




































Caballero et al. 2021 Final


Educational Renaissance Vol. 10 (2021)

Special Educat ion Teachers in Residence: New 
Teachers for  t he Prair ie

Mar j Bock , EdD. Special Education Department, Emporia State University

     email: mbock1@emporia.edu

Mar i Caballero, PhD. Special Education Department, Emporia State University

     email: mflake@emporia.edu

Kelly O'Neal-Hixon, PhD. Special Education Department, Emporia State University

     email: koneal@emporia.edu

Research Article

In September of 2017 the Kansas State School 
Board learned that there were 82 special 
education teacher vacancies across the state. 
Approximately 25% of the state?s 286 school 
districts reported teacher shortages. These 
teaching vacancies occurred in certain areas 
throughout the state (Bisaha, 2018). They 
clustered in southwestern Kansas, south central 
Kansa (two remote, rural Kansas regions), and two 
urban school districts (Wichita and Kansas City).

A survey of school superintendents found that the 
main reason positions remained unfilled was lack 
of applicants. Seven out of 10 positions remained 

vacant either because there were no applicants, 
or the applicants did not meet the state standards 
(Bisaha, 2018). Further, there had been a flat 
growth rate in new teacher licenses and 
endorsements from 2016 to 2018 (Bisaha, 2018). 
Consequently, schools had increased reliance on 
waivers to hire teachers who did not meet state 
standards. From 2016 through 2018 the numbers 
of waivers issued by the Kansas State Department 
of Education increased from 161 to 353 (Bisaha, 
2018). Mischel Miller, the state teacher licensure 
and accreditation director identified fully staffing 
Kansas rural schools as the hotbed issue for the 

Abst ract  

Rural schools face unique challenges recruiting teachers. Rural school administrators report 
difficulties finding qualified applicants. Unique challenges rural special education teachers face, e.g., 
working with a more diverse group of students including those with significant disabilit ies, heighten 
the difficulties rural administrators experience when recruiting and retaining qualified special 
education teachers. Leveraging university/rural school partnerships, e.g., resident teacher 
university/school partnerships, can help rural schools recruit and retain qualified special education 
teachers. This article reports a self-study of Teachers College Special Education Fellowship Program 
(TCSEFP), a virtual residency in teaching program. The data support the benefits of the TCSEFP for 
special education teacher recruitment and teacher training for first year special education teachers 
teaching with a provisional endorsement. The data also support the development of virtual 
university/school partnerships. 

mailto:mbock1@emporia.edu
mailto:mflake@emporia.edu
mailto:koneal@emporia.edu


CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

Kansas Department or Education (Deines, 2017). 

The shortage of special education teachers is not 
unique to Kansas. Nationally, in 2020-2021, 48 
states reported special education teacher 
shortages (Buttner, 2021). This shortage is fueled 
by high special education teacher turnover rates 
of 12.3%, twice that of general education teacher 
turnovers (Buttner, 2021). Lambert (2020) cited 
three reasons special education teachers leave the 
field: (a) overwhelming workload, (b) litt le support 
for high needs students, and (c) demanding 
parents. An additional factor contributing to the 
special education teacher shortage is the decrease 
in teacher education programs throughout the 
nation (Gonzalez, 2020). 

Rural schools, i.e., schools with fewer than 600 
students located in towns with less than 2500 
people located at least five miles from an 
urbanized area (Rural School and Community 
Trust, 2013), face unique challenges when 
recruiting teachers. As Berry, Petrin, Gravelle, and 
Farmer (2012) note, rural school administrators 
throughout the nation report difficulties finding 
applicants or finding qualified applicants. Thus, 
Kansas? rural administrators? experiences conform 
to the national norms. Berry et al. (2012) note 
several other contributing factors: (a) Rural special 
education teachers work with a more diverse 
group of students, e.g., students with autism, 
students with learning disabilit ies, students with 
emotional and behavioral disorders, students with 
intellectual disabilit ies, students with visual 
impairments; (b) rural special education teachers 
often work with students in multiple settings, e.g., 
inclusive classrooms, resources rooms, 
self-contained classrooms; and (c) rural special 
education teachers often work with fewer support 
services personnel, e.g., additional special 
education teachers, occupational therapists. 
Consequently, there are unique challenges related 
to recruitment of rural special education teachers.

However, it is not all about recruitment. Retention 
is of equal importance. Again, rural schools 
experience unique challenges related to retention 
of special education teachers. Because rural 

special education teachers often function as 
generalists who need to work with a wide range of 
students in a wide range of settings and are often 
hired while working on a waiver without meeting 
state standards, professional development is a key 
component related to their retention. Berry et al. 
(2012) identified several professional development 
areas of need for rural special education teachers: 
(a) Working with paraprofessionals and parents, 
(b) working with students with low incidence 
disabilit ies, (c) working with students with 
emotional and behavioral disorders, (d) skills in 
classroom management, (e) skills in collaboration 
and inclusion practices, and (f) curriculum content 
area instruction.

How do rural schools respond to the 
aforementioned? Sindelar, Pua, Fisher, Peyton, 
Brownell and Mason-Williams (2018) identified 
several strategies rural schools could use to 
address special education teacher shortages: (a) 
Leverage teacher preparation programs, (b) 
optimize teacher supports through technology, 
and (c) promote smarter incentives. They note 
that rural schools prefer local over out-of-area or 
out-of-state applicants perhaps because the local 
candidates understand the community and the 
?rural culture.? In addition, applicants tend to look 
for teaching positions close to where they went to 
high school or where they student taught. Sindelar 
et al. (2018) note that by leveraging partnerships 
with teacher preparation programs, rural schools 
can serve as field experience sites for university 
students. This gives the university student and the 
rural school a chance to ?test run? the teaching 
situation to see if it is a fit. In addition, 
university/rural school partnerships, e.g., 
residency in teaching partnerships (Guha et al., 
2017a; Guha et al., 2017b; Han & Doyle, 2013) 
bring university resources to the rural school. This 
can be very helpful for novice special education 
teachers who benefit greatly from quality 
mentoring programs during their early careers. 
Similarly, these partnerships help university 
teacher preparation programs better understand 
rural issues. This will lead to curriculum revision to 
better meet the teacher preparation needs of 

33



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

rural schools. These partnerships will flourish via 
distance technologies. And finally stronger 
incentives include higher salaries, tuition for 
university coursework, reduced housing costs, 
moving expenses, and so forth.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this article is to report a self-study 
of the Teachers College Special Education Fellows 
Program (TCSEFP), an 11-month, virtual graduate 
special education program developed to prepare 
special education teachers to work in rural schools 
throughout Kansas. The self-study questions 
included: (a) Will participants in an accelerated, 
virtual special education teacher preparation 
program develop the requisite knowledge and 
skills to support the educational performance of 
K-12 students with high incidence disabilit ies? (b) 
Will an 11-month residency in teaching program 
lead to higher rates of special education teacher 
recruitment and retention in rural schools? and (c) 
How satisfied are participants after program 
completion?

