What Every Must Know Special Educator - Council for Exceptional ...

skill of true professionals and that without this consensus
the appropriate strategy is to base accreditation
on what TEAC refers to as an “academic audit.” The
TEAC academic audit requires programs to identify
whatever claims the program faculty of a given institution
make and then provide evidence regarding how
well the program does regarding its claims. The TEAC
model leaves the identification of program standards
to each faculty. In addition to creating a cacophony of
expectations, the TEAC model neither expects nor encourages
faculty to address the national professional
standards of the various professional societies. In fact,
in discussing the standards of the various professional
societies, Frank Murray (2005), the president of TEAC,
writes, “In the public mind, these professionally selfserving
standards are the problem, not the solution
to the problem” p. 315. Although the TEAC approach
is advertised as offering freedom to faculty to create
special educators in whatever mold they choose, it
plays no responsible role as the repository of consensual
knowledge and skills of the profession. At least as
important, TEAC does not require special education
preparation programs to demonstrate that their graduates
possess the profession’s entry-level knowledge and
skills by seeking CEC national recognition through the
evidence-based process of program review. Finally, the
TEAC approach does not give the public confidence
that a professional special educator has the skills and
knowledge to practice safely and effectively.
In an informal survey of several of the teacher education
programs in the institutions TEAC has accredited,
the program chairs of the special education departments
report that CEC standards “play an influential
role” in their programs (personal communications,
2007). While such anecdotal reports are positive, they
do not meet the CEC expectation that special education
preparation programs submit their programs to a
performance review by CEC. CEC continues to communicate
with and monitor TEAC for opportunities to
help TEAC move to a more professional model and
provide a viable role for CEC standards 3 .
CEC Program Recognition
In the United States and in other regions of the world a
third possibility exists for programs to receive CEC recognition.
Although CEC is not recognized to accredit
programs, special education preparation programs
may directly seek a review of their program performance
data from CEC and have CEC grant recognition
of the program. No state that currently requires
1 What EvEry SpECial EduCator MuSt KnoW
national program recognition allows this option, but is
has been used twice in the last 2 decades. CEC in fact
updated its program review policies in 2003 to make
the CEC review process performance-based similar to
the NCATE performance review.
CEC expects stand-alone program recognitions
will most likely continue to be chosen infrequently.
Analysis of the implications of whether CEC should
consider application to become recognized by the
federal government as an accreditation agency yields
the conclusion that CEC has the most opportunity to
maximize the influence of its standards collectively
through the NCATE consensual process.
Coordinating for Quality Licensure
The second leg of the NCTAF three-legged stool of
quality assurance is professional teacher licensing.
Professional licensing in our society implies that the
individual professional possesses a common set of
specialized knowledge and skills to practice safely and
effectively. It is a trust between the profession and the
public that individuals who hold a license are prepared
to use the specialized skills safely and effectively. CEC
engages in multiple initiatives and collaborations to
enhance the influence of its standards in the licensing
process.
Historically, the licensing of individuals to practice in
special education has been the responsibility of states
in the United States and the provinces in Canada.
Although approaches to licensing special educators
taken by jurisdictions have been variable and sometimes
idiosyncratic, a clear majority of states align
their licensing process with CEC standards. Currently,
50 states are committed to aligning their licensing
processes with CEC standards. CEC collaborates
with the appropriate personnel in the states to help
them align their respective licensing requirements
with CEC standards. This collaboration provides a
more stable expectation to the public that licensed
special educators possess the nationally validated and
recognized special knowledge and skill to practice
safely, ethically, and effectively. Although there is no
requirement that states adopt CEC standards for licensure,
the overwhelming majority of states report that
CEC standards significantly align with their licensing
requirements. There are procedures described in the
6th edition of What Every Special Educator Must Know:
Ethics, Standards, and Guidelines for Special Educators for
state personnel to align state and CEC Standards.
3 As of the writing of this edition, representatives of NCATE and TEAC are discussing possible strategies for moving closer together.