Introduction

Rationale for Standards

Standards for teacher preparation programs serve to guide our practice. They represent agreed-upon, valued stances with regard to teaching and teacher education. Standards help us reflect on our practice, what we value, what we teach and how we teach. They help us to systematically consider issues central to the improvement of education. The process of developing and interpreting standards plays a key role in teacher education and practice by serving to redirect, reform, and re-invigorate the field itself. Standards not only function to improve education programs available to prospective teachers but they also server to promote the advancement of the profession through asserting the importance of delivering quality education.

Definition of Inclusion

Even though inclusion has varies meanings for different individuals, practitioners, schools, and institutions, there is a core understanding of inclusion that can and should guide teacher preparation. For these standards we have defined inclusion as incorporating the following beliefs. Students with diverse backgrounds, capabilities and support requirements participate in general education settings as full members of the learning community. Necessary services and instructional assistance for the students and teacher are provided within the classroom. The general classroom teacher, in collaboration with support professionals, assumes responsibility and accountability for designing meaningful learning experience that maximize learner strengths and assure the success of all children in achieving curricular learning goals that meet high standards. (Dorrow, 1999)

Development of the Standards

These standards are a natural outgrowth of the work of the Higher Education Task Force which was started in 1996 as one component if the New York State Partnership for Statewide Systems Change 2000. The Higher Education Task Force focuses on the preparation needed for quality inclusive teaching and the challenges of moving institutions toward inclusive teacher preparation.

Over 70 institutions (originally 20 at the time of the creation of these standards) representing a range of schools, from small colleges to large universities, are members of the Task Force. Each member institution has agreed to support improvements of teacher preparation for quality inclusive schools.

Purpose of the Standards for Inclusive Teacher Preparation Programs

The following standards do not prescribe practice. Although the standards may be clear and precise, they allow for alternative ways of approaching practice. The design and delivery of inclusive teacher education programs is the purview of practitioners and institutions.

Standard 1: Strong Inclusive Framework

The program has a conceptual framework that contains a strong inclusive focus and allows for growth and change of values, knowledge, and practices.

Sample Indicators:

• The framework has clear ties to current research and innovative practice
• The framework is evident in all course through syllabi, learning activities, and assessments
• The framework is reflected in faculty beliefs and practices as evidenced by faculty papers and presentations, community service, and syllabi

Standard 2: Inclusive Faculty Dedication

The program is served by a core group of full time faculty who are committed to inclusion and who work to deliver, sustain, and advance inclusive teacher education.

Sample Indicators:

• Majority of program faculty are full time
• All faculty can articulate the framework
• Structures are in place to orient and mentor new and adjunct faculty into the program and its conceptual framework
• A systematic communication structure exists among and between faculty and students
• Faculty commit time to the development of community relationships, particularly those that demonstrate a strong commitment to diversity
• Faculty actively participate in local, state, and national initiatives to implement and improve inclusive practices

Standard 3: Collaborative Practices

The program incorporates collaborative practices throughout such that collaboration is essential to program success.

Sample Indicators:

• Faculty co-teach courses
• Faculty collaboratively plan with liberal arts faculty
• Faculty work together in field experiences
• Students collaborate with faculty and with each other during the learning process
• Students collaborate with faculty in research and evaluation
• Faculty work with local teachers, administrators, parents and community groups in the design and delivery of educational opportunities

Standard 4: Inclusive Field Experiences

The study of inclusion and inclusive practices is integrated with field experiences.

Sample Indicators:

• Key courses incorporate field experiences
• Faculty participate in field experiences
• Student assessment incorporates field performance
• A variety of quality inclusive settings are available to students for fieldwork

Standard 5: Continuing Research & Evaluation

The program reflects a continuing commitment to research and evaluation that reflect the changing world of knowledge and practice on inclusion in education and society.

Sample Indicators:

• Faculty is actively engaged in professional activities and research related to inclusion
• Time and support are regularly provided to faculty for professional and programmatic development
• Program evaluation is planned, purposeful, and integral to the program
• Time and resource are committed to the follow up of the experiences and performances of the graduates of the program

Standard 6: Institutional Support for Inclusion

There is strong institutional support for inclusion and the program.

Sample Indicators:

• Institutional facilities are accessible
• The institution provides accommodations for students with diverse learning needs
• The institution is open to designing agreements and resolving challenges related to inter-institutional partnerships
• The institution provides time, money, personnel, and space for a quality collaborative program
• Institutional administrators encourage and support faculty development of initiatives and grants designed to provide the resource and materials for a quality inclusive program

Standard 7: Program Promotes Broad Knowledge

The program helps students achieve a broad knowledge base with depth of understanding in disciplines appropriate to their teaching.

Sample Indicators:

• Students study an organized set of courses in the liberal arts and sciences
• Students engage in advanced study in selected fields of liberal arts and sciences
• Students develop skills and dispositions that will enable them to become lifelong learners

Standard 8: Displays Values, Knowledge, Practice

The program prepares graduates who display values, use knowledge, and practice inclusively in four areas: children and youth, teaching and learning, collaborative relationships, and societal concerns.

Sample Indicators:

• Graduates understand that children and youth vary in their rate of development; they plan, teach and evaluate age appropriate learning activities to ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of diverse students
• Graduates modify learning environments and adapt instructional strategies to accommodate a variety of student learning styles
• Graduates motivate all students to engage in active learning, positive social interaction and collaboration
• Graduates foster relationships with school colleagues, parents, and community-based agencies to advocate and support students learning and well-being
• Graduates are ethical and reflective practitioners who continually evaluate the effects of their choices and actions on others
• Graduates are lifelong learners who actively pursue opportunities for professional growth

Standards Development Committee

Laura Dorow, ED. D.
Utica College of Syracuse University

Kathleen DaBoll-Lavoie, PH. D.
Nazareth College of Rochester

Lois Fisch, Ph. D.
Utica College of Syracuse University

Craig Hill, Ed. D.
Nazareth College of Rochester

Gerald Mager, Ph. D.
Syracuse University

Joan Black, Ed. D.
Marymount College

Nancy Dubetz, Ed. D.
Lehman College, CUNY

Merrily Miller, Ed. D.
Mount Saint Mary College

*the institutions listed represent where they worked at the time of the development of this document (July 2000)

At the time of the creation of these standards for inclusive teacher preparation programs, there were 19 institutions of Higher Education that participated in the development and use of the standards.  Today there are over 70.

Parents and practitioner members of the Task Force and representatives of the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) in the New York State Education Department also participated in the development of these Standards Created July 2000.