The Role of the Department of Education in Specialized Teacher Training and Beyond

by Amy Parker

From the Editor: Dr. Amy Parker is the Coordinator of the Orientation and Mobility (O&M) program at Portland State University. She collaborates with Dr. Holly Lawson to prepare teachers of blind and low-vision students and O&M students for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Hawaii. In this article, she describes the critical role that the United States Department of Education (DOE) plays in supporting the training of teachers of blind, low-vision, and deafblind students. Her observations are critically relevant as our government considers dismantling the DOE and shifting its programs and responsibilities to other entities or eliminating them entirely. Here is what Dr. Parker says:

The United States Department of Education has played a significant role in my life personally and professionally. In 2006, I was selected along with twenty-four other fellows to pursue doctorates in special education with a focus on meeting the needs of students who are blind, have low vision or are deafblind. A consortium of universities collaborated, each to host its own doctoral scholars, to prepare us to work in higher education and other leadership roles. This grant was one of many that were awarded because Congress recognized there were severe teacher shortages in regular and special education. The teacher shortage was not only impacting schools, it was compounded by the challenge of not having sufficient faculty members to lead teacher preparation programs, particularly in the field of special education (Smith & Montrosse, 2012). The fellowship that I received, like all personnel preparation grant monies, required a service obligation for graduates to work in public education to serve the needs of American schools and universities. For every year of funding received, two years of service had to be documented by the graduate’s employers to fulfill the agreement of the award.

My family and I moved from Georgia to Texas for my doctoral studies so that I could study with faculty who had deep expertise in how to serve children with low-incidence disabilities. Since graduation, I have worked at universities to design curriculum, often collaboratively with practicing teachers and family members to create educational videos and resources to prepare future teachers as well as to support teachers who are already working in classrooms every day. Now as an associate professor, managing a program at a university, I am writing and receiving personnel preparation grants to support my master’s students financially as they choose to take on the challenge and the calling of teaching students who are blind, have low vision, or are deafblind. My students are often already working in the field of special education full time; many are early to mid-career teachers, supporting families while taking on the challenge of graduate school to deepen their expertise and to meet the needs of students whom local educational systems are not well-equipped to serve. My students who receive these grants are from red and blue states—anywhere in the world where American students are learning—including teachers who serve on US military bases.

It is important to understand that the personnel preparation grants that are administered by the US DOE require that 65 percent of the funds go to support our scholars, covering some or all of their tuition and fees. Only 8 percent of the grant goes towards the university’s overhead costs. Other components of the grant go to hiring local supervisors to mentor teachers, again supporting local personnel to prepare teachers to meet the needs of some of our most vulnerable students and families. The US DOE, staffed by people who have often been in classrooms and have their doctorates, provides technical support as we teach students, tracking and reporting our outcomes, providing us guidance for using research and best practices to maximize our efforts.

Along with all fifty states and US territories, millions of American children are critically dependent on the US Department of Education for support. This support takes shape in the technical assistance, infrastructure, and grant funding to state entities, including universities, who prepare teachers and related services personnel such as speech and language pathologists, physical therapists, sign language interpreters, and orientation and mobility specialists. These personnel provide direct support to students within states, supporting local schools in serving children with disabilities and the families of those students.

It is a false narrative to say that the effort to dismantle and destroy the US DOE is about giving the responsibility of education back to the states. States are already responsible for educating children within their borders. At the federal level, the Department is a conduit for support, information, and guidance across a vastly diverse and populated country. Many states do not have the capacity or resources to prepare personnel, especially personnel who serve children with rare disabilities.

The US DOE was created by law (Section 102, Public Law 96-88) to implement laws (the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1975, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Educational Sciences Reform Act of 2002) for the good of the American people. There are millions of children and families who will be impacted by the efforts to dissolve the US DOE, and the students do not have the legal right to represent themselves in this ideological attack. The word “equity,” which is now viewed as inflammatory, is one of our most treasured values that has been enshrined in our laws. I urge us to recognize the key role that the US DOE provides to all of our educational systems and to uphold the laws that are implemented by this agency.

Reference:

Smith, D. D., & Montrosse, B. E. (2012). Special Education Doctoral Programs: A 10-Year Comparison of the Suppliers of Leadership Personnel. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412444455