Met hods

Design

This study used a qualitative research 
methodology, the self-study methodology (Alan, 
2016). When conducting self-studies, university 
professors explore and analyze their practice 
through ongoing, systematic data collection, 
analysis, and reflection. The authors selected 
self-study methodology for this study to evaluate 
the overall efficacy of an 11-month virtual 
residency in teaching program for first year special 
education teachers with general education 
teaching licenses who were hired to teach special 
education as they completed the high incidence 
special education endorsement.

Participants

Twenty-two first-year special education teachers, 
i.e., the fellows, participated in this study. Each 
had a general education teaching license at the 
elementary, middle school, or secondary level. 
Three had prior general education teaching 

experience. However, none had recent teaching 
experience. Two taught in an elementary general 
education classroom 12 to 15 years before study 
participation. One taught in a secondary general 
education classroom 33 years prior to study 
participation. The remaining 19 had recently 
graduated from an undergraduate teacher 
education program. The state department of 
education issued each a provisional special 
education teaching endorsement in October as 
they began teaching special education. 
Twenty-one participants had a GPA of 3.0 or hither 
(mean of 3.87, range of 3.0 to 4.0 on a 4.0 scale) 
on the final 60 credit hours of undergraduate 
coursework. One participant had an 
undergraduate GPA of 2.42 on the final 60 credit 
hours of undergraduate coursework; however, 
this participant had a significant hearing 
impairment and achieved this undergraduate GPA 
with no disability supports. Consequently, 
university faculty admitted the participant into the 
program based upon the participant?s interview, 
their special education director?s 
recommendation, and the university?s disability 
support center. The faculty expected that with 
appropriate disability supports, this applicant 
would meet the academic rigor of the TCSEFP. The 
participants included two males and 20 females, 
two Latino and 20 Caucasian, who ranged from 22 
to 62 years of age.

Teachers College Special Education Fellows Program

The key components of the Teachers College 
Special Education Fellows Program (TCSEPF) (Bock 
& O?Neal-Hixson (2016), a residency in teaching 
program, included: (a) virtual program delivery, (b) 
accelerated coursework, (c) virtual and on-site 
mentors, (d) tuition stipends, and (e) virtual 
university/school partnerships.

Virtual Program Delivery

The TCSEFP relied solely on virtual delivery. 
University faculty met with partner administrators, 
mentors, and fellows virtually throughout the 
program via video conferencing. University faculty 
completed practicum supervision and 

34



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

observations in real time via video conferencing. 
Fellows completed all graduate coursework via an 
online course platform. All other communication 
occurred via email and phone.

Accelerated Coursework

Our 24-credit-hour graduate high incidence special 
education endorsement program includes eight 
3-credit-hour courses including two 3-credit-hour 
practicums. The fellows completed this program in 
11 months rather than the typical 24-30 months. 
They completed four of the eight endorsement 
courses during the summer term before they 
began teaching. They completed the four 
remaining courses during their first-year teaching, 
i.e., two courses during the first half of the year 
and two courses during the second half of the 
year. Summer courses included: (a) Characteristics 
of Students with High Incidence Disabilit ies, (b) 
Seminar in Behavior Management, (c) Promoting 
Literacy in Students with High Incidence 
Disabilit ies, and (d) Assessment in Schools. Fall 
semester courses included: (a) Strategies for 
Students with High Incidence Disabilit ies and (b) 
High Incidence Practicum I (i.e., either elementary 
or secondary level). Spring semester courses 
included: (a) Consultation/Collaboration and (b) 
High Incidence Practicum II (i.e., either elementary 
or secondary level). They began coursework in 
mid-June and completed it in mid-May. 

Virtual and On-Site Mentors

The TCSEFP provided two mentors for each fellow. 
University faculty served as mentors for each 
fellow. Their mentoring focused on advisement, 
professionalism, and career goals. This mentoring 
occurred virtually. In addition, each fellow had an 
on-site mentor, an experienced special education 
teacher. The on-site mentors had a special 
education endorsement and a minimum of five 
years special education teaching experience. 
School district administration nominated 
experienced special education teachers to serve 
as on-site mentors. University faculty approved 
and trained them. On-site mentors provided 
on-the-job mentoring for the fellows. They helped 

fellows: (a) set up their classrooms, (b) review 
Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for all students 
on their caseloads, (c) administer assessments, (d) 
develop lesson plans derived from IEP goals and 
objectives, (e) prepare for and participate in IEP 
meetings, (f) complete functional behavioral 
assessments (FBAs), (g) implement and evaluate 
behavior intervention plans (BIPs), (h) supervise 
paraeducators, and (i) adhere to school building 
policies and procedures. In addition, the on-site 
mentors served as liaisons between the university 
and the school to assure ongoing communication 
and close coordination between both partners. 
On-site mentors received a $1,000 stipend paid by 
the university. Each fellow paid a $125 access for 
each of the eight courses they completed. This 
access fee paid the mentor stipends. [For more 
information about the TCSEFP mentor model, see 
Bock, Caballero, and O?Neal-Hixson (2020).]

Tuition Stipends

The TCSEFP provided tuition stipends for each 
fellow. The tuition stipends paid graduate tuition 
for the endorsement courses as well as the $125 
access fee for each course. These stipends came 
from three sources: (a) Kansas Teacher Education 
Grant (Bock & O?Neal-Hixon, 2016), (b) Federal 
TEACH Grant (U.S. Department of Education, 
2021), and (c) Emporia State University (ESU) 
Special Education Scholarships. The grants paid 
tuition for seven of the eight courses and the 
access fee for all eight courses. The ESU Special 
Education Scholarship paid tuition for one course.

Virtual University/School Partnerships

As a residency in teaching program (Coffman & 
Patterson, 2014), the TCSEFP relied upon strong 
university/school partnerships. Working together, 
university faculty and school administrators: (a) 
created the on-site mentor handbook and training 
modules, (b) aligned practicum activities with 
special education teaching activities, (c) identified 
potential program participants, (d) identified 
potential on-site mentors, (e) evaluated program 
efficacy, and (f) revised the TCSEFP as needed. In 
addition, university faculty provided resources and 

34



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

virtual consultation support for K-12 students with 
challenging learning problems, e.g., dyslexia, 
challenging behaviors, e.g., self-injurious behavior, 
or complex disabilit ies, e.g., autism spectrum 
disorder.

