Recent developments in litigation and educational research dealing with handicapped children of limited English proficiency suggest that educators must seriously address the issues related to designing and implementing bilingual special education programs. One of the most critical needs in this overall national effort is to prepare a cadre of quality trained bilingual special education teachers, who will be able to provide the necessary educational experiences that will assist these students in developing to their fullest potential. The need is even more critical for the American Indian population. This paper will discuss bilingual special education teacher training in general. It will then focus specifically on the elements of field-based training models used in three American Indian training programs. One of these three programs will be discussed in depth.

Any discussion of bilingual special education teacher training should occur within the broader context of multicultural education. In 1979, multicultural teacher training was formally institutionalized by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). This influential accreditation agency adopted a multicultural education policy statement which requires all teacher training programs to include a multicultural component. Since this requirement is relatively new, many schools of education are still in various stages of planning and initiating these programs. With time and careful implementation this requirement will have a significant impact on teacher preparation programs. At the heart of multicultural education is the concept of cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism not only appreciates but promotes cultural diversity. It recognizes that it is the unique contributions of various cultural groups that strengthen and enrich our society.

Ten years ago the Commission on Multicultural Education of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education also adopted an important policy statement. One of the paragraphs of this statement is particularly significant in defining the concept of cultural pluralism. It reads as follows:

Bilingual special education teacher training is one strategy for promoting cultural pluralism in our schools. More importantly, it is an important effort designed to promote equal educational opportunity for limited English proficient students who are also handicapped.

As an emerging discipline, bilingual special education draws heavily from both bilingual education and special education. Both of these fields have been very actively involved in teacher training activities for many years. Bilingual special education teacher training, however, requires much more than the borrowing of courses from each of the parent disciplines. Bilingual special education requires a carefully articulated and planned convergence of these two disciplines which results in a new and unique body of knowledge.

The problem of preparing qualified teachers, teacher trainers, and other leadership personnel in this specialized area is not new and has already been addressed by the Office of Special Education as well as by several universities and colleges throughout the country.

In 1978, the Bureau for Handicapped Education, cognizant of the lack of qualified bilingual/bicultural personnel, took steps to correct the situation. Through its Hispanic initiative, which was later extended to other linguistically and culturally different groups as well, the Bureau encouraged the establishment of personnel preparation programs which would both recruit and train bilingual/ bicultural professionals to work with culturally and linguistically different exceptional (CLDE) students. In 1979, an initial group of 22 personnel preparation programs were funded under this initiative. Since then the number has increased annually. Thus, while there were a few programs functioning prior to the initiative, in a real sense the preparation of personnel to work with CLDE students began in 1979. Like any new field there has been a need to identify, define and improve current practices.

In the Spring of 1980, and again in the Spring of 1981, professionals engaged in preparing personnel to work with CLDE students met in the Washington D.C. area in workshops sponsored by ACCESS, INC., and funded by the Department of Education. These workshops focused on defining the field, determining the competencies which should be required of both trainers and trainees, and sharing ideas about philosophies and methodology. It was also agreed that persons preparing to work with such students needed to have skills in the field of bilingual/ bicultural education and special education as well as a third group of cross-cultural "convergent" skills which were not found in either but which are vital to working with CLDE students.

A recent review of the literature reveals that several studies have addressed the issue of the competencies necessary for bilingual special education teachers (Baca 1980; McLean 1981; Prieto, Rueda and Rodriquez 1981; Pynn 1981; Salend, Michael, and Taylor, 1984). A consensus on the most important general competencies for bilingual special educators emerges from this review. These are:

1. The desire to work with the CLDE student.

2. The ability to work effectively with parents of CLDE students.

3. The ability to develop appropriate IEP’s for the CLDE student.

4. Knowledge and sensitivity toward the language and the culture of the group to be served.

5. The ability to teach English as a Second Language (ESL) to CLDE students.

6. The ability to conduct non-biased assessment with CLDE students.

7. The ability to utilize appropriate methods and materials when working with CLDE students.

These competencies can be acquired through careful student recruitment and a strong training program. Presently, there are a number of different training programs in operation throughout the country, including a few designed for the American Indian population.

