resulted in four revised courses that embedded our previous program strengths: Introduction to Early Childhood Special Education, Data-Based Decision Making and Curriculum Planning, Individualized Interventions, and Collaboration and Teaming (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. EI/ECSE coursework with structured field experiences.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Advanced ECSE Course</td><td>Field Placement Context</td><td>Enriched Experience</td><td>DEC <italic>Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for EI/ECSE</italic> Assessed</td><td>NAEYC <italic>Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators</italic> Assessed</td><td>DEC Recommended Practices</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Introduction to Early Childhood Special Education</td><td>Birth to Five Field Placements Across Settings (home, childcare, preschool classroom)</td><td>Child observations, discussion, theory to practice, and forming interdisciplinary partnerships</td><td>DEC 1.2 DEC 1.2 DEC 1.3 DEC 1.4 DEC 7.1 DEC 7.2 DEC 7.3 DEC 7.4</td><td>NAEYC 1a NAEYC 1b NAEYC 1c NAEYC 6a NAEYC 6b NAEYC 6e</td><td>A3 A4 A8 A10 INS 2 INS 4 INS 10 INS 11</td></tr><tr><td>Data-Based Decision Making and Curriculum Planning</td><td>Birth to Five Field Placements Across Settings (home, childcare, preschool classroom)</td><td>Eligibility determination and curriculum planning</td><td>DEC 4.1 DEC 4.2 DEC 4.3 DEC 4.4 DEC 5.1 DEC 5.2</td><td>NAEYC 3a NAEYC 3b NAEYC 3c NAEYC 3d NAEYC 5a NAEYC 5b NAEYC 5c</td><td>A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 E2 E3 F4 F8</td></tr><tr><td>Individualized Interventions</td><td>Birth to Five Field Placements Across Settings (home, childcare, preschool classroom)</td><td>Muti-tiered systems of supports across developmental domains</td><td>DEC 6.1 DEC 6.2 DEC 6.3 DEC 6.4 DEC 6.5 DEC 6.6 DEC 6.7</td><td>NAEYC 2b NAEYC 4a NAEYC 4b NAEYC 4c</td><td>A2 A4 E1 E3 E4 E5 F4 INS1 INS2 INS3 INS4 INS5 INS6 INS7 INS8 INS9 INT1 INT2 INT3 INT4 INT5 TC1</td></tr><tr><td>Collaboration and Teaming</td><td>Birth to Five Field Placements Across Settings (home, childcare, preschool classroom)</td><td>Collaboration, teaming, and interdisciplinary program planning</td><td>DEC 2.1 DEC 2.2 DEC 2.3 DEC 3.1 DEC 3.2 DEC 3.3</td><td>2a 2b 2c</td><td>A1 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 INS13 TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TR1 TR2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0164010692-9">Step two</hd> <p>Next, it was critical to also ensure candidates would be (a) introduced to content, (b) engaged in guided practice, and (c) independently assessed to ensure adequate experiences and supports were provided resulting in independent use and mastery of content and experiences that included individualized program planning, observation and interdisciplinary eligibility determination, and inclusive and individualized curriculum planning. Using the ECPC resources (e.g., assignments) and our current program assignments, we revised and developed assignments that aligned with both the learning objectives for each course and the 2020 EI/ECSE standards. To ensure candidates would receive an intentional and sequential process to their independent mastery of EI/ECSE competencies and skills, we also developed a visual crosswalk of how course experiences and assignments would build upon one another across the four EI/ECSE courses (see Table 3). Visual crosswalks support efforts to ensure program coherence for integrated programs (Blanton & Pugach, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>]). This allowed us to see how the four courses progressed to introduce, practice, and/or assess each of the 2020 EI/ECSE standards to ensure that these additional learning experiences were being intentionally scaffolded across the four EI/ECSE courses. For example, within candidates' first course, Introduction to Early Childhood Special Education, one assignment focuses on individualized education program (IEP) review (introduced/guided practice). Then, in the fourth course, Collaboration and Teaming, candidates independently complete an IEP (guided practice/assessed).</p> <p>Table 3. Visual crosswalk of EI/ECSE assignments.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Topics</td><td>Course 1: Introduction to Early Childhood Special Education</td><td>Course 2: Data Based Decision Making and Curriculum Planning</td><td>Course 3: Individualized Interventions</td><td>Course 4: Collaboration and Teaming</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Individualized Program Planning</td><td>IEP and IFSP Comparison Review Interdisciplinary Case Study/Parent Partnership Theory to Practice in Early Childhood Special Education Discussion</td><td>Assessment Tool Review Eligibility Report</td><td>Adult Led Academic Support and Intervention Project Tiered Social Emotional Supports Project Routines-based Intervention Plan</td><td>Program Planning Part C to Part B Transition Plan Virginia Early Intervention Certificate Courses Collaboration and Teaming Class Discussions Family Centered Early Childhood Special Education Practice Project Teaming Models</td></tr><tr><td>Observation and Interdisciplinary Eligibility Determination</td><td>Child Observations Interdisciplinary Case Study/Parent Partnership Theory to Practice in Early Childhood Special Education Discussion</td><td>Eligibility Report Assessment Tool Review</td><td>Play Project</td><td>Virginia Early Intervention Certificate Courses</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusive and Individualized Curriculum Planning</td><td>Child Observations Interdisciplinary Case Study/Parent Partnership Theory to Practice in Early Childhood Special Education Discussion</td><td>Environmental Rating Scale Assessment Tool Review Activity Plan Observation Activity Plan with Family or Preschool Partner</td><td>AFIRM Learning Modules Adult Led Academic Support and Intervention Project Tiered Social Emotional Supports Project Routines-based Intervention Plan</td><td>Virginia Early Intervention Certificate Courses</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0164010692-10">Step three</hd> <p>Once standards, learning objectives, and assignments were embedded into each of the four courses, we aligned each state endorsement competency to the appropriate course learning objective(s) by reviewing the state endorsement competencies and matching them to the appropriate learning objective within the ECPC planning tool resource. We also explicitly identified the assignments that would assess mastery related to the state endorsement competencies within this tool. This ensured that the revisions we made to the EI/ECSE courses aligned with state licensure requirements.