Program Assessments

This self-study utilized regular high incidence 
accreditation program assessments (Bock, 2020): 
(a) Praxis II Special Education: Core Knowledge 
and Mild to Moderate Applications (0543/5543) 
(Educational Testing Service, 2021), (b) Final 
Practicum Evaluation Rating Scale, (c) IEP Lesson 
Plan Activity, (d) Direct Instruction/Universal 
Design for Learning Literacy Lesson Plan Project, 
(e) Functional Behavioral Assessment/Behavior 
Intervention Plan Project, and (f) Family and 
Community Engagement Project.

Praxis II Special Education: Core Knowledge and Mild 
to Moderate Applications (0543/5543)

Preservice or Inservice teachers who plan to teach 
students with mild to moderate disabilit ies at any 
grade level from preschool through grade 12 
complete the Special Education: Core Knowledge 
and Mild to Moderate Applications (0543/5543) 
test. It addresses five content areas: Development 
and Characteristics of Learners (approximately 
14%), Planning and the Learning Environment 
(approximately 17%), Instruction (approximately 
17%), Assessment (approximately 14%), and 
Foundations and Professional Responsibilit ies 
(approximately 13%. The 90 multiple-choice 
questions assess the knowledge and 
understanding of principles and practices related 
to provision of special education services for 
students with mild to moderate disabilit ies. It also 
contains three constructed-response questions 
that assess knowledge of students with mild to 
moderate disabilit ies as related to instruction and 
assessment, learning environment and classroom 
management, and collaboration. Score range for 
this test is 100 to 200 (Educational Testing Service, 
2021).

Final Practicum Evaluation Rating Scale

This rating scale contains 32 items clustered into 

eight categories. These are tightly aligned with the 
Kansas State Department of Education special 
education teacher preparation program 
standards. Each item is rated on a scale from 1 to 
5: (a) Level 1 Unsatisfactory (litt le or no skill 
development), (b) Level 2 Beginning (minimal 
knowledge and skills), (c) Level III Developing 
(below proficiency standards), (d) Level 4 Proficient 
(meets standards), and (e) Level V Exemplary 
(exceeds standards). Levels 4 and 5 are passing 
scores. The fellow?s mentor and building principal 
completed the rating scale and as the fellows 
completed Supervised Practicum II and submitted 
them to the university practicum instructor who 
averaged them to create a composite score. Each 
fellow must earn a composite score of 4 or higher 
to pass the practicum.

IEP Lesson Plan Activity

Fellows completed the IEP Lesson Plan Activity 
during SD 708/709 Supervised Practice I, High 
Incidence (elementary or secondary level, 
respectively). For this activity, they develop, 
implement, and evaluate a lesson plan aligned to 
one of their student?s Individual Education Plans. 
This activity is evaluated using a scoring rubric 
closely aligned with the correlating Kansas 
Department of Education high incidence special 
education training program standard. Passing 
scores for this activity fall within the ?acceptable? 
or ?target? ranges of 80 to 94% or 95 to 100%, 
respectively.

Direct Instruction/Universal Design for Learning 
Literacy Lesson Plan Project

Fellows completed the Direct Instruction/Universal 
Design for Learning (DI/UDL) Literacy Lesson Plan 
Project (Parts A, B & C) during SD 808 Supervised 
Practice, Elementary High Incidence II or SD 809 
Supervised Practice, Secondary High Incidence II 
after completing the 75% or more of the high 
incidence endorsement courses. This project is 
divided into three parts: Part A Reading and 
Writing Literacy, Part B Mathematics Literacy, and 
Part C Content Area Literacy. All are assessed in 
content area instruction. For this project, fellows 

35



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

completed the following six interrelated activities: 
(a) identification of students, (b) baseline data 
collection, (c) DI/UDL literacy lesson plan 
development, (d) DI/ULD literacy lesson plan 
implementation, (e) DI/UDL literacy lesson plan 
progress monitoring report, and (f) professional 
reflection paper. This activity is evaluated using a 
scoring rubric closely aligned with the correlating 
Kansas Department of Education high incidence 
special education training program standard. 
Passing scores for this activity fall within the 
?acceptable? or ?target? ranges of 80 to 94% or 95 
to 100%, respectively.

Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior 
Intervention Plan Project

Fellows completed the Functional Behavior 
Assessment/Behavior Intervention Plan (FBA/BIP) 
Project during SD 802 Seminar in Behavior 
Management. For this project, candidates will 
complete a Functional Behavior Assessment, 
develop a Behavior Intervention Plan that includes 
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports 
(PBIS) within the Multi-Tier System of Support 
(MTSS) framework that demonstrates cultural 
sensitivity and promotes the self-determination 
skills of the student, write a professional quality 
report, and write a 2-page reflection with the 
following sections: (a) functional behavior 
assessment, (b) behavior intervention plan, (c) 
evaluation, and (d) reflection. This activity is 
evaluated using a scoring rubric closely aligned 
with the correlating Kansas Department of 
Education high incidence special education 
training program standard. Passing scores for this 
activity fall within the ?acceptable? or ?target? 
ranges of 80 to 94% or 95 to 100%, respectively.

Family and Community Engagement Project

Fellows completed the Family and Community 
Engagement Project during SD 799 
Consultation/Collaboration. For this project, 
fellows worked with a family that includes a child 
with a high incidence disability. Candidates will 
complete the following three activities for this 
project: (a) family observation during IEP meeting, 

(b) family interview following IEP meeting, (c) write 
family and community engagement paper. This 
activity is evaluated using a scoring rubric closely 
aligned with the correlating Kansas Department of 
Education high incidence special education 
training program standard. Passing scores for this 
activity fall within the ?acceptable? or ?target? 
ranges of 80 to 94% or 95 to 100%, respectively.

Participant Satisfaction Surveys

To solicit participant satisfaction evaluation data 
for the TCSEFP, university faculty and school 
administrators created three surveys: (a) TCSEFP 
fellows? evaluation survey, (b) TCSEFP mentors? 
evaluation survey, and (c) TCSEFP administrators? 
evaluation survey. Each has 12 items rated using a 
5-point Likert scale (i.e., strongly disagree, 
disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree). 
Participants completed the survey once month 
following program completion.

