HS Dialog, 27(1), 104-116 Copyright ©2024, ISSN: 1930-9325 CONCEPTUAL ARTICLE Early Childhood Special Education Stars: A Five-Point Model for Addressing the Teacher Shortage Marla J. Lohmann1 Marisa Macy2 1Colorado Christian University 2University of Wyoming There is currently a crisis-level shortage of qualified early childhood educators, including early childhood special educators. Teacher preparation programs must address the shortage through effective teacher recruitment, training, and retention strategies. We recommend a five-point STARS model that includes: (a) Supplemental funding during field placements, (b) Teacher preparation that leads to early childhood education and early childhood special education dual licensure, (c) Advocacy at the local, state, and national levels, (d) Relationships between teacher training programs and local public and private early learning centers, and (e) Supportive and ongoing mentoring for in-service early childhood special educators. This manuscript provides an overview of this STARS model with specific recommendations for teacher educators. Keywords: Early childhood special education, Teacher preparation, Teacher shortage INTRODUCTION There is currently a crisis-level shortage of qualified early childhood educators (Schaack et al., 2021), including early childhood special educators trained to teach preschool children with disabilities receiving services under Part B, Section 619 of IDEA (Peyton et al., 2018). While the shortage of certified teachers existed previously, the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic exacerbated the problem, with a higher than normal number of teachers leaving the profession either for retirement or to pursue a different career (Carver-Thomas et al., 2022). This shortage of teachers is leading to students being taught by teachers without state teacher certification (Carver-Thomas et al., 2022; Peyton & Acosta, 2022) and higher student caseloads for special educators (Peyton & Acosta, 2022). At the same time that this shortage is occurring, there are increased expectations for young children to enter kindergarten with academic skills such as foundational knowledge in early literacy and numeracy, necessitating that all early childhood educators are well prepared for their roles (Cho & Couse, 2008; Cook & Coley, 2017). Many preschoolers with disabilities, including Lohmann & Macy 105 children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, spend the majority of their school day in the inclusive classroom (Zabeli & Gjelaj, 2020), Therefore, it is vital that their teachers are fully qualified for their roles and stay in those positions for several years. Teacher preparation programs must proactively and comprehensively address the early childhood special education teacher shortage through the implementation of effective teacher recruitment, training, and retention strategies. In order to achieve this goal, we recommend a five-point STARS model (Figure 1) that includes: (a) Supplemental funding during field placements, (b) Teacher preparation that leads to early childhood education and early childhood special education dual licensure, (c) Advocacy at the local, state, and national levels, (d) Relationships between teacher training programs and local public and private early learning centers, and (e) Supportive and ongoing mentoring for in-service early childhood special educators. This manuscript provides an overview of this STARS model with specific recommendations of how teacher educators can use this model to address the teacher shortage crisis. Figure 1 ECSE Stars Model EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION STARS 106 Supplemental Funding During Field Placements The "S" in the STARS model focuses on supplemental funding during field placement. Traditionally, teacher preparation programs have culminated with a student teaching experience that lasts for one semester and allows teacher candidates to demonstrate their mastery of best practices in classroom instruction (Greenberg et al., 2011). Because these field experiences generally require full time, unpaid work, teacher candidates often must take out additional student loans to pay their bills during their student teaching (Meltzer, 2022). This expectation for unpaid labor has been challenging for many college students (Thompson & Russell, 2017) but is even more so now with the increasing number of nontraditional students attending college (Remenick, 2019). The National Center for Education Statistics (1993) defines a non-traditional undergraduate student as one who meets one of more of the following characteristics: (a) older than the traditional 18-22 year old college student, (b) attending college part-time, (c) independence from parental support, (d) working full time, (e) having dependents, (f) being a single parent, and (g) having received a GED. One solution for addressing this challenge is through field placements that include payment for teachers. For pre-service teachers, this model is often referred to as teacher residencies (Goodwin et al., 2018; Henning, 2018; Zugelder et al., 2021). In addition to the financial benefits to teacher candidates, teacher residency programs that last for the entire school year have been found to result in teachers who are better prepared for teaching in their own classrooms (Mazzye et al., 2023) and are more likely to stay in the classroom for several years (Goodwin et al., 2018). Fallona and Johnson (2019) suggested that schools consider using funding from Title II, Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to fund teacher residencies. These federal funds are allocated for ensuring that all students have access to highly qualified teachers and up to two percent of a state’s ESSA funds may be used