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-11">Step four</hd> <p>Finally, prior to seeking university approval, all program faculty were invited to review the revision process. Given the nature of these revisions, we used a collaborative development and evaluation feedback document to ensure that feedback was intentional and tailored to the objectives of this revision process (see Table 4). In addition, we reviewed and discussed the course syllabi at a faculty meeting and invited further input and feedback. This facilitated a collaborative and intentional review process that was well-documented to ensure all feedback could be discussed and addressed as a program faculty.</p> <p>Table 4. Feedback form development and evaluation document.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>Topics</td><td>Feedback (Yes/No)</td><td>Notes</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course 1: Introduction to Early Childhood Special Education</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Course Description: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with title?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with learning objectives?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Learning Objectives <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Are the learning objectives measurable?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives make sense/need to be reworded?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives align with DEC <italic>Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators</italic>?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Assignments <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Do the assignment descriptions make sense?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the assignments align with the learning objectives to demonstrate mastery?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>State licensure <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the alignment with state licensure requirements evident? Please offer suggestions to strengthen the correlations?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Course 2: Data Based Decision Making and Curriculum Planning</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Course Description <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with title?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with learning objectives?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Learning Objectives <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Are the learning objectives measurable?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives make sense/need to be reworded?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives align with DEC <italic>Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators?</italic></p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Assignments <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Do the assignment descriptions make sense?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the assignments align with the learning objectives to demonstrate mastery?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>State Licensure <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the alignment with state licensure requirements evident? Please offer suggestions to strengthen the correlations.</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Course 3: Individualized Interventions</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Course Description <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with title?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with learning objectives?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Learning Objectives <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Are the learning objectives measurable?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives make sense/need to be reworded?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives align with DEC <italic>Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators</italic>?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Assignments <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Do the assignment descriptions make sense?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the assignments align with the learning objectives to demonstrate mastery?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>State Licensure <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the alignment with state licensure requirements evident? Please offer suggestions to strengthen the correlations.</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Course 4: Collaboration and Teaming</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Course Description <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with title?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is the description aligned with learning objectives?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Learning Objectives <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Are the learning objectives measurable?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives make sense/need to be reworded?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the learning objectives align with DEC <italic>Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators</italic>?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Course 4: Collaboration and Teaming</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Assessments <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Do the assignment descriptions make sense?