Personnel preparation and service delivery issues in rural areas: The state of the art

Williams, Jane M

Abstract

Preparation of high quality personnel to provide educational services to students with disabilities living in rural areas is, at best, challenging. Findings from a comprehensive study concerning the status of the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in rural settings and the issues such implementation presents to teacher education programs in these areas are discussed. Members of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES) participated in the study. Results indicated that strategies for enhancing personnel preparation, recruitment, and retention of individuals to institutions of higher education and K-12 schools in rural settings include distance learning, on-site professional development opportunities, salary incentives/increments, and benefits. Linking evaluation data to the general education curriculum and determining how the student's disabilities affect his/her progress in general education are issues for practitioners implementing IDEA in rural settings. Recommendations are provided for enhancing personnel preparation and service delivery based on the results.

Delivering quality educational programming in rural settings always has posed particular challenges to students, their families, and service providers. Providing appropriate special education and related services to students with disabilities in these settings is compounded by many variables. Economic and social difficulties, such as lack of financial resources to support educational services because of low wages and poverty, make service delivery issues particularly problematic in rural areas (Duncan, 1999; Stern, 1994; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994). In addition, geographic barriers such as mountains, lack of paved highways, and large distances between cities and towns create challenges in providing services to students with disabilities (Dewees, 1999). Low numbers of students with disabilities in small schools, as well as difficulties recruiting and retaining special educators, intensify the difficulties of ensuring that students with disabilities receive quality special education and related services (Collins, 1999; Mullins, Morris, & Reinoehl, 1997; Westling & Whitten, 1996).

These difficulties, as well as lack of adequate facilities and available technology, also make implementing a comprehensive personnel preparation program in rural areas difficult to achieve (Dewees, 1999; Howley & Barker, 1997; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1996). Since 19% of schools and 9% of students in the United States are located in rural areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), it is critical that teacher preparation programs focus on the needs of rural practitioners (Collins, 1999; Education Commission of the States, 1999).

Service Delivery Issues

The IDEA of 1997 reiterates the mandate that students with disabilities receive their education with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997). Each year, the percentage of students with disabilities in general education settings increases. For example, as indicated by the 21st Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, during the 1996-97 school year, more than 95% of students with disabilities, ages 6 though 21, received a portion of their education in general education settings. Students with disabilities in rural settings are more likely to receive their instruction in general education settings than their counterparts in urban or suburban settings (Sack, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 1996). There are many reasons for these differences. Small schools, fewer students with disabilities, and lack of resources, including qualified teachers are but a few. These issues limit the ability of many rural schools to offer the array of service delivery models that are available in suburban or urban settings (American Association of School Administrators, 1999; Stern, 1994).

Personnel Preparation Issues

The need for restructuring personnel preparation programs to meet the increasing need for qualified personnel in rural settings is not new, although it may have intensified since more students with disabilities are receiving their instruction within general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 1999b). A number of recently published reports indicate that, in rural areas, the goal of these initiatives (i.e., having a talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom) may not have been attained. According to the American Council on Education (1999), teachers avoid high-poverty schools, and schools in high poverty areas, whether inner city or rural, have the highest number of unqualified teachers. Similarly, the U.S. General Accounting Office in its report, Rural Children: Increasing Poverty Rates Pose Educational Challenges, reported that rural schools have difficulty recruiting and retaining teachers due to lower salaries and geographic isolation (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994). Stern (1994) corroborated this finding in her report, The Condition of Education in Rural Schools. Westling and Whitten (1996) also support the issue of retaining teachers in rural areas. They reported that only 57% of rural special educators planned to still be teaching in rural areas within five years. Though data abounds regarding the difficulties recruiting and retaining teachers in rural areas, Collins (1999) observed that "few states have developed specific programs to address the problems of rural teacher recruitment and retention" (p.2).