Result s

TCSEFP self-study results evaluate fellows? 
knowledge and skill development, participant 
satisfaction with the TCSEFP, and the effect of 
TCSEFP on recruitment and retention of special 
education teachers for rural K-12 schools. The 
following instruments or assessment projects 
evaluated fellows? knowledge and skill 
development: (a) Praxis II Special Education: Core 
Knowledge and Mild to Moderate Applications 
(0543/5543) (Educational Testing Service, 2021), (b) 
IEP lesson plan activity, (c) DI/UDL literacy lesson 
plan project, (d) FBA/BIP project, and (e) Family 
and community engagement project. In addition, 
the Final Practicum Evaluation Rating Scale 
assesses fellows? skills working with K-12 students 
with high incidence disabilit ies. Further, the 
following instruments evaluated participants? 
satisfaction with the TCSEFP program: (a) Fellow 
TCSEFP Evaluation Survey, (b) Mentor TCSEFP 
Evaluation Survey, and (d) Special Education 
Director TCSEFP Evaluation Survey.

Knowledge and Skills Assessments

Praxis II Special Education: Core Knowledge and Mild 
to Moderate Applications (0543/5543).  The Praxis II 

36



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

(0543/5543) data provided in Figure 1 indicate that 
100% of the 2016-2020 fellows passed all Praxis II 
(0543/5543) subtests. See Table 1 for means and 
ranges for each subtest 2016-2020. Of note, 
during 2016 through 2020, 24 out of 24 (100%) 
ESU mean subtest scores were higher than 
national mean subtest scores. 13 out of 24 
(54.17%) ESU mean subtest scores were higher 
than state mean subtest scores.

Final Practicum Evaluation Rating Scale.  From 
2016-2020, school district administrators and 
TCSEFP mentors completed a Final Practicum 
Evolution Rating Scale for 22 fellows as they 
completed the second practicum. This form 
contains 32 items aligned with eight program 
standards. Refer to Table 2 to see mean scores 
and ranges for each standard from 2016 through 
2020. Overall, 22 of 22 fellows (100%) scored in 
the target range for each of the Kansas State 
Department of Education High Incidence program 
standards.

IEP Lesson Plan Activity.  Fellow performance on this 
assessment activity indicates that 100% of the 
Fellows score in the target range from 2016-2020 
based on mean and range of 98.67 (range 95-100), 
98.71 (range 95-100), 98.50 (range 96-100), and 
99.26 (range 97-100) for 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 
2018-2019, and 2019-2020, respectively.

DI/UDL Literacy Lesson Plan Project.  Fellow 
performance on this assessment activity indicates 
that 100% of the Fellows score in the target range 
from 2016-2020 based on mean and range of 
97.84 (range 95-100), 98.86 (range 96-100), 98.50 
(range 96-100), and 98.75 (range 96-100) for 
2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, 
respectively.

FBA/BIP Project.  Fellow performance on this 
assessment activity indicates that 100% of the 
Fellows score in the target range from 2016-2020 
based on mean and range of 99.33 (range 97-100), 
99.43 (range 98-100), 98.75 (range 96-100), and 
99.25 (range 97-100) for 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 
2018-2019, and 2019-2020, respectively.

Family and Community Engagement Project.  Fellow 

performance on this assessment activity indicates 
that 100% of the Fellows score in the target range 
from 2016-2020 based on mean and range of 
98.17 (range 96-100), 99.29 (range 97-100), 100.00 
(range 100-100), and 100.00 (range 100-100) for 
2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, 
respectively.

Participant Satisfaction Assessments

Fellow TCSEFP Evaluation Survey.  Twenty-two 
fellows completed a 12-item fellow program 
evaluation survey. Overall, 18 of 22 Fellows (82%) 
strongly agreed with each item on the survey. Of 
these items, 22 of 22 Fellows (100%) strongly 
agreed with 3 of 12 (25%) items; (a) I had adequate 
support from my mentor in the program, (b) my 
mentor was available and easy to work with, and 
(c) the program was well structured regarding 
course sequence. One of 22 fellows (5%) rated 3 of 
12 items (25%) as neutral: (a) My courses provided 
me with useful and relevant information for my 
field, (b) professors were up to date with new 
developments in the field, and (c) I received useful 
feedback on my assignments throughout my 
courses. Nevertheless, 21 of 22 Fellows (95%) 
either strongly agreed or agreed with each survey 
item thereby supporting their satisfaction with the 
residency in teaching program, the TCSEFP.

Mentor TCSEFP Evaluation Survey.  Sixteen mentors 
completed a 12-item mentor program evaluation 
survey. Overall, 13 of 16 mentors (81%) strongly 
agreed with each item on the survey. Of these 
items, 16 of 16 mentors (100%) strongly agreed 
with 6 of 12 (50%) items; (a) Requirements for 
mentors were made clear and provided to me in 
verbal and written form, (b) professors/faculty in 
the program were available and easy to work with, 
(c) I had adequate support from program 
faculty/professors, (d) the mentor handbook 
provided all required forms, (e) the program was 
well structured in regard to training and program 
professors/faculty support, and (f) I was satisfied 
with the overall mentor program structure and 
workload. Two of 16 mentors (13%) rated 2 of 12 
items (12.5%) as neutral: (a) The mentor Canvas 
website was easy to navigate and (b) the mentor 

37



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

2016-2017 (N=6) 2017-2018 (N=7) 2018-2019 (N-5) 2019-2020 (N=4)

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Correct

State
Ave %
Correct

Nat?l
Ave %
Correct

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Correct

State
Ave %
Correct

Nat?l
Ave %
Correct

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Correct

State
Ave %
Correct

Nat?l
Ave %
Correct

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Correct

State
Ave %
Correct

Nat?l
Ave %
Correct

aSubtest I: Development and 
Characteristics of Learners

12.58

(10-15)

83.33 79.42 77.25 11.34

(6-15)

78.87 79.64 76.96 11.64

(8-15)

80.57 81.40 78.28 12.00

(8-15)

85.37 83.16 79.76

bSubtest II: Planning and the 
Learning   Environment

15.62

(15-19)

83.57 79.66 75.90 13.28

(9-18)

77.90 80.03 75.99 13.41

(16-19)

78.78 79.84 75.94 13.87

(10-16)

80.57 79.00 76.03

cSubtest III: Instruction 14.78

(10-18)

80.88 79.03 77.67 13.00

(7-18)

78.38 81.27 77.38 14.29

(8-18)

81.80 80.71 77.38 14.20

(10-18)