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do the assignments align with the learning objectives to demonstrate mastery?</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>State Licensure <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Is the alignment with state licensure requirements evident? Please offer suggestions to strengthen the correlations.</p></list-item></list></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0164010692-12">Phase three: next steps</hd> <p>Our next step will involve enhancing our ECE specialization content methods courses to further develop ECE teacher candidates' expertise. The 2020 EI/ECSE standards specify, "Candidates use curriculum frameworks to create and support universally designed, high quality learning experiences in natural and inclusive learning environments that provide each child and family equitable access and opportunities for learning and growth" (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>], p. 143). The faculty will collaboratively revise courses to engage candidates in evidence-based strategies to ensure methods and curricula are accessible to all learners. We also ground this work in NAEYC's core values, which emphasize the importance of diversity and inclusion.</p> <p>Methods coursework (e.g., literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies) offers opportunities for intentionally scaffolding students' understandings of universal design practices to ensure the integration of children's IEP goals into inclusive classroom settings. For example, our science methods course provides a space for considering how best to ensure equitable access for all learners. STEM, an interdisciplinary approach immersing children in science, technology, engineering, mathematics to examine real world problems (NSTA, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref74">24</reflink>]) may pose a challenge for some children with dis/abilities. STEM activities often require children to use gross and fine motor skills to physically engage with objects, have the mobility to participate in experiments, use different senses to explore how things work, and/or require children to ask questions, stay focused, and solve problems. Students with dis/abilities may require accommodations to participate fully in STEM lessons with their peers. With this in mind, our program offers courses that use a hands-on, interdisciplinary approach to STEM teaching and learning, which strive to benefit all children, including children with dis/abilities so they develop the same skills and practices as their typically developing peers, while also meeting the goals laid out in their program plans. Specifically, in our science methods course, students learn how to teach the STEM content (i.e., physical science, life science, engineering, earth and space science) in tandem with universal design principles and consider how to make instructional accommodations (e.g., setting, timing, scheduling, presentation, and response) for individual learners in the classroom. In this way, we continue to support candidates' understanding of how program goals should and can be embedded across curricular content areas. We plan to continue to work collaboratively to examine and revise our science methods course as well as our other ECE specialized courses (i.e., literacy, mathematics, and social studies) as we implement this next phase of our curriculum refinement.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-13">Conclusion</hd> <p>We recognize the three-phase process, detailed in this paper, enhances the existing strengths of our program. Our hope is that this iterative and collaborative process will provide a model for other faculty, institutions, state administrators, and professional development entities to ensure all children and families have access to high-quality education, practices, supports, services, and resources. Although the 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards were developed based on the best available evidence regarding serving diverse children and families, the process was not without challenges, specifically related to program revision, state licensure policies, and professional development efforts. Nonetheless, our hope is that our model illustrates an intentional and meaningful process to ensure all individuals working with children and families have rich, evidence-based experiences that ultimately benefit the children and families with whom they partner.</p> <p>Using the 2020 EI/ECSE and 2020 ECE standards, ECPC resources, and a systematic and collaborative approach provided an opportunity to take a deep dive into intentionally embedding specific content and meaningful experiences into scaffolded courses; revise assignments to reflect the progression students make through this type of program approach; and create new opportunities for students to engage with other students, faculty, and the broader ECE field. Given all that programs are responsible for and must adhere to within their respective colleges, the preparation standards created space for multiple conversations amongst our program faculty regarding what we ethically and professionally value. In conversation, we honored the unique and individual strengths each faculty member brings to our program and solidified our commitment to preparing educators to work with all children in inclusive environments, thereby strengthening our program identity. Using the specific tools provided by ECPC made this process feasible and provided multiple opportunities to see how teacher preparation programs can indeed prepare educators to work with all children. Given the integrated nature of our ECE and EI/ECSE preparatory programs, we anticipate that this model will serve as a guidepost for future program revisions, modifications and enhancements. We hope other ECE and EI/ECSE programs worldwide find our dynamic process complements and informs their own design experiences in meaningful ways.