Difficulties recruiting and retaining teachers certified to work with students with disabilities in rural settings are intensified by the demands of the job. For example, teachers in rural areas often feel social, cultural, and professional isolation from their colleagues as well as from research libraries and colleges and universities (Collins, 1999.) They often teach students with varying abilities, often within the same classroom, and they are responsible for many non-instructional activities, such as coaching and administrative duties (Morgan & Demchak, 1998). Because of these factors, as well as others, providing professional development opportunities for teachers and other service providers in rural districts is very difficult (Hillkirk, Chang, Oettinger, Saban, & Villet, 1998).

To date, however, there has been no systematic investigation of the status of the implementation of IDEA in rural settings or issues facing teacher education programs that prepare personnel to work with students with disabilities in these areas. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the following research questions:

1. What difficulties are teacher education programs in rural areas experiencing in preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities?

2. What strategies are being used to address personnel preparation, recruitment, and retention of special education personnel in rural areas?

3. What difficulties and challenges are being experienced implementing the requirements of IDEA of 1997 in rural areas? What supports are available to assist in the implementation of IDEA?

Method

The authors began studying the issues related to the implementation of IDEA in rural settings and the preparation of teachers to deliver services to students with disabilities during the fall of 1997. Based on concerns, challenges, and possible solutions provided during a focus group conducted during the ACRES conference in Charleston, SC, in March 1998, we constructed a questionnaire to gather data in a more systematic way about personnel preparation, recruitment and retention and service delivery issues.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of four sections. Using both open-ended and rank-order questions, it surveyed respondents regarding issues relative to personnel preparation, recruitment and retention and issues regarding service delivery and implementation of IDEA. Prior to distribution, five colleagues reviewed the questionnaire for accuracy. Minor changes were made based on their feedback.

Section one, demographic data, collected information concerning the respondent's position and school setting. Sections two through four included the recruitment and retention and service delivery and implementation questions.

Data Collection

In October 1999, we mailed the questionnaire to 166 subjects who were members of ACRES. We followed the initial mailing with a telephone call to non-respondents, asking for their participation. We faxed a second copy of the questionnaire to those subjects. In February 2000, we conducted a second mail-out to those still not responding. We followed the second mail-out with a final telephone call requesting participation.

Survey Analysis

We established the strategy for our descriptive data analysis in a logical fashion. Respondents had been asked to complete the survey by ordering events following a series of 14 inquiries that were applicable to their particular professional setting. While ordering summaries by their average ranking seemed the most appropriate technique, it was also anticipated that most respondents would not rank each of the possible events they had been provided within each inquiry, and this did raise some concern. The traditional method for interpreting the value of ranked events from a survey is to order the events by their summary means (average). Because respondents had been asked to order "all that apply," some events received considerably lower numbers of ratings than others. This resulted in artificially high or low rankings for some events due to a limited number of respondents. To compensate for this problem we employed a weighting procedure: we multiplied each average ranking by the reciprocal of the count of respondents who rated it. The final rankings were determined by ordering the events based upon the weighted score value from lowest to highest, with a lower weighted score indicating a higher overall rank by respondents.

Results

Questionnaire Return Data

The questionnaire was returned by 95 (57%) of the 166 members of ACRES. Twelve (7%) of the questionnaires were deleted because the respondents indicated they were unfamiliar with the subject matter or their position was not in a rural setting and hence they could not compete the questionnaire. Thus, 83 questionnaires were analyzed, representing a 50% response rate.

Demographic Information

Sixty percent (50) of the respondents were university/college professors. Eighteen percent (15) were special education supervisors/administrators. Six percent (5) were SEA/LEA administrators; five percent (4) were special education teachers. The remainder held the following positions: (a) 2%, general education supervisor/administrator; (b) 1%, related services providers; and (c) 6% listed "other." The "other" category was comprised of national clearinghouse personnel, staff development personnel, and consultants. Thus, the majority of the respondents were teacher educators in institutions of higher education. The majority of respondents (78.3%) indicated they worked in rural settings, with 4.8% indicating they worked in remote settings. Seven respondents (8.4%) indicated they worked in both rural and remote settings; seven respondents (8.4%) did not respond to the question.