for this purpose (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). To make this funding use possible, teacher preparation programs must work in collaboration with local school districts. For universities or communities that do not have teacher residency programs, there are other options to provide supplemental funding during pre-service field experiences. For example, teacher candidates may be allowed to student teach in the school for a certain number of hours each week and count those paid experiences towards their student teaching. Candidates and universities can pursue grant funding to cover the tuition and living expenses of candidates. And, some states, such as Colorado, are now providing financial support to student teachers (Meltzer, 2022). Teacher preparation programs can also increase the opportunities for paid field work by developing and offering university-based alternative certification programs. This pathway to teacher licensure offers training and support to in-service teacher candidates who are acting as the teacher of record in a classroom while pursuing teacher training (Bowling & Ball, 2018). Approximately 20% of teachers receive training through alternative pathways, such as alternative certification programs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). These pathways may be especially appealing to non-traditional students who already have a bachelor’s degree in another field and seek an income while gaining teacher licensure. Lohmann & Macy 107 Teacher Preparation Leading to Dual Licensure The "T" in the STARS model focuses on teacher preparation leading to dual licensure. Early childhood teaches who are explicitly trained in both developmentally appropriate early childhood practices and special education strategies are better able to support the various academic, communication, and social-emotional needs of the young children they teach. Nutbrown (2021) argues that well-trained and highly qualified early childhood educators are vital for the success of young children. Early childhood teachers must be prepared to meet the needs of all learners. In recent years, several states have launched universal preschool programs. At this time, approximately a dozen states and the District of Columbia offer universal preschool or prekindergarten programs or are in the process of developing such programs (Guevara, 2023). Many states (e.g., Colorado, Florida, Virginia) utilize community-based preschool programs to meet the demand. Traditionally, teachers in these private early childhood centers may have minimal or training in inclusive practices (Education Law Center, 2010) but must be prepared to support children with disabilities in their private school classroom due to universal preschool mandates. Many early childhood teachers have reported feeling unprepared for meeting diverse student needs in the inclusive classroom (Chadwell et al., 2020; Majoko, 2016). Teachers’ feelings about, and preparedness for, inclusion directly impacts the learning success of children in inclusive classrooms (Tiwari et al., 2015). Teachers with dual teacher licensure have more positive attitudes towards inclusive practices and teaching students with disabilities (Kirksey et al., 2022). In addition, teachers’ self-reported perceptions of preparedness for teaching have been directly correlated with their attrition rates, with teachers who report feeling more prepared being more likely to stay in the classroom (DeAngelis et al., 2013). Inclusive classroom teachers who are also trained to teach students with disabilities are more likely to remain in the classroom, even when they are supporting a large number of children with disabilities, than are their colleagues without special education training (Gilmour & Wehby, 2020). To address this feeling of not being prepared to support learning needs, we recommend that all early childhood educators are dually certified in both early childhood education and special education. Universities that have implemented dual licensure programs have found that graduates are more prepared for meeting the needs of all learners in the inclusive classroom (Anderson et al., 2015; Kent & Giles, 2016; Kerns, 1996; Kirksey et al., 2022). Additionally, students with disabilities who are taught by dually certified teachers have been found to have better academic outcomes compared to their peers taught by teachers with one type of teacher certification (Kirksey et al., 2022). Recent research has also found that the type of licensure held by a teacher candidate’s cooperating teacher impacts the likelihood of the candidate’s eventual teaching position, with candidates who were mentored by a teacher with a special education endorsement being more likely to become special educators themselves (Theobald et al., 2021). With this in mind, the authors recommend that teacher preparation programs ensure candidates are paired with EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION STARS 108 cooperating teachers who hold licensure in special education or early childhood special education. Based on the existing research, we recommend university teacher preparation programs offer dual licensure programs include explicit training and field experiences in both general and special education (Fallona & Johnson, 2019). To do this, early childhood education and special education programs must work in collaboration to support and train teacher candidates. Advocacy at the local, state, and national levels The "A" in the STARS model focuses on advocacy at the local, state, and national levels. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (2023) defines advocacy as the process of supporting a cause. Teacher education programs are uniquely positioned to advocate for the best interests of current and future teachers in their communities, as well as at the state and national levels. Recent research indicated that teacher educators perceive advocacy to be a critical part of their roles (Akin-Sabuncu, 2022). Teacher educators’ participation in advocacy efforts is vital because most legislators do not have a background, nor expertise, in education issues (McLaughlin et al., 2016). Teacher educators can engage in advocacy in a number of ways at the local, state, and national levels, with overlapping work in various areas (Figure 2). Figure 2 Advocacy at Three Levels Advocacy must begin at the local level, within schools and districts, as well as the community as a whole. In the local schools, this local advocacy can take many forms including (a) formal and informal conversations with community stakeholders about best practices in education (Fisher & Miller, 2021), (b) mentoring colleagues (Dubetz & deJong, 2011), (c) sharing resources with teachers and administrators that may lead to changes that will better meet student needs (Murawski & Hughes, 2021), and (d) using social media to engage in discussions about education policies (Fisher & Miller, 2021). Teacher educators should lead these advocacy efforts and should support teacher candidates in learning advocacy skills. Within their communities, teacher educators can advocate for policy changes through writing open letters published online Local NationalState Lohmann & Macy 109 (Garahan, 2019). Finally, in their own teacher education courses, they can advocate for children and teachers by encouraging a variety of student viewpoints and selecting diverse course materials (Dubetz & deJong, 2011). At the state level, teacher educators can collaborate with faculty from other teacher preparation programs throughout the state to create, and advocate for, policies that support pre-service and in-service teachers. In many states, teacher preparation programs join forces through involvement in Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) initiatives, which are aimed at meeting the unique needs of special education professionals in the state (CEEDAR, 2023). In addition, ECSE teachers can engage in state-level advocacy through contacting elected officials regarding current and upcoming legislation that impacts young children and their families (Council for Exceptional Children, 2023). On the national level, advocacy may be accomplished through participation in advocacy groups. The field of early childhood education offers several professional organizations that engage in advocacy efforts, such as (a) the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), (b) the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators (NAECTE), and (c) the National Child Care Association (NCCA). In the field of special education, there are several groups including (a) the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), (b) the CEC Teacher Education Division (TED), and (c) the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education (HECSE). NAEYC is a professional organization with approximately 60,000 members and focuses on ensuring high quality outcomes for children between birth and age eight (NAEYC, 2023a). NAEYC works at both the national and state levels to support legislation to benefit young children through (a) providing members with information, (b) publishing position statements, (c) publishing letters and official comments on policies, (d) connecting early childhood educators with legislators, and (e) launching the America for Early Ed initiative (NAEYC, 2023b). NAECTE is composed of teacher educators who prepare people to work in early childhood classrooms and engage in advocacy efforts through the publication of position statements and conference presentations (NAECTE, 2023). The National Child Care Association includes members from childcare centers of all sizes and provides members with information and tools to engage in advocacy efforts that support young children (National Child Care Association, 2021). CEC is the primary professional organization for the field of special education and has a robust policy and advocacy agenda that includes keeping members updated on national policies, supporting members in writing letters to Congress, publishing position statements, and hosting a Legislative Summit in Washington D.C. each year (Council for Exceptional Children, 2023). For example, advocacy may include becoming active in a professional organization like the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC). DEC advocacy efforts focus on professionals serving young children birth to age eight with disabilities. Like DEC, TED is a subdivision of CEC. TED builds upon the work of CEC by emailing members weekly updates about policies related to special education and teacher preparation, endorsing legislation that benefits teacher preparation efforts, and offering a Special Education Legislative Summit Short Course on policy to selected members each summer (Teacher Education Division, 2023). HECSE is an organization that was founded to support communication between programs EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION STARS 110 offering doctoral programs in special education and currently engages in organized advocacy at the national level to support legislation that benefits children with disabilities and their teachers (HECSE, 2022). Relationships between teacher training programs and early learning centers The "R" in the STARS model focuses on relationships between teacher training programs and early learning centers. A fourth way that teacher education programs can address the early childhood special education teacher shortage is through relationships with local early learning centers. There are a variety of ways in which