</p> <hd id="AN0164010692-14">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0164010692-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Berlinghoff, D., & McLaughlin, V. L. (2022). Practice-based standards for the preparation of special educators. Council for Exceptional Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2011). Using a classification system to probe the meaning of dual licensure in general and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 34 (3), 219 – 234. doi: 10.1177/0888406411404569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M. C., & Boveda, M. (2018). Interrogating the intersections between general and special education in the history of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 69 (4), 354 – 366. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118778539">http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118778539</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref54" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Caldwell, B. (1983). NAEYC's center accreditation project: Goals and philosophy. Young Children, 38 (3), 33 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> CCSSO's Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2011). InTASC model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_2011.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2020). Standard 1: Content and pedagogical knowledge. https://caepnet.org/standards/2022-itp/standard-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> The Council of Exceptional Children and The Division of Early Childhood. (2020). Initial practice-based professional preparation standards for early interventionists/early childhood special educators (EI/ECSE) (initial birth through age 8). The Council of Exceptional Children. https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards/initial-practice-based-standards-early-interventionists-early-childhood-special-educators.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref61" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (3), 300 – 314. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Accountability in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 42 (1), 60 – 71. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2019.1704464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DEC. (2022). DEC position statement on personnel preparation for early intervention/early childhood special education. https://divisionearlychildhood.egnyte.com/dl/bdmVgW3UAi</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. <ulink href="http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices">http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunne, L. F. (2002). Characteristics of unified and separate early childhood education and early childhood special education programs: A national study. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 25 (3), 219 – 235. doi: 10.1177/088840640202500303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Early Childhood Education Program. (n.d). Program principles [Internal documents]. College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Early Childhood Personnel Center. (2020). Crosswalk of the initial practice-based professional preparation standards for early interventionists/early childhood special educators with the professional standards and competencies for early childhood educators. University of Connecticut Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. https://ecpcta.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2810/2020/10/Crosswalk-EI.ECSE-and-ECE-Standards-Final.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-457, 100 Stat. 1176 (1986). https://<ulink href="http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100/Pg1145.pdf">www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100/Pg1145.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gargiulo, R. M., Sluder, L. C., & Streitenberger, D. (1997). Preparing early childhood educators for inclusive programs: A call for professional unification. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25 (2), 137 – 139. doi: 10.1023/A:1025684806844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemple, K. M., Hartle, L. C., Correa, V. I., & Fox, L. (1994). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: The development of a unified teacher education program in early childhood and early childhood special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17 (1), 38 – 51. doi: 10.1177/088840649401700105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidd, J. K., Sánchez, S. Y., & Thorp, E. K. (2008). Defining moments: Developing culturally responsive dispositions and teaching practices in early childhood preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (2), 316 – 329. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kozleski, E. B. (2020). Disrupting what passes as inclusive education: Predicating educational equity on schools designed for all. The Educational Forum, 84 (4), 340 – 355. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2020.1801047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mickelson, A. M., Correa, V. I., & Stayton, V. D. (2021). Blended preparation in early childhood and early intervention/early childhood special education: Reflecting on the past, paving a path forward. Teacher Education and Special Education, 0 (0), 1 – 22. doi: 10.1177/08884064211037377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P., & Stayton, V. D. (1998). Blended interdisciplinary teacher preparation in early education and intervention: A national study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18 (1), 49 – 59. doi: 10.1177/027112149801800108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NAEYC. (2020). Professional standards and competencies for early childhood educators. The National Association for the Education of Young Children. https://<ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/standards%5fand%5fcompetencies%5fps.pdf">www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/standards%5fand%5fcompetencies%5fps.