Multicultural Special Education Project (MUSEP) in 1982. Data were collected from 30 bilingual and/or multicultural special education teacher training projects at the university level. These projects were all located in the Western region of the United States and were funded through the Division of Personnel Preparation, Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education. The data provided a representative profile of bilingual special education projects in the Western region. Three general categories of projects were identified:

1. Strictly traditional special education programs with efforts directed toward the recruitment of ethnic or bilingual students. For example, a program that trained regular learning disability teachers but attempted to recruit minority and bilingual students;

2. Traditional special education programs with bilingual special education curriculum infused into existing coursework and program requirements. In this type of program a few lectures or modules and bibliographies on bilingual special education might be added to existing courses;

3. Bilingual special education programs that were specifically designed to train bilingual special education teachers and included bilingual special education course work and field experiences with bilingual special education curriculum.

Analysis of the data generated from this evaluation indicated that 29% of the projects surveyed were strictly traditional special education programs recruiting minority students, 29% were traditional special education programs with bilingual special education infused into existing curricula, and 42% were programs that offered specific courses on teaching CLDE students and considered their program a bilingual special education program.

Comments regarding the establishment of successful bilingual special education programs focused on various issues dealing with recruitment, funding, and support from local and state educational agencies. Adequate resources for student recruitment were not seen as available, as a result of a general trend toward less educational funding by state and federal agencies. This lack of resources made recruitment of students very difficult. Some faculties de-emphasized entrance standards and stressed exit criteria in order to recruit and retain students. The problem of recruitment was compounded by the small pool of high school graduates from which to draw.

Although several respondents indicated that public school systems in some areas do not support bilingual special education efforts by institutions of higher education, they nonetheless lack trained professionals in bilingual special education. The strengthening of university training programs was seen as necessary in order to attract the students required to relieve this shortage of personnel. In addition, a critical need to infuse teacher training programs with bilingual special education content was also identified. This effort must involve increasing general faculty awareness and support. A clarification of the interface between bilingual education and special education was seen as a high priority.

Needs were also identified in the areas of research, particularly addressing the lack of basic knowledge about target populations, e.g., American Indians, Hispanics, and Asians. Specifically, more information is needed about culture, language, and cognitive development with respect to these populations. It was agreed that a greater understanding concerning what constitutes a positive and productive learning environment for children being served through bilingual special education is also vital. Information on effective teacher training models for bilingual special education is also needed.

Recommendations in the area of program development emphasized the need for a coordinated effort on the part of bilingual special education training programs and school districts in communicating with state department of education with regard to personnel. Such a joint effort would encourage the institutionalization of bilingual special education student services and aid in securing funding at both levels. In order to achieve meaningful local control, it was stressed that IHEs, school boards, school administrators, teachers, bilingual teachers, bilingual special education teachers, parents, and the general public all need to be sensitized to the issues surrounding bilingual special education and the need for such programs within the community.

Finally, it was stressed that there is a need to begin making specific efforts to institutionalize projects that depend on grants, i.e., soft monies. This will require several things: (a) creating awareness and acceptance, (b) demonstrating the need for bilingual special education projects, (c) increasing participation in the programs, and (d) demonstrating their effectiveness.

The major concerns and the recurring needs expressed by project directors are summarized in Table 1. The most common concern among all projects was the institutionalization of their training programs. Fifty-nine percent of the projects expressed some concern that they would cease to exist unless adopted by their institutions and departments and made permanent programs.

A second major concern was student recruitment and support. Forty-nine percent of the projects felt that there were not enough minority students in their programs. Projects reported difficulty in recruiting minority students and in providing adequate academic support to retain them. Moreover, some projects felt a need to provide academic and general support to the few minorities that were already in the programs.

TABLE 1
Need and Concerns Generated From Project Interviews

The support and cooperation of academic and non-academic departments, programs, and agencies, such as special education departments, state departments of education, LEA’s, school districts, and community groups was seen as an important need by project personnel. Twenty-four percent felt bilingual special education programs needed better planning and development. Another 24 percent felt a need to infuse bilingual special education curricula into the courses of existing and institutionalized training programs, such as special and bilingual education programs.

Efforts to develop Indian bilingual special education programs have also faced similar difficulties to those discussed above. In addition, many Indian communities have also experienced the additional problem of high teacher turnover (Anglo teachers) and a severe shortage of local Indian teachers. Traditional training programs on university campuses have not been a solution for two major reasons.

1. University-based programs are not designed to meet the needs of the reservation.

2. When Indian students leave the reservation to go to school at an urban university there is a tendency for them to accept better paying positions in the urban setting rather than returning to the reservation. For three Indian communities the solution to the problem seemed quite simple. If it is difficult and nonfunctional to send our Indian students to the university why not bring the university classes to the reservations. Furthermore, if traditional university classes are not relevant to the needs of Indian students why not contract for courses that will address the reservations’ needs.