81.27 80.83 76.96

dSubtest IV: Assessment 10.84

(9-14)

77.63 74.59 71.33 10.74

(5-14)

77.40 75.59 72.35 10.27

(6-14)

75.36 74.84 71.90 10.79

(7-14)

72.24 72.54 71.03

eSubtest V: Foundations and 
Professional Responsibilit ies

1171

(8-16)

78.49 79.06 75.02 11.06

(6-16)

78.38 81.27 77.38 12.18

(4-16)

80.04 77.90 75.10 12.08

(10-15)

80.35 81.99 78.99

fSubtest VI: Integrated Con-
structed 
Response Questions

10.76

(7-18)

66.82 67.81 65.52 11.82

(6-18)

69.29 69.96 65.98 11.96

(6-15)

68.53 69.58 66.48 12.54

(9-17)

68.67 67.00 65.66

Table 1 
Fellows? Praxis II Special Education: Core Knowledge and Mild to Moderate Applications (0543/5543) Sub scores

aSubtest I assesses KSDE HI Standard 1: The special educator understands the historical and philosophical foundations of special education, the characteristics of the disability, the impacts of the 
disability on education, and the legal parameters appropriate for each learner 's educational needs.  
bSubtest II assesses KSDE HI Standard 4: The special educator uses a variety of evidence-based instructional strategies; including effective adaptations, learner performance, and transitions; to 
promote learning and improve learner outcomes.  
cSubtest III assesses KSDE HI Standard 3: The special educator uses Individual Educational Programs (IEPs), learning environments, individual learner characteristics, assessment, teacher 
knowledge of subject matter, and technology for effective instructional planning and implementation.  
dSubtest IV assesses KSDE HI Standard 2: The special educator uses a variety of assessment instruments, procedures, and technologies for learner screening, evaluation, eligibility decisions, 
instructional planning, progress monitoring, and technology considerations.  
eSubtest V assesses KSDE HI Standard 5 The special educator demonstrates effective communication skills to enhance collaboration and consultation among school professionals, to improve 
learner outcomes while planning for and implementing effective instruction and services; to implement the IEP, deliver instruction, and evaluate IEP implementation; and, to plan for and 
implement effective transition services.  
fSubtest VI assesses KSDE HI Standard 6 The special educator understands the critical elements of language and literacy; identifies and uses evidence-based interventions to meet the 
instructional needs specific to reading, writing, math, and other content areas; and includes the principles of universal design for learning and the use of technology to support literacy and to 
make data-based decisions.

38



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

2016-2017 (N=6) 2017-2018 (N=7) 2018-2019 (N=5) 2019-2020 (N=4)

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

ESU 
Mean 
(Range)

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

bTotal 97.47
(95-100)

100 0 0 97.56
(95-100)

100 0 0 97.92
(95-100)

100 0 0 98.03
(95-100)

100 0 0

Standard 1 Characteris-
tics Legal Historical 
Philosophical

98.13
(96-100)

100 0 0 98.71

(96-100)

100 0 0 98.52

(96-100)

100 0 0 98.25

(96-100)

100 0 0

Standard 2 Assessment 98.59
(96-99)

100 0 0 98.59
(96-100)

100 0 0 99.13
(97-100)

100 0 0 98.96
(97-100)

100 0 0

Standard 3 Instructional 
Planning & 
Implementation

96.81
(95-100)

100 0 0 97.03

(95-100)

100 0 0 97.89

(96-100)

100 0 0 98.29

(96-100)

100 0 0

Standard 4 Evidence-
based Instructional 
Interventions

96.03
(95-98)

100 0 0 96.43
(95-99)

100 0 0 96.75
(95-99)

100 0 0 96.25
(95-99)

100 0 0

Standard 5 Communica-
tion Collaboration

98.17
(96-100)

100 0 0 98.29

(96-100)

100 0 0 98.57

(97-100)

100 0 0 99.07

(98-100)

100 0 0

Standard 6 Language & 
Literacy

95.79

(95-98)

100 0 0 95.39

(95-98)

100 0 0 96.17

(95-99)

100 0 0 97.03

(95-100)

100 0 0

Standard 7 PBIS MTSS 
FBA/BIP

99.07

(98-100)

100 0 0 98.90

(97-100)

100 0 0 99.03

(97-100)

100 0 0 99.29

(97-100)

100 0 0

Standard 8 Family & 
Community Engagement

97.19

(95-100)

100 0 0 97.13

(96-100)

100 0 0 97.29

(95-100)

100 0 0 97.13

(95-100)

100 0 0

Table 2
Resident Teachers? aFinal Practicum Evaluation Rating Scale Aligned with Kansas State Department of Education High Incidence Program Standards

aCompleted by two school district administrators as a final evaluation during SD 808 or SD 809 Supervised Practice, High Incidence (elementary or secondary, respectively).  bPercent Correct at 
Target: 95-100, Acceptable: 80-94, & Unacceptable Level: Below 80

39



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

2016-2017 (N=6) 2017-2018 (N=7) 2018-2019 (N-5) 2019-2020 (N=4)

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

ESU 
Mean   
Range

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

ESU 
Mean 
Range

ESU
Ave %
Target

ESU
Ave %
Accept

ESU
Ave %
Unaccept

IEP Lesson Plan Activity 98.67

(95-100)

100 0 0 98.71

(95-100)

100 0 0 98.50

(96-100)

100 0 0 99.25

(97-100)

100 0 0

DI/UDL Literacy Lesson 
Plan Project

97.83

(95-100)

100 0 0 98.86

(96-100)

100 0 0 98.50

(96-100)

100 0 0 98.75

(96-100)

100 0 0

FBA/BIP Project 99.33

(97-100)

100 0 0 99.43

(98-100)

100 0 0 98.75

(96-100)

100 0 0 99.25

(97-100)

100 0 0

Family & Community En-
gagement Project

98.17

(96-100)

100 0 0 99.29

(97-100)

100 0 0 100.00

(100)

100 0 0 100.00

(100)

100 0 0

Table 3
Resident Teachers? Project Assessment Data

Note:Percent Correct at Target: 95-100, Acceptable: 80-94, & Unacceptable Level: Below 80

Canvas website was up to date. Nevertheless, 14 of 16 mentors 
(88%) either strongly agreed or agreed with each survey item 
thereby supporting their satisfaction with the residency in teaching 
program, the TCSEFP. 