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. NCATE. <ulink href="http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3D">http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3D</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Teaching Association. (2022). STEM resources. https://<ulink href="http://www.nsta.org/topics/stem">www.nsta.org/topics/stem</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power to the Profession. (2020). Unifying framework for the early childhood education profession. <ulink href="http://powertotheprofession.org/%20unifying-framework/">http://powertotheprofession.org/%20unifying-framework/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pugach, M. C. (2005). Research on preparing general education teachers to work with students with disabilities. In M.-C. Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 549 – 590). New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., Mickelson, A. M., & Boveda, M. (2020). Curriculum theory: The missing perspective in teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 43 (1), 85 – 103. doi: 10.1177/0888406419883665</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stayton, V. D., & McCollum, J. A. (2002). Unifying general and special education: What does the research tell us? Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 25 (3), 211 – 218. doi: 10.1177/088840640202500302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stayton, V. D., & Miller, P. S. (1993). Combining general and special early childhood special education standards in personnel preparation programs: Experiences from two states. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13 (3), 372 – 387. doi: 10.1177/027112149301300311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan, A. L., Kulkarni, T., & Chhuon, V. (2020). Making visible the invisible: Multistudy investigation of disproportionate special education identification of U.S. Asian American and Pacific Islander students. Exceptional Children, 86 (4), 449 – 467. doi: 10.1177/0014402920905548</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Leslie La Croix; Julie K. Kidd; Heather Walter; Deborah Stone; Daniel Ferguson; Carley Fisher-Maltese; Bweikia Steen and Colleen Vesely</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref74"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1389268
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Dynamic Process Model for Continued Integration between ECE and EI/ECSE Teacher Preparation Programs
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22La+Croix%2C+Leslie%22">La Croix, Leslie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5283-1736">0000-0001-5283-1736</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kidd%2C+Julie+K%2E%22">Kidd, Julie K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Walter%2C+Heather%22">Walter, Heather</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7390-2051">0000-0002-7390-2051</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stone%2C+Deborah%22">Stone, Deborah</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ferguson%2C+Daniel%22">Ferguson, Daniel</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-9831">0000-0001-7646-9831</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fisher-Maltese%2C+Carley%22">Fisher-Maltese, Carley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steen%2C+Bweikia%22">Steen, Bweikia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vesely%2C+Colleen%22">Vesely, Colleen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2230-2408">0000-0003-2230-2408</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Early+Childhood+Teacher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 44(2):216-233.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– 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="%22Early+Childhood+Teachers%22">Early Childhood Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Course+Content%22">Course Content</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Standards%22">State Standards</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Virginia%22">Virginia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10901027.2023.2194246
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1090-1027<br />1745-5642
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Early childhood and early childhood special education programs have predominantly been separate teacher preparation programs that prepare novice teachers for general or special education settings. However, with a growing shift toward inclusion, as well as a shortage of educators with training to teach all children, there is a need for teacher preparation programs to prepare all early childhood educators to support all children and engage all families. This article describes one institute of higher education's integrated program and the program's process to align coursework with both the "Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators" and "Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators." We do this by discussing (a) the landscape of teacher education and integrated programs, (b) one IHE's integrated program history, (c) our process for embedding standards, and (d) next steps.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1389268
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1389268
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10901027.2023.2194246
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 216
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Course Content
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Virginia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Dynamic Process Model for Continued Integration between ECE and EI/ECSE Teacher Preparation Programs
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: La Croix, Leslie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kidd, Julie K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Walter, Heather
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stone, Deborah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ferguson, Daniel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fisher-Maltese, Carley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Steen, Bweikia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vesely, Colleen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1090-1027
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1745-5642
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1