The largest number of respondents indicated that their teacher preparation programs are for special educators only (37.3%). Nearly as many reported combined general education/special education programs (36.1%). Slightly fewer reported that their teacher preparation programs were for general education majors only (30.1%). Fifty-two percent of the respondents (43) provided enrollment data, program data, and certification data for personnel preparation programs. The data indicated that the number of students enrolled in teacher preparation programs ranged from 9 for a small program conferring a Bachelor's degree to the largest program of 11,500 full and part-time students conferring Bachelor's, Master's, and Ph.D. degrees.

Survey Results

Research Question 1: What difficulties are teacher education programs experiencing in preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities?

Respondents identified distance to campus, retention of qualified personnel, recruitment of personnel into the program, proximity to shopping and cultural and sporting events and salary schedule as the major difficulties they were experiencing in their teacher preparation programs as a result of being located in rural settings. (See Table 1).

Research Question 2: What strategies are being used to address personnel preparation, recruitment, and retention in rural areas?

Half of the respondents indicated that they are using practicum sites to ensure that teachers have the specific knowledge and skills needed to work with students with disabilities. Slightly fewer than half of the respondents indicated that they were using a specific class to prepare their students; about a third of the respondents indicated their programs were combined for prospective general and special educators. (See Table 2).

Respondents indicated the distance learning strategies being utilized included the Internet, satellite transmission, and compressed video. For the 18 respondents who marked "other" in response to this question, the majority (14) indicated that they were utilizing Interactive Instructional Television (IITV) as a means of providing distance learning.

Seventy-five percent of the respondents reported shortages of special education teachers; 51% of the respondents reported shortages of related services personnel. Thirty-one percent reported shortages of psychologists and general education teachers; 25% reported shortages of transition specialists. The top three recruitment strategies were professional development opportunities, paid educational tuition, and salary; the top three retention strategies were on-site professional development opportunities, paid educational opportunities, and salary incentives. Although salary was ranked third as the recruitment and retention strategy being implemented by the respondents, respondents identified salary as the strategy that was working the best for both recruitment and retention.

Research Question 3: What difficulties are being experienced implementing the requirements of IDEA of 1997 in rural areas? What supports are available to assist in the implementation of IDEA?

Thirty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that finding qualified personnel to conduct assessments was a major difficulty implementing the evaluation/reevaluation requirements of IDEA. (See Table 3). Slightly more than one-third of the respondents reported that linking annual goals to the general education curriculum and determining how the child's disability affects his/her involvement and progress in the general education curriculum were major difficulties. Twenty-three percent of the respondents reported that linking evaluation results to the general education curriculum was a difficulty. Whereas much discussion concerning the problem behaviors took place during the authoring of IDEA 1997, less than one-quarter of the respondents indicated that employing behavioral strategies and/or positive behavioral supports to students was problematic. Greater difficulty appears to be in implementing the discipline provisions of IDEA, including designing behavioral intervention plans (34%), conducting functional behavioral assessments (30%), conducting a manifestation determination (30%), and determining an interim alternative educational setting (25%). Fifty-one percent of the respondents reported that a lack of qualified personnel was presenting a challenge to providing the services needed by students with disabilities in rural areas. Distance was ranked second by respondents as a challenge to implementing the requirements of IDEA.

When asked what supports were available to assist with the implementation of IDEA of 1997, respondents indicated that it was personnel, with support from the local and state education agencies, who were instrumental in assisting with meeting the requirements of IDEA of 1997. Respondents also indicated that strong family involvement and strong interagency support were helping meet the needs of students.

Discussion

Our findings that institutions of higher education are having difficulty recruiting prospective teachers to their programs because of distance from campus and proximity to shopping and cultural and sporting events are consistent with the findings of other researchers (Collins, 1999). The study also reinforced the findings of other studies that shortages of qualified personnel are most acute among special education teachers (Special education teacher shortage hits districts hard, 2000).