Special Educator Director TCSEFP Evaluation Survey.  Eight special 
education directors completed a 10-item special education director 
program evaluation survey. Overall, 4 of 8 special education 
directors (50%) strongly agreed with each item on the survey. Of 
these items, 8 of 8 special education directors (100%) strongly 
agreed with 6 of 10 (60%) items; (a) Overall, the residence in 
teaching programs Teachers College Special Education Fellows 
Program (TCSEFP) is well organized, (b) on-site mentoring for the 
fellows is a key component of the residence in teaching program, (c) 
virtual mentoring provided by professors/faculty for the fellows is a 

key component of the residence in teaching program, (d) virtual 
university/school partnerships are a key component of the 
residence in teaching program, (e) virtual university consultation for 
low incidence disabilit ies (e.g., autism) is a key component of the 
residence in teaching program, and (f) overall, the residence in 
teaching program meets the need to provide highly qualified special 
education teachers for high needs regions in Kansas. One of 8 
(12.5%) rated 1 of 10 items (10%) as neutral: (a) The residence in 
teaching program helped me retain special education teachers. 
Nevertheless, 9 of 10 special education directors (90%) either 
strongly agreed or agreed with each survey item thereby supporting 
their satisfaction with the residency in teaching program, the 
TCSEFP.

40



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

Questions Strongly 
Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 
Disagree   

I had adequate support from professors/faculty in the program 91% 9%

My faculty advisor was available and easy to work with 91% 9%

I had adequate   support from my mentor in the program 100%

My mentor was   available and easy to work with 100%

My courses provided   me with useful and relevant information for my field 86% 9% 5%

Professors were up   to date with new developments in the field 82% 13% 5%

I received useful   feedback on my assignments throughout my courses 86% 9% 5%

General program   requirements were made clear to me 91% 9%

Requirements for   practicum/internship were made clear and provided to me in 
verbal and written   form

91% 9%

The program was well   structured in regard to class sequence 100%

My course workload   was manageable 86% 14%

I was satisfied with   the overall program structure and course load 91% 9%

Table 4
Fellows? TCSEFP Evaluation Survey Data (N=22)

Questions Strongly 
Agree 

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 
Disagree   

Requirements for mentors were made clear and provided to me in verbal and writ-
ten form

100%

I had adequate training from professors/faculty in the program 94% 6%

Professors/faculty in the program were available and easy to   work with 100%

I had adequate   support from program faculty/professors 100%

The mentor Canvas   website was easy to navigate 81% 6% 13%

The mentor Canvas   website provided useful and relevant information 94% 6%

The mentor Canvas   website was up to date 81% 6% 13%

The mentor handbook   made mentor activities clear 94% 6%

The mentor handbook   provided all required forms 100%

The mentor program   was well structured with regard to training and program pro-
fessors/faculty   support

100%

My mentor workload   was manageable 94% 6%

I was satisfied with   the overall mentor program structure and workload 100%

Table 5
Mentors? TCSEFP Evaluation Survey Data (N=16)a

a1 mentor worked with 3 fellows, 4 mentors worked with 2 fellows, 11`  mentors worked with 1 fellow 

41



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

Recruitment and Retention

As of October 2021, 18 out of 22 (81.82%) former 
fellows continue to teacher special education in 
rural K-12 Kansas schools (Bock, 2021). Two have 
transferred from special education to general 
education teaching positions in their school 
districts. The other two have retired.

Discussion

The data indicate that, yes, the TCSEFP prepares 
highly qualified special education teachers to work 
with K-12 students with high incidence disabilit ies 
in rural school districts throughout Kansas. All 
fellows, i.e., 100%, passed the PRAXIS II Special 
Education: Core Knowledge and Mild to Moderate 
Application (0543/5543) (Education Test Service, 
2021) earning a score of 155 or higher. In addition, 

ESU fellows? average percentage correct per 
subtest is higher than the state average 
percentage correct per subtest for 54.17% of the 
subtest completed in 2016-2020. Further, ESU 
fellows? average percentage correct per subtest is 
higher than the national average percentage 
correct per subtest for 100% of the subtests 
completed in 2016-2020. Thus, Fellows? 
performance on this assessment underscores 
their knowledge and skill as relates to working 
with K-12 students with high incidence disabilit ies.

Fellows? performance on four program area 
assessments further supports their knowledge 
and skill as relates to working with students with 
high incidence disabilit ies. All fellows, i.e., 100%, 
achieved ?target? performance on the following 
program area evaluation projects: (a) IEP lesson 

Questions Strongly 
Agree 

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 
Disagree   

Overall, the residence in teaching program (Teachers College   Special Educa-
tion Fellows Program, TCSEFP) is well organized

100%

Tuition funding for the fellows is a key component of the residence   in teach-
ing program

75% 25%

On-site mentoring   for the fellows is a key component of the residence in 
teaching program

100%

Virtual mentoring   provided by professors/faculty for the fellows is a key com-
ponent of the   residence in teaching program

100%

Fellows? completion   of the high incidence endorsement in 11 months is a key 
component of the   residence in teaching program

88% 12%

Virtual university/school partnerships are a key component of the residence in 
teaching   program

100%

Virtual university   consultation for low incidence disabilit ies (e.g., autism) is a 
key component   of the residence in teaching program

100%

The residence in teaching program helped me recruit new special education 
teachers

88% 12%

The residence in   teaching program helped me retain special education 
teachers

50% 25% 25%

Overall, the   residence in teaching program meets the need to provide highly 
qualified   special education teachers for high needs regions in Kansas

100%

Table 6
Special Education Directors? TCSEFP Evaluation Survey Data (N=8)a

a2 Special Education Directors sponsored 5 fellows, 2 Special Education Directors sponsored 3 fellows, 2 Special Education Directors sponsored 2 
fellows, and 2 Special Education Directors sponsored 1 fellow.

42



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

plan activity, (b) DI/UDL literacy lesson plan 
project, (c) FBA/BIP project, and (d) family and 
community engagement project. Consequently, 
fellows? performance on these evaluation projects 
attests to their abilit ies to plan, implement, and 
evaluate a variety of learning and 
social/behavioral activities to support the 
performance of students with high incidence 
disabilit ies in rural schools throughout Kansas. 
These activities demonstrated the fellows? abilit ies 
to plan effective, individualized instruction tied to 
IEP objectives. These lessons incorporated content 
standards to assure that all students with mild to 
moderate disabilit ies on their caseloads had 
access to and made progress on content area 
curriculum. Further, while some of these 
evaluation activities occurred in special education 
resource rooms, the majority occurred in inclusive 
general education classrooms thereby 
underscoring the fellows? abilit ies to collaborate 
with general education teachers.