these partnerships can be formed and teacher preparation programs, as well as the area schools, must determine the model that is best for them. Darling-Hammond (2017) discussed a teacher training model used at one Australian university in which university faculty collaborated with teachers and teacher candidates in a school. Together, they engaged in lesson planning, curriculum development, and research. This type of partnership model can support university faculty in staying connected to the classroom, while providing pre- service teacher candidates with highly supported field experiences and in-service educators the opportunity to continue their own professional development. Rummel et al. (2022) shared about a partnership in which a school identified a need, specifically social-emotional learning, and reached out to the local university-based teacher education program to gain support and training to address this need. The university faculty used recent research to guide the support they provided and were able to conduct their own research, making the partnership beneficial to both parties. By building schools’ and teachers’ capacity to address their own needs through explicit training, teacher education programs can reduce teacher retention as teachers who feel confident in their abilities are more likely to remain in their teaching positions (Bland et al., 2014). A third way that schools and universities can partner is through the use of grow-your-own (GYO) programs that support schools in identifying local community members who may be interested in becoming teachers and providing them the training to enter the teacher workforce (Jackson & Wake, 2022). GYO programs commonly include high school students, paraprofessionals, parents, and other community members with an interest in the teaching profession (Gist et al., 2019) and remove many of the barriers that prevent these teacher candidates from receiving traditional teacher preparation (Garcia, 2022). Identified teacher candidates complete their teacher training at a partner university and are then employed in a partner school. The school may employ the teacher candidate or provide financial assistance during their teacher training (Garcia, 2022). In addition to increasing the teacher pipeline, the use of GYO programs also increases the number of diverse candidates entering the teacher workforce (Bianco & Marin-Paris, 2019; Jackson & Wake, 2022), as well as the retention rate of teachers prepared in this manner (Gist et al., 2019). Through participation in GYO programs, university teacher preparation programs can support local schools in recruiting early childhood special educators to work in their schools. Lohmann & Macy 111 Regardless of the structure of the university-learning center partnership, there are several components that help ensure a successful endeavor. First, all involved parties must have a shared vision for the partnership; everyone should agree on the purpose and the goals for collaboration (Day, 2022; Farah, 2019). Second, there must be a benefit in the partnership for all parties; if one party does not receive a benefit from the collaboration, they are likely to not fully engage (Day, 2022). Mutually beneficial partnerships ensure success. Thirdly, both organizations must trust one another and the decisions made by the other party (Rummel et al.,2022). Supportive and Ongoing Mentoring and Coaching The final "S" in the STARS model focuses on supportive and ongoing mentoring and coaching. While partnerships between teacher preparation programs and public schools can support pre- service teachers, these relationships can also be a means of addressing teacher attrition by offering needed training to in-service teachers. University teacher preparation programs can, and should, be involved in ensuring that teachers receive ongoing support and mentoring once they begin their careers. Teacher coaching and mentoring is a form of job-embedded professional development that is tailored to unique teacher needs (Kraft et al., 2018). Teacher mentors and coaches can support pre-service and in-service teachers by providing both instructional and emotional supports tailored to the needs of the teacher (Becker et al., 2019). Recent research (Keiler et al., 2020) found that more experienced teachers benefited the most from the feedback provided via teacher coaching, indicating that this mentoring process should be ongoing throughout a teacher’s entire career. Mentoring and coaching programs for current teachers impact teacher instructional success in the classroom (Jackson et al., 2019; Mok & Staub, 2021). In addition, ongoing teacher coaching increases teacher retention rates (DeAngelis et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2019). With this in mind, we recommend that university teacher preparation programs are actively partnering with graduates, as well as area schools, to provide this mentoring and coaching. Another way that universities may support school-based coaching and mentoring is by providing specific training to mentors to enhance their content knowledge, as well as their knowledge of effective mentoring and coaching. Cornelius et al. (2020) found that mentors who receive specialized instruction are effective at mentoring teacher candidates. Similarly, Melton et al., (2019) found that cooperating teachers who receive explicit training on mentoring are more effective at supporting pre-service and novice teachers. The research is clear that ongoing mentoring and coaching has a positive impact on both teacher effectiveness and teacher retention. Additionally, the literature has identified the aspects of effective teacher mentoring and coaching. Figure 3 provides a brief overview of these components. EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION STARS 112 Figure 3 Components of Effective Teacher Mentoring and Coaching Component Support in the Literature Personalized The mentor/coach offers supports that are uniquely designed to support the individual needs and goals of the teacher. Even if the mentor/coach is supporting multiple teachers, the supports provided will differ for each teacher. Akin, 2016; Elek & Page, 2019; Hui, 2020; Randolph et al., 2019 Observations Effective mentoring/coaching models include three stages for each observation: (a) a meeting before the observation to discuss what will be taught and set goals for the observation itself, (b) the observation, and (c) a meeting after the observation to discuss what the mentor/coach observed. Hui, 2020; Kraft et al., 2018 Teacher Reflection On an ongoing basis, the teacher and mentor/coach reflect on the instruction that is occurring in the classroom. They identify what is going well and issues/concerns that may need to be addressed Elek & Page, 2019; Sutton et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2022; Wetzel et al., 2017; Wetzel et al., 2019 Collaborative problem solving Mentor/coach and teacher work together to identify potential solutions to the challenges that arise in the teacher’s classroom Wetzel et al., 2019 Emotional support Mentor/coach engages in active listening to the teacher and uses what is heard to support the teacher’s needs, while building their self-confidence and self-reliance as a teacher. Becker et al., 2019 Instructional support Mentor/coach aids teacher in lesson planning and offers explicit feedback on instructional practices. Becker et al., 2019; Elek & Page, 2019; Randolph et al., 2019; Randolph et al., 2020; Shanks, 2017; Taylor et al., 2022 Explicit modeling Mentor/coach explicitly models best teaching practices for the teacher. The teacher can watch the mentor/coach engage in the teaching practice and then try it themself, while receiving feedback Taylor et al., 2022 CONCLUSION There is a crisis-level shortage of early childhood special education teachers. Teacher preparation programs must respond to our workforce shortage in ways that will address this crisis by increasing the pipeline and improving the retention rates of teachers entering the field. The Lohmann & Macy 113 STARS model presents ideas to ameliorate the crisis. By focusing on the five strategies in the ECSE STARS model, we can address the challenges that face early childhood special education. We posit that the teacher shortage can be reduced through combining these five effective strategies: (a) Supplemental funding during field placements, (b) Teacher preparation that leads to early childhood education and early childhood special education dual licensure, (c) Advocacy at the local, state, and national levels, (d) Relationships between teacher training programs and local public and private early learning centers, and (e) Supportive and ongoing mentoring for in- service early childhood special educators. The key to success for addressing the early childhood special education teacher shortage is not inventing something new, but instead creating a comprehensive approach to the teacher shortage by combining research-supported strategies through the use of the Early Childhood Special Education STARS model. The comprehensive approach involves collaborations within and outside traditional boundaries to create a seamless system of pathways for teacher recruitment, training, and retention. The STARS model is a path for addressing our national teacher shortage. References Akin, B. A. (2016). Practitioner views on the core functions of coaching in the implementation of an evidence-based intervention in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 68, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.07.010 Akin-Sabuncu, S. (2022). Towards a re-conceptualisation of the role of teacher educators in a changing world: A critical pedagogy perspective. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(1), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.20 Anderson, K., Smith, J., Olsen, J., & Algozzine, B. (2015). Systematic alignment of dual teacher preparation. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051503400107 Becker, E. S., Waldis, M., & Staub, F. C. (2019). Advancing student teachers’ learning in the teaching practicum through content-focused coaching: A field experiment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83(1), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.007 Bianco, M., & Marin-Paris, D. (2019). Pathways2Teaching: Addressing the teacher diversity gap through a Grow Your Own program. Teaching Exceptional Children, 52(1), 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919875704 Bland, P., Church, E., & Luo, M. (2014). Strategies for attracting and retaining teachers. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, & Research, 4(1), 9–18. Bowling, A. M., & Ball, A. L. (2018). Alternative certification: A solution or an alternative problem? Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.02109 Carver-Thomas, D., Burns, D., Leung, M., & Ondrasek, N. (2022). Teacher shortages during the pandemic: How California districts are responding. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/899.809 CEEDAR. (2023). State highlights. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/state-highlights/#toggle-id- 17 Chadwell, M. R., Roberts, A. M., & Daro, A. M. (2020). Ready to teach all children: Unpacking early childhood educators’ feelings of preparedness for working with children with disabilities. Early Education and Development, 31(1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1621584 Cho, E.K., & Couse, L. J. (2008). Early childhood teacher policy in the United States: Continuing issues, overcoming barriers, and envisioning the future. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 2, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-2-2-15 Cook, K.D. & Coley, R. L. (2017). School transition practices and children’s social and academic adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Education Psychology, 109(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.07.010 https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.20 https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051503400107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.007 https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919875704 https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.02109 https://doi.org/10.54300/899.809 https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/state-highlights/#toggle-id- 17 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1621584 https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-2-2-15 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000139 EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION STARS 114 Cornelius, K. E., Rosenberg, M. S., & Sandmel, K. N. (2020). Examining the impact of professional development and coaching on mentoring of novice special educators. Action in Teacher Education, 42(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1638847 Council for Exceptional Children. (2023). Policy and Advocacy. https://exceptionalchildren.org/policy-and- advocacy Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399 Day, J. (2022). A proposed multi-tier university-school partnership for a National Board Certification cohort. PDS Partners: Bridging Research to Practice, 17(1), 22–25. DeAngelis, K. J., Wall, A. F., & Che, J. (2013). The impact of preservice preparation and early career support on novice teachers’ career intentions and decisions. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113488945 Dubetz, N. E., & deJong, E. J. (2011). Teacher advocacy in bilingual programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 248–262. Education Law Center. (2010). Including children with disabilities in state pre-k programs. https://edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/publications/PreKPolicyBrief_InclusionChildrenWithDisabilities.p df Elek, C., & Page, J. (2019). Critical features of effective coaching for early childhood educators: A review of empirical research literature. Professional Development in Education, 45(4), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1452781 Fallona, C., & Johnson, A. (2019). Approaches to “grow your own” and dual general and special education certification. Maine Education Policy Research Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596246.pdf Farah, Y. N. (2019). Collaborative partnership: Opening doors between schools and universities. Gifted Child Today, 42(2), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518822679 Fisher, K., & Miller, K. M. (2021). Legislative advocacy for special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(3). 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920982943 Garahan, K. L. (2019). The public work of identity performance: Advocacy and dissent in teachers’ open letters. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 22(1), 59–94. Garcia, A. (2022). Preparing Pre-K teachers: Policy considerations and strategies. State Education Standard, 22(3), 50–54. Gilmour, A. F., & Wehby, J. H. (2020). The association between teaching students with disabilities and teacher turnover. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 1042–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000394 Gist, C. D., Bianoc, M., & Lynn, M. (2019). Examining Grow Your Own programs across the teacher development continuum: Mining research on teachers of color and nontraditional educator pipelines. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118787504 Goodwin, A. L., Roegman, R., & Reagan, E. M. (2018). Lessons from a teacher residency. Educational Leadership, 75(8), 62–67. Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). Student Teaching in the United States. National Council on Teacher Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521916.pdf Guevara, H. (2023). National report on preschool policies finds uneven progress across states. First Five Years Fund. https://www.ffyf.org/resources/2023/05/national-report-on-preschool-policies-finds-uneven- progress-across-states/ Henning, J. E. (2018). A sustainable teacher residency: Designing paid internships for teacher education. School- University Partnerships, 11(3), 15–30. Higher Education Consortium for Special Education. (2022). History of HECSE. https://hecse.net/about/history/ Hui, K. S., Khemanuwong, T., Ismail, S. A. M. M. (2020). Keeping teachers afloat with instructional coaching: Coaching structure and implementation. The Qualitative Report, 25(7), 1790–1816. Jackson, I., Paretti, L., Quinn, L., Bickmore, D., Borek, M. (2019). Retaining Nevada’s teachers: Issues and solutions. Policy Issues in Nevada Education, 3, 1–10. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/co_educ_policy/22 Jackson, N., & Wake, D. (2022). Exploring the impact of a Grow Your Own Teachers program. Research Issues in Contemporary Education, 7(1), 109–135. Keiler, L. S., Diotti, R., Hudon, K., & Ransom, J. C. (2020). The role of feedback in teacher mentoring: How coaches, peers, and students affect teacher change. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 28(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2020.1749345 Kent, A. M., & Giles, R. M. (2016). Dual certification in general and special education: What is the role of field https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1638847 https://exceptionalchildren.org/policy-and-advocacy https://exceptionalchildren.org/policy-and-advocacy https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113488945 https://edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/publications/PreKPolicyBrief_InclusionChildrenWithDisabilities.pdf https://edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/publications/PreKPolicyBrief_InclusionChildrenWithDisabilities.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1452781 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596246.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518822679 https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920982943 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000394 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118787504 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521916.pdf https://www.ffyf.org/resources/2023/05/national-report-on-preschool-policies-finds-uneven-progress-across-states/ https://www.ffyf.org/resources/2023/05/national-report-on-preschool-policies-finds-uneven-progress-across-states/ https://hecse.net/about/history/ https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/co_educ_policy/22 https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2020.1749345 Lohmann & Macy 115 experience in preservice teacher preparation? Professional Educator, 40(2), 18–31. Kerns, G. M. (1996). Preparation for role changes in general education and special education: Dual certification graduates’ perspectives. Education, 117(2), 306–315. Kirksey, J. J., & Lloydhauser, M. (2022). Dual certification in special and elementary education and associated benefits for students with disabilities and their teachers. AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211071096 Kraft, M.A., Blazar, D., Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teaching coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta- analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. Majoko, T. (2016). Inclusion in early childhood education: Pre-service teachers’ voices. Early Childhood Development and Care, 186(11), 1859–1872. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1137000 Mazzye, D. L., Duffy, M. A., & Lamb, R. L. (2023). Teacher candidate self-efficacy and ability to teach literacy: A comparison of residency and traditional teacher preparation models. Journal of Global Education and Research, 7(2), 146–165. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.7.2.1230 McLaughlin, V. L., West, J. E., & Anderson, J. A. (2016). Engaging effectively in the policymaking process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637902 Melton, J., Miller, M., & Brobst, J. (2019). Mentoring the mentors: Hybridizing professional development to support cooperating teachers’ mentoring practices in science. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 23–44. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/184630/ Meltzer, E. (2022). New Colorado teachers eligible for loan forgiveness, student teaching stipends. Chalkbeat Colorado. https://co.chalkbeat.org/2022/5/27/23144887/colorado-student-teachers-stipend-loan- forgiveness-federal-relief Merriam-Webster. (2023). Advocacy. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advocacy Mok, S. Y., & Staub, F. C. (2021). Does coaching, mentoring, and supervision matter for pre-service teachers’ planning skills and clarity of instruction.? A meta-analysis of (quasi)experimental studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103484 Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2021). Special educators in inclusive settings: Take steps for self-advocacy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(3), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920982263 National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2023a). About us. https://www.naeyc.org/about-us National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2023b). Public policy and advocacy. https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/public-policy-advocacy National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators. (2023). Welcome to NAECTE. https://naecte.org/ National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), National Postsecondary Student Aid Study:1992–93 (NPSAS:93), Data Analysis Systems. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp#:~:text=These%20characteristics%20include%20older%20than,o r%20high%20school%20completion%20certificate. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Characteristics of public school teachers who completed alternative route to certification programs. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/tlc. National Child Care Association. (2021). Who we are. https://www.nationalchildcare.org/ Nutbrown, C. (2021). Early childhood educators’ qualifications: A framework for change. International Journal of Early Years Education, 29(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1892601 Peyton, D., & Acosta, K. (2022). Understanding special education teacher shortages. State Education Standard, 22(1), 20–25. Peyton, D. J., Acosta, K., Harvey, A., Pua, D., Sindelar, P. T., Mason-Williams, L., Dewey, J., Fisher, T., & Crews, E. (2018). Special education teacher shortage: Differences between high and low shortage states. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420906618 Randolph, K. M., & Duffy, M. L. (2019). Using iCoaching to support teachers’ implementation of evidence-based practices. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8(2), Article 8. Randolph, K. M., Duffy, M. L., Brady, M. P., Wilson, C. L., & Scheeler, M. C. (2020). The impact of iCoaching on teacher-delivered opportunities to respond. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836414 Remenick, L. (2019). Services and support for nontraditional students in higher education: A historical literature review. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419842880 Rummel, N., Tan, K., & Roegman, R. (2022). Leveraging social-emotional learning to promote excellence and diversity, equity, and inclusion: A district-university partnership. Children & Schools, 44(1), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211071096 https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1137000 https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.7.2.1230 https://doi/ https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/184630/ https://co.chalkbeat.org/2022/5/27/23144887/colorado-student-teachers-stipend-loan-forgiveness-federal-relief https://co.chalkbeat.org/2022/5/27/23144887/colorado-student-teachers-stipend-loan-forgiveness-federal-relief https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advocacy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103484 https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920982263 https://www.naeyc.org/about-us https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/public-policy-advocacy https://naecte.org/ https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp#:~:text=These%20characteristics%20include%20older%20than,or%20high%20school%20completion%20certificate https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp#:~:text=These%20characteristics%20include%20older%20than,or%20high%20school%20completion%20certificate https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/tlc https://www.nationalchildcare.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1892601 https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420906618 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836414 https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419842880 EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION STARS 116 Schaack, D. D., Donovan, C. V., Adejumo, T., & Ortega, M. (2021). To stay or to leave: Factors shaping early childhood teachers’ turnover and retention decisions. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 36(2), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2021.1955779 Shanks, R. (2017). Mentoring beginning teachers: Professional learning for mentees and mentors. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(3), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-06-2017- 0045 Sutton, S. S., Cuellar, C., Gonzalez, M. P., & Espinosa, M. J. (2021). Pedagogical mentoring in Chilean schools: An innovative approach to teachers’ professional learning. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 11(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-01-2021-0028 Taylor, H. F., McCorkle, L. S., Vestal, A. R., & Wood, C. L. (2022). “I need you to show me:” Coaching early childhood professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643- 021-01172-7 Teacher Education Division. (2023). TED policy and advocacy portal. https://tedcec.org/ted-policy-and-advocacy-portal Theobald, R. J., Goldhaber, D. D., Naito, N., & Stein, M. L. (2021). The special education teacher pipeline: Teacher preparation, workforce entry, and retention. Exceptional Children, 88(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211010162 Thompson, R., & Russell, L. (2017). Trainee teachers in unpaid teaching posts: Volunteering, risks, and vulnerability. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 69(4), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1322129 Tiwari, A., Das, A., & Sharma, M. (2015). Inclusive education a rhetoric or reality? Teachers’ perspective and beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.002 U. S. Department of Education. (2016). Non-regulatory guidance for Title II, Part A: Building systems of support for excellent teaching and learning. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiipartaguidance.pdf Wetzel, M. M., Svrcek, N. S., LeeKeenan, K., & Daly-Lesch, A. (2019). Coaching through the hard parts: Addressing tensions in teaching with one preservice teacher learning to teach literacy in a fifth-grade classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.02.006 Wetzel, M. M., Taylor, L. A., & Vlach, S. K. (2017). Dialogue in the support of learning to teach: A case study of a mentor/mentee pair in a teacher education programme. Teaching Education, 28(4), 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2017.1309016 Zabeli, N., & Gjelaj, M. (2020). Preschool teachers’ awareness, attitudes and challenges towards inclusive early childhood education: A qualitative study. Cogent Education, 7(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1791560 Zugelder, B. S., L’Esperance, M., Anderson, P. J., Everett, P., & Grandy, L. (2021). Teacher residency as alternative pathway to licensure. Journal of Educational Issues, 7(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v7i1.17922 https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2021.1955779 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-06-2017-0045 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-06-2017-0045 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-01-2021-0028 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01172-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01172-7 https://tedcec.org/ted-policy-and-advocacy-portal https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211010162 https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1322129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.002 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiipartaguidance.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2017.1309016 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1791560 https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v7i1.17922