The authors have worked with the three American Indian bilingual special education training programs during the past few years. Two of the programs are on the Navajo reservation and one is on the Sioux reservation. All three of the programs have one thing in common, their field-based training design. In each instance the initiative for the program has not come from the university level but rather from an agency of the Indian community. The agency saw the need, wrote a proposal for federal funding, and contracted with a university for a field-based training program. Although there have been some problems associated with a field-based model, for the most part they have been resolved.

The program on the Rosebud reservation in South Dakota was initiated by the Shannon County schools in conjunction with Black Hills State College. One of the programs on the Navajo reservation was initiated by the Division of Education of the Navajo tribe, in cooperation with Northern Arizona University. The other Navajo project was initiated by the Diné Center for Human Development at the Navajo Community College in conjunction with Utah State University and Northern Arizona University. The project of the Navajo Division of Education in Window Rock, Arizona, will be described below as an example of some of the basic program elements being identified as necessary to develop successful bilingual special education training programs.

The Navajo Special Education Teacher Development Program (NSETDP) is a Master’s degree Special Education program for Navajo teachers. The program is designed to prepare teachers in the area of special education to work on the Navajo reservation. The project was funded through the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services under the Division of Personnel Preparation, in order to meet the critical shortage of special education teachers on the Navajo reservation.

The NSETDP leads to a Master’s degree in special education. Four different programs of study are available. They include: (a) learning disabilities, (b) reading and learning disabilities, (c) emotionally handicapped, (d) mentally handicapped. The NSETDP contains two different components. One component of the program offers courses on site at Window Rock, Arizona. During each academic year four courses in the Master’s degree program are offered at the Tribal Training Center in Window Rock. The courses meet one day a week from 5:30 until 10:00 PM. Each class lasts for eight weeks. Two classes are offered each semester.

The second component of the program consists of coursework completed on campus at Northern Arizona University during the summer sessions. Students usually apply for, and are granted Tribal Scholarships when attending these summer sessions. Two 5-week summer sessions are offered each summer which allow for some flexibility in attending summer school. At the end of the first three years of funding, data were collected on progress thus far.

The following data on the Navajo project are taken from a paper by Pearson and Schnorr (1983). A total of fifty-four Navajo educators were recruited over the first three year period to participate in the special education teacher development program. Of these students 91 % were women. Students who successfully completed their Master’s degree represented 60% males and 14% females. Of the 20 students enrolled for a full two years in the program, 10 completed their degree. In addition to 10 graduating trainees, the program provided between 18 and 36 hours of instruction to 15 other trainees. Some of these students had only one course and/or on-campus practicum to complete in order to obtain their Master’s degree. The chances for these students to eventually obtain their degree was especially favorable considering their accumulated credit obtained under the program.

With a severe shortage of special education teachers, and especially Navajo teachers, most of the students were recruited from regular education training (68%) and employment (65%). Less than one fifth (18%) of the students were employed in special education at the time they began studies.

During the latter part of June, 1983, a sample of students and faculty were interviewed by the Navajo Division Education Project Coordinator on campus at Northern Arizona University. These interviews were directed both toward gaining information on the personal program experiences of the students and to getting recommendations for program improvement.

A profile of the instructor and student population indicated that two of the three instructors had been with the program from the beginning and that two of the students had dropped out and subsequently re-entered the program, giving some indication of drop-out factors. Two of the students interviewed had commuted two hours one way to attend the classes in Window Rock during the autumn/spring semesters. One student was also paying her own tuition and expenses to attend the summer session.

Personal comments reflected concerns about child care, lack of school district cooperation with the training needs of the students, and a lack of adequate funding and support. Some students had experienced difficulty with the long drives in bad weather and the consequent wear on their cars. Many of the students experienced conflict about the care of their children while they attended the full-time summer sessions. Campus housing was seen as inadequate for study and children needs.

The practicum experience required in the program caused problems for several of the students. These students encountered difficulty with school administrators in getting access to working with children as part of their practicum experience. Many were obliged to get additional parent permission to test, a process which took considerable time due to the widely scattered households and lack of telephone service. Some students were also obliged to take release time in order to undertake the practice testing on the students in their own schools.

Program concerns centered around adequate support services. Some students experienced difficulty in finding out about the course offerings despite announcements in the papers and on the radio. Concern was expressed about the lack of library and research materials at the Window Rock site off campus and there were problems in obtaining materials and documents not housed in the university library. Students experienced considerable delays in obtaining these materials for research and term papers through the library’s interlibrary loan system.

Tribal scholarships were awarded for eight week sessions only for the summer term, yet the on-campus summer session was ten weeks long, causing some financial hardships. A need for the program to work more closely with students on such matters as campus housing, registration, and orientation to the university for the on-campus summer sessions was also identified. In addition, frustration was expressed about the delays (three days to three weeks) on the part of the university finance office in distributing the Tribal scholarship checks to the students.

In terms of interfacing bilingual special education into existing programs students felt that regular education teachers needed to be inserviced on dealing and/coordinating with special education student programs. Bilingual concerns centered around the need for standard translation of special education terms in Navajo for parents. Some students remained uncertain about the meaning of bilingual education and how it would fit into the curriculum. A real need for culturally appropriate test stimuli relevant to the children’s environment, e.g., the Peabody pictures, was identified.

Students expressed concern about the diverse levels of special education experience and training among students participating in the classes. Some students had undergraduate degrees, some had already taken graduate courses in special education and others had had no special education training at all. Inexperienced students often felt inferior to the experienced students and course instruction had to be balanced in terms of all types of students.

As a result of the student and faculty interviews several changes were incorporated in the last year of the program. For example, the training site was moved from Window Rock to Chinle to reduce the student driving time. Additional library materials were made available at the field site. The number of non-Navajo students in the classes was reduced, etc.

Perhaps the most important change in the program was the addition of a bilingual infusion component. The program evaluation revealed a lack of a Navajo specific bilingual special education emphasis. The authors developed three bilingual special education modules which were to be infused into existing courses. An inservice session was held with the appropriate faculty from Northern Arizona University. The modules are being field tested this year and will be revised as necessary for next year’s classes. The courses focus on the interaction between the child’s language and culture and the various handicapping conditions addressed in the program. In addition, guidelines for the assessment of referred students are a major focus.

The interviews conducted as part of the project evaluation pointed to some basic elements that must be considered in the design of successful bilingual special education training programs. It is clear that an understanding of the interface of bilingual special education into existing special education classes is essential for teachers working with CLDE populations. Classes should be individualized to meet student needs and degree of experience in the field, local school agencies must be enlisted to support the practicum experiences of the students, and a basic group of materials must be brought together in order to support the students’ learning. Additionally, support services for students need to be coordinated closely with the university.

In summary, field-based, locally controlled bilingual special education teacher training programs provide unique opportunities for providing more adequate and appropriate services to CLDE within the Indian community. Indian educators are trained to work directly with the population of students to be served, and cultural and linguistic information can be adapted to directly address the needs of these students. In addition, field-based programs serve as a vehicle through which the Indian community can impact the relevance of Indian teacher preparation. For the three communities cited in this paper, locally controlled, field based programs are demonstrating their effectiveness in preparing bilingual special education teachers. Other Indian tribes faced with similar teacher shortages may want to explore this training model in developing their own programs.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education: No One Model, 1973 American Journal of Teacher Education 24:264.

Baca, L. (1981) Bilingual Special Education Teacher Competencies: Paper prepared for Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Bilingual Special Education Project.

Grossman, H. (1982) The Status of Bilingual Special Education Teacher Training, MUSEP Working Institute, University of Colorado.

McLean, G. (1981) Bilingual Special Education Programs: A needs study based on a survey of directors of Bilingual Education and Special Education in U.S. school districts receiving Title VII ESEA funds. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado, 1981.

MUSEP, Multicultural Special Education Project, Proceedings of an Institute (1982) January.

Prieto, A.B., Rueda, R.S. & Rodriguez, R.F. (1981). Teaching competencies for bilingual multicultural exceptional children. Teacher Education and Special Education, Vol. 4, 35-39.

Pearson, J., & Schnorr, J. (1983) Native American graduate studies programs using a universily-field-based model. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Research Associates Conference, Tuscon, AZ, November.

Pynn, M. (198 1) Bilingual Special Education Teacher Competencies: Report of a Working Conference, ACESS Inc.

Salend, S., Salend, S.J., Michael, R.J. & Taylor, M. (1984) Competencies necessary for instructing migrant handicapped students, Exceptional Children, Vol. 51, 50-55.