Similarly, 100% of the fellows achieved ?target? 
level performance on the Final Practicum 
Evaluation Rating Scale. Of importance, mentors 
and building principals completed this evaluation 
independent from university faculty. Thus, this 
evaluation corroborated university faculty 
evaluation of fellow performance on these 
activities: (a) IEP lesson plan activity, (b) DI/UDL 
literacy lesson plan project, (C) FBA/BIP project, 
and (d) family and community engagement 
project. In addition, on-site evaluators who work 
with and observe the fellows daily complete the 
Final Practicum Evaluation Rating Scale enhancing 
the validity of this evaluation. 

Consequently, fellow performance on all 
evaluations, i.e., Praxis II, IEP Lesson Plan Activity, 
DI/UDL Literacy Lesson Plan Project, FBA/BIP 
Project, Family and Community Engagement 
Project, and Final Practicum Evaluation Rating 
Scale, strongly support our conclusion that the 
TCSEFP prepares highly qualified special educators 
to work with K-12 students with high incidence 
disabilit ies in rural schools throughout Kansas. 

However, it?s not all about preparing highly 

qualified special education teachers. After 
completion of the TCSEFP, how do the fellows, 
their mentors, and administrators rate the 
TCSEFP? Overall, 21 of 22 (95%) fellows strongly 
agreed or agreed with each item on a 12-item 
program evaluation survey completed after 
finishing their residency. One fellow (5%) rated 
three items on the Fellow TCSEFP Evaluation 
Survey as neutral. Each of these items targeted 
teaching. One item provided feedback on how 
useful and relevant this fellow found course 
materials and activities. Another item provided 
feedback on how up to date this fellow considered 
university faculty. The final item provided 
feedback regarding the comments this fellow 
received from university faculty on course 
assignments. Interpretation of these responses is 
straightforward given the focus of each item. Of 
note, by the third year, i.e., 2018-2019, university 
faculty began providing training for mentors 
related to various field assignments, e.g., DI/UDL 
Literacy Lesson Plan Project. This training updated 
mentors on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 
(Rao & Meo, 2016) and the research supporting its 
benefits. Mentors commented on how beneficial 
they found this training. They indicated that this 
was new information for them. Thus, it is possible 
that one fellow thought their mentor was current 
and university faculty were not when, in fact, the 
mentor was outdated, i.e., had not had training 
specific to UDL or other current topics. Similarly, 
87% (14 of 16) mentors strongly agreed or agreed 
with each item on a 12-item program evaluation at 
the end of the residency year. Two of 16 mentors 
rated two items as neutral. Both items related to 
the mentor Canvas website. These mentors rated 
the navigability of the website as neutral. They 
also indicated that the website was not updated 
during the second semester of the residency year. 
As we worked with the mentors, we found that 
they had difficulty accessing the website, i.e., 
setting up their UserIDs and passwords. While we 
provided university technology support, this issue, 
unfortunately, remained problematic for some 
mentors from 2016-2020. Because so many 
mentors had trouble accessing the mentor 

43



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

website, university faculty tended not to rely as 
heavily on the website during the second 
semester of the residency. Thus, the mentor 
website was only updated for spring semester 
during the first two years, i.e., spring semesters 
2017 and 2018. In addition, 75% (6 of 8) special 
education directors strongly agreed or agreed with 
each item on a 10-item program evaluation survey 
completed at the end of the residency year. Two 
of 8 (25%) special education directors were neutral 
as to whether the TCSEFP helped them retain 
special education teachers. Follow-up 
conversations with the special education directors 
provided more understanding regarding this 
response. Some of the directors define retention 
as five years or longer whereas the others define 
retention as two years or longer. Thus, those who 
rated this survey item as neutral may not have 
had enough longevity data to determine whether 
the TCSEFP helped them retain special education 
teachers. 

In conclusion, survey data from the fellows, their 
mentors, and their special education directors 
support their positive evaluation of the TCSEFP. 
This data together with fellow evaluation data 
strongly support the overall worth of the TCSEFP 
for fellows, their administrators, and their 
mentors. 

In addition, this data captured the emergence of 
virtual university/K-12 school partnerships 
throughout rural Kansas, even in remote rural 
regions of the state. Through distance 
technologies, partnerships evolved. By 2018-2019, 
university faculty cheered as they saw improved 
K-12 student performance in partner schools. 
Meanwhile, mentors and building administrators 
often asked about how ?doable? a practicum 
modification would be for the university. Our 
vocabularies changed. We spoke the same 
language and used the same acronyms. We 
understood funding constraints each partner 
experienced. Our K-12 partners celebrated 
university faculty constantly highlighting the 
strengths they saw. The university faculty gained a 
heightened respect for teachers and 

administrators working to support the needs of 
students with high incidence disabilit ies in rural 
settings. Faculty no longer made disparaging 
comments about the many and varied unusual 
ways rural schools modified delivery service 
models to meet the needs of students with 
disabilit ies despite a paucity of resources. 
University faculty began to understand the unique 
challenges rural schools face providing special 
education services for students with disabilit ies. 
University faculty came to value the ?can do? spirit 
and innovation of their colleagues working in rural 
schools. Meanwhile, our partners took full 
advantage of the ongoing access they had to 
university faculty and resources. They eagerly 
learned new evidence-based practices (EPBs). 
They sought outside expertise for students with 
complex learning needs. Transformation for both 
our partners and the university special education 
program began and continued throughout the 
partnership.

Conclusion

This article reports a self-study of the Teachers 
College Special Education Fellows Program 
(TCSEFP), an 11-month, virtual graduate special 
education program developed to prepare special 
education teachers to work in rural schools 
throughout Kansas. The self-study questions 
included: (a) Will participants in an accelerated, 
virtual special education teacher preparation 
program develop the requisite knowledge and 
skills to support the educational performance of 
K-12 students with high incidence disabilit ies? (b) 
Will an 11-month residency in teaching program 
lead to higher rates of special education teacher 
recruitment and retention in rural schools? and (c) 
How satisfied are participants after program 
completion?