Our findings in this study indicate that institutions of higher education in rural areas are utilizing specific coursework, coupled with practical experiences, to prepare professionals to meet the needs of students with disabilities in general education settings. This finding is consistent with reports from other institutions that they have recently revised their coursework (Corbett, Kilgore, & Sindelar, 1998; Lesar, Brenner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997). Our findings that approximately one-third of teacher preparation programs are offering combined special and general education programs suggest fewer institutions of higher education in rural settings are restructuring their programs in this manner than in other geographic areas (Lowenbraun & Nolen, 1998; Peterson & Beloin, 1998).

The fact that only 40% of the respondents indicated using distance learning strategies as a vehicle for providing professional development was surprising. Distance learning has become an increasingly common, as well as powerful, tool for providing professional development in rural settings (Bull, Winterowd, & Kimball, 1999; Collins, 1999; U. S. Department of Education, 1999a). One explanation for these results may be that many rural schools lack computers and telecommunication capabilities to provide internet access and participate in distance learning opportunities (Dewees,1999; Howley & Barker, 1997). Another explanation could be the lack of training in the use of technology needed for the distance delivery (Ferrell, Wright, Persichitte, & Lowell, 2000).

With regard to the finding that opportunities for professional development outranked salary as both a recruitment and retention tool, even though salary was ranked as the strategy that was working most successfully, the researchers were not surprised. As stated eloquently by Quality Counts (2000), "salaries alone won't keep teachers in the classroom" (p. 8). Indeed, it is the opportunity for professional development that provides the incentive to keep teachers refreshed and in the classroom.

It is interesting that none of the respondents indicated implementing either induction or mentoring programs as either a recruitment incentive or a retention strategy. These strategies are continuing to show results for recruiting and retaining teachers (Boyer & Gillespie, 2000; Quality Counts, 2000; Wald, 1998; Whitaker, 2000). Indeed, as reported in Quality Counts (2000), 28 states require or encourage districts to provide induction or mentoring programs, although, as reported earlier, Collins (1999) observed that, "few states have developed specific programs to address the problems of rural teacher recruitment and retention" (p.2). Furthermore, as reported in Quality Counts (2000), although 28 states have laws that require or encourage induction programs, only 10 states provide financial support to districts to implement such programs. The lack of these programs in rural areas is particularly disturbing when one reviews the results from the U.S. Department of Education's Baccalaureate and Beyond, a longitudinal study tracking teachers in their first years. Results cited in Quality Counts (2000) indicated that "teachers who did not participate in an induction program in their schools or districts were nearly twice as likely to leave the classroom (20 percent) as those who participated in such a program (11 percent)" (p. 17). Particularly in rural areas where teachers are at a premium, mentoring and induction programs appear most appropriate.

The finding that many personnel are continuing to find difficult writing and implementing Individualized Education Programs (lEPs) that are consistent with the federal regulations is distressing. The results reflect that three of the new provisions are particularly problematic to practitioners-namely, linking results of evaluations to the general education curriculum, determining how the child's disability affects his or her involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, and conducting functional behavioral assessments and designing functional behavioral plans. The results of this study, however, corroborate findings of several recent studies that have also observed this difficulty (Butera, McMullen, & Henderson, 1997; Huefner, 2000; National Council on Disability, 2000). It is particularly instructive to personnel at both the pre- and in-service level that so many respondents reported difficulties with implementing the provisions that involve the general curriculum and regular education teachers as well as difficulty addressing the behavioral needs of students.

Our findings show that rural areas are relying on the personnel who are working with them as well as other supports, including state and local education agency personnel, interagency resources, and family members. This fact reiterates the importance of local resources in the delivery of services to children and youth with disabilities. It also indicates a need for rural programs to cultivate non-local resources. This finding reinforces the call by several researchers for personnel in rural areas to pool their resources though clustering and collaboratives (Chow, Tyner, Estrin, & Koelsch, 1994; Nachtigal & Parker, 1990).