The self-study data support the benefits of this 
virtual residency in teaching teacher preparation 
model. Participants demonstrated ?target? level 
performance on program assessments evaluating 
the development of the knowledge and skills 
needed to support the learning and social 
development of students with high incidence 

44



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

disabilit ies. Similarly, the data support that all 
participants found the virtual residency in 
teaching program to be beneficial. The virtual 
residency in teaching program enhance improved 
recruitment of special education teachers to work 
in K-12 rural schools. Eighteen of 22 special 
education teachers who participated in this 
residency in teaching program continue to teach 
special education; however, it is too early to 
evaluate the impact of this model on teacher 
retention. An unexpected strength of the virtual 
residency in teaching model is the quality of 
university/school partnerships it supports. 
Through virtual technologies geography is no 
longer a barrier to establishing university/school 
partnerships. Virtual technologies bring the 
university and its resources to rural schools 
located in remote, rural regions. In addition, 
virtual technologies provide ready access for all 
partners. No longer do partners need to wait 1=2 
weeks to facilitate on-site meetings related to 
various partnership activities, e.g., resolving a 
challenging practicum supervision issue.

Aut hor  Not e 
The Kansas Board of Regents provided funding 
($452,661: 5-year grant, 2016-2021) in support of 
this program through the Kansas Teacher 
Education Competitive Grant Program of Kansas 
Board of Regents, Topeka, KS.

45



CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

References

Alan, B. (2016). Self-study as a qualitative 
methodology in teacher education. Journal of 
Qualitative Research in Education, 4(1), 7-25. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c
1s1m 

Berry, A. B., Petrin, R. A., Gravelle, M. L., & Farmer, 
T. W. (2012). Issues in Special Education 
Teacher Recruitment, Retention, and 
Professional Development: Considerations in 
Supporting Rural Teachers. Rural Special 
Education Quarterly, 30(4), 3?11.

Bisaha, S. (host). (2018, Oct 15). Kansas? Worsening 
Teacher Shortage in Four Graphs [Radio 
broadcast episode]. 
https://www.kmuw.org/post/kansas-worsening-
teacher-shortage-four-graphs 

Bock, M.A. (2021). The Teachers College Special 
Education Fellows Program (TCSEFP) 202-2021 
Annual Report. Emporia State University.

Bock, M.A. (2020). High incidence special education 
Kansas State Department of Education program 
area report. Emporia State University.

Bock, M. A., Caballero, M., & O?Neal-Hixson, K. 
(2020). The TCSEFP Hybrid eMentoring Model: 
A Distance Education Mentoring Model. 
Educational Renaissance, 9, 23-30.

Bock, M.A. & O?Neal-Hixson. (March 2016). The 
Teachers College Special Education Fellows 
Program (TCSEFP). [$455,661: 5-year grant, 
2016-2021] Kansas Teacher Education 
Competitive Grant Program of Kansas Board of 
Regents, Topeka, KS. Emporia State University.

Buttner, A. (2021, August 4). Special education and 
the teacher shortage. Frontline Education. 
Retrieved October 12, 2021, from 
https://www.frontlineeducation.com/blog/spec
ial-education-teacher-shortage/ 

Coffman, A. & Patterson, R. (2014). Teacher 
residencies: Redefining preparation through 
partnerships. National Education Association. 

Deines, A. (2017, Sept 13). Teacher Shortages 

Persist in Kansas, State Board of Education 
Members Learn. The Hays Daily News. 
https://www.hdnews.net 

Educational Testing Service. (2021, May 30). Special 
Education: Core Knowledge and Mild to Moderate 
Applications (0543/5543). 
https://www.ets.org/praxis 

Gonzalez, B. M. (2020, January 13). Where are all the 
special educators. Medium. Retrieved October 
12, 2021, from https://medium.com/age
-of-awareness/where-are-all-the-special-educat
ors-aaa9281c48b5. 

Guha, R., Hyler, M. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. 
(2017a). The power and potential of teacher 
residencies. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(8), 31-37. 

Guha, R., Hyler, M. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. 
(2017b). The teacher residency: A practical path 
to recruitment and retention. American 
Educator, 41(1), 31-34. 

Hager, K. D., Baird, C. M., Spriggs, A. D. (2012). 
Remote teacher observation at the University 
of Kentucky. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 
31, 3?8.

Han, G., & Doyle, D. (2013). Teachers-in-Residence: 
New Pathways into the Profession. Ask the Team. 
Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555664

Lambert, D. (2020, January 10). Amid shortages, 
California schools settle for underprepared 
special education teachers. EdSource. Retrieved 
October 15, 2021, from https://edsource.org/
2020/amid-shortages-schools-settle-for-under
prepared-specialeducation-teachers/621656.

Rao, K. & Meo, G. (2016). Using Universal Design 
for Learning to Design Standards-Based 
Lessons. SAGE Open,6(4), 1-12. 
doi:10.1177/2158244016680688

Rural School and Community Trust. (2013, 
November 21). It?s complicated . . . Why what?s 
rural matters. https://www.ruraledu.org/
articles.php?id=3127  

Sindelar, P. T., Pua, D. J., Fisher, T., Peyton, D. J., 

46

http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c 1s1m 
http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c 1s1m 
https://www.kmuw.org/post/kansas-worsening- teacher-shortage-four-graphs
https://www.kmuw.org/post/kansas-worsening- teacher-shortage-four-graphs
https://www.frontlineeducation.com/blog/spec ial-education-teacher-shortage/
https://www.frontlineeducation.com/blog/spec ial-education-teacher-shortage/
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/where- are-all-the-special-educators-aaa9281c48b5.
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/where- are-all-the-special-educators-aaa9281c48b5.
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/where- are-all-the-special-educators-aaa9281c48b5.
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/where- are-all-the-special-educators-aaa9281c48b5.
https://edsource.org/2020/amid-shortages- schools-settle-for-underprepared-special- education-teachers/621656.
https://edsource.org/2020/amid-shortages- schools-settle-for-underprepared-special- education-teachers/621656.
https://edsource.org/2020/amid-shortages- schools-settle-for-underprepared-special- education-teachers/621656.
https://edsource.org/2020/amid-shortages- schools-settle-for-underprepared-special- education-teachers/621656.
https://edsource.org/2020/amid-shortages- schools-settle-for-underprepared-special- education-teachers/621656.
https://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3127
https://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3127


CABALLERO, BOCK & O'NEAL-HIXON| SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN RESIDENCE

Brownell, M. T., & Mason-Williams, L. (2018). 
The Demand for Special Education Teachers in 
Rural Schools Revisited: An Update on 
Progress. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 
37(1), 12?20.

Thorpe, R. (2014). Residency: Can It Transform 
Teaching the Way It Did Medicine? Phi Delta 
Kappan, 96(1), 36?40.

47


	Caballero et al. 2021 Final
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10
	Page 11
	Page 12
	Page 13
	Page 14
	Page 15
	Page 16
	Page 17