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the authors recommend the following:

1. State departments of education and local education agencies must be involved with institutions of higher education in the preparation of qualified personnel to meet the needs of students with disabilities in rural settings. For states with rural areas, the state's Comprehensive System of Personnel Preparation (CSPD) plan must involve strategies for meeting the needs of institutions of higher education and the personnel they prepare to work in rural settings. Reciprocal certification requirements across states, as well as across institutions of higher education, should be implemented by state departments of education to ease the process and procedure for obtaining certification in special education when working in rural areas. State departments of education, in partnership with IHEs, should also maximize the use of alternative routes to obtaining certification rather than relying solely on the traditional route through four-year programs at IHEs.

2. While institutions of higher education cannot decrease the distance to sporting and cultural events and shopping, they could research ways for bringing these amenities to the campus.

3. Institutions of higher education in rural areas should consider restructuring their programs to include both general and special educators, particularly since many programs are achieving success with this arrangement. Moreover, since schools in many rural areas include their students with disabilities in general education settings, this type of pre-service program may be most appropriate.

4. Institutions of higher education and local education agencies must form collaborative partnerships to maximize the utilization of distance education techniques. Since it has been shown that many rural areas do not have the equipment to provide access to distance education programs, these entities should take advantage of federal monies available through sources such as Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZ-ABs) to add such capacity to their schools and districts. (See Dewees, 1999).

5. Institutions of higher education and state and local education agencies must continue to provide professional development activities for their faculty members. As indicated by this study as well as others, professional development is key to both recruitment and retention of practicing professionals.

6. State and local education agencies must devise aggressive recruitment and retention packages that include salary incentives, the strategy identified as most successful by the respondents. These salary incentives should be paired with allocation of travel time and money to conferences and other professional development activities, provision of time during the day to consult with colleagues and other incentives, such as signing bonuses, housing allowances, and lucrative benefits packages.

7. Institutions of higher education, as well as state and local education agencies, must provide opportunities for general and special education teachers and administrators and other service providers to work together and, in so doing, become proficient with implementing the new requirements of IDEA.

8. Policy and funding initiatives at the state and federal levels must be put in place to support the preparation of personnel in rural areas. These initiatives must be designed to address the paucity of qualified personnel in rural areas and strengthen the effective operation of networking and strong collaborative programs.

References

American Association of School Administrators. ( 1999 ). AASA online advocacy. Available: http://www/aasa/org/Advocacy/2-1-99rural.htm.

American Council on Education. (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. An action agenda for college and university presidents. Washington, DC: Author.

Barker, B., & Dickson, M. (1996). Factors in determining rural school readiness to use distance learning. Rural Educator, 17(3), 14-18.

Boyer, L., & Gillespie, P. (2000). Keeping the committed: The importance of induction and support programs for new special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(6), 10-15.

Bull, K. S., Winterowd, C. L., & Kimball, S. L. (1999). Uses of the internet: Rural special education materials for teachers and parents. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(1), 12-22.

Butera, G., McMullen, L., & Henderson, J. (1997). IEPs, students with behavior problems and school discipline policies: A collision course. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 103.

Chow, S., Tyner, K., Estrin, E. T., & Koelsch, N. (1994). Building professional practice consortia: Strategies for systemic reform in rural schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 020).

Collins, T. (1999). Attracting and retaining teachers in rural areas. Charleston, WV: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. EDO-RC-99-7.

Corbett, N.L., Kilgore, K. L., & Sindelar, P. T. (1998). "Making sense" in a collaborative teacher education program: Lessons from Project PART students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 293-305.

Dewees, S. (1999). Improving rural school facilities for teaching and learning. Charleston, WV: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. EDO-RC-99-8.

Duncan, C. M. (1999). Worlds apart: Why poverty persists in rural America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Education Commission of the States. (1999). Teacher recruitment. Clearinghouse Notes. Denver, CO: Author.

Ferrell, K., Wright, C., Persichitte, K., & Lowell, N. (2000). Capitalizing on distance technologies to benefit rural children and youth with vision impairments. In J. Lemke (Ed.). Capitalizing on leadership in rurals special education: Making a difference for children and families, (pp. 153-157). Proceedings of the Annual National Conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES) Conference held in Alexandria, VA, March 16-18, 2000.

Hillkirk, K., Chang, V., Oettinger, L. A., Saban, A., & Villet, C. (1998). Supporting ongoing professional learning in rural schools. Rural Educator, 19(3), 20-24.

Howley, C., & Barker, B. (1997). The national information infrastructure: Keeping rural values and purposes in mind. Charleston, WV: Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. EDO-RC-97-4.

Huefner, D.S. (2000). The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under IDEA '97. The Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 195-204.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (1997). 111 Statute 37.

Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L. (1997). Preparing general education teachers for inclusive settings: A constructivist teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(3), 204-220.

Lowenbraun, S., & Nolen, S. B. (1998). Implementing change in a research university: Constructivist team teaching in a general education teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(1), 34-46.

Morgan, C. R., & Demchak, M. (1998). Involving building administrators in planning for inclusive educational programs. Rural Educator, 20(2), 26-30.

Mullins, F., Morris, S., & Reinoehl, K. (1997). Recruitment find retention of special educators and related services personnel: State plan and state strategic plan provisions. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children, National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education.

Nachtigal, P., & Parker, S.D. (1990). Clustering: Working together for better schools. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 338 459.)

National Council on Disability. (2000, January 25). Back to school on civil rights: Advancing the federal commitment to leave no child behind. Washington, DC: Author.

Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. S. ( 1998). Teaching the inclusive teacher: Restructuring mainstreaming course in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 306-318.

Quality counts: Who should teach? (2000). Education Week, XIX(18), Bethesda, MD. Sack, J. (2000). Segregated schools are more likely to include disabled students in regular classrooms out of financial necessity. Education Week, XIX,(32), 12.

Special education teacher shortage hits districts hard. (2000). Special Education Report, 26(19). Alexandria, VA: Capitol Publications, 1-2.

Stern, J. D. (Ed.). ( 1994). The condition of education in rural schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement, Programs for the Improvement of Practice, PIP94-1106. (ERIC Document Repoduction Service No. ED 371 935.

United States Department of Education. (1996). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Eighteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Education. (1997). The seven priorities of the U. S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Education. (1999a). Distance education at postsecondary education institutes: 1997-98. Washington, DC: NCES Statistical Analysis Report, NCES 2000-13.

United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1999b). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (2000). Overview of elementary and secondary schools and districts: School year 1998-99. National Center for Education Statistics. Statistics in Brief. 2000-333. Washington, DC: Author.

United States General Accounting Office. (1994). Rural children: Increasing poverty rates pose educational challenges. Washington, DC: Author. GAO/HEHS 94-75BR.

United States General Accounting Office. (1996). School facilities: America's schools report differing conditions (GAO Report No. GAO/ HEHS-96-103). Gaithersburg, MD: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 508).

Wald, J. L. (1998). Retention of special education professionals: A practical guide of strategies and activities for educators and administrators. Reston, VA: The Councill for Exceptional Children, The National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education.

Westling, D. L., & Whitten, T. M. (1996). Rural special education teachers' plans to continue or leave their teaching positions. Exceptional Children, 62(4), 319-335.

Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to attribution. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 546-566. (Footnotes)

Jane M. Williams, Ph.D.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Department of Special Education

4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Box 453014

Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-3014 702-895-3205

Suzanne M. Martin, Ph.D.

University of Central Florida

Orlando, Florida 32816-1250

Robert K. Hess, Ph.D.

Arizona State University West

Phoenix, Arizona 85069-7100

Copyright American Council on Rural Special Education Fall 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved