This article describes the Reaching American Indian Special/Elementary Educators (RAISE) program, a community-based native teacher education program located on the Navajo reservation in Kayenta, Arizona. The RAISE program is a preservice teacher preparation partnership program between Northern Arizona University (NAU) and the Kayenta Unified School District (KUSD). RAISE is designed for two groups of students: uncertified Navajo special and elementary education preservice students who work with the local school district, and traditional teacher education students recruited from the main campus of NAU. The RAISE program prepares students to teach in impoverished rural and remote areas and to work in inclusive schools with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. On completion of the program, the students earn a dual teacher certification in special and elementary education.

ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DEBATE concerning the possibility of a teacher shortage in the 1990s (American Association for Employment in Education, 1999; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1994), there has been virtually no debate concerning the need for additional special education teachers. According to the U.S. Department of Education (1999), only 9.5% of bachelor's degrees conferred in education in 1991 were earned in special education. This compares with 20% in 1977 (Geiger, 1994). A poll by the National Education Association (1992) indicated that schools needed more special education teachers than any other group of educators. This shortage has also been identified by numerous other individuals and groups, including the American Federation of Teachers (1990), the Council for Exceptional Children (1994), the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (1994), and the American Association for Employment in Education (1999).

The need for special education teachers in rural settings was first noted by Helge (1984). In a survey of 200 special education administrators, she found that 66% of them felt that the recruitment and retention of special education teachers was a major problem. Only 17% of the administrators polled stated that they had an adequate number of special education class teachers in their districts. Many other researchers have written on the need for rural special education teachers (Hofmeister, 1984; Marrs, 1984; Martin, 1998; Towson & Bening, 1987). Martin (1998) stated, “The need for additional special education teachers appears to be particularly acute in some areas. One of the areas of extreme shortage is rural America” (p. 112).

Not only does a need exist for special education teachers in rural areas, but the need for rural teachers from under-represented ethnic groups is another concern. It has been estimated that in the year 2000, only 5% of U.S. teachers were teachers of color, yet students of color make up 33% of our school-age population (Baca & Cervantes, 1998). The U.S. Department of Education (1999) estimated that there are approximately 9.2 million school-age students in the United States whose primary language is not English. If we estimate that 10.7% to 15% of these students may have disabilities, then 984,400 to 1,380,000 students with disabilities are also linguistically diverse (Baca & Cervantes, 1998). At the present time, there are not enough qualified professionals in special education to serve culturally and linguistically diverse students. This obvious disparity between the cultural representation of teachers and their students is at the essence of supply and demand (Wald, 1998). “In recent years, the changing demographics of American schools are forcing educators to recognize the need to recruit, prepare, and retain culturally and linguistically diverse special education professionals” (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1994, p. l). Baca and Cervantes (1998) affirmed that there is a severe shortage of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) personnel in the field of special education.

According to a report published by the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (1990), less than 1% of the enrollment in institutions of higher education is American Indian. Of the 1,136,553 degrees conferred by institutions of higher education in 1991 and 1992, only 5,128 (0.45%) were awarded to American Indians (Wald, 1998). Only 537 bachelor of science degrees were awarded to American Indians in education in the 10-year period from 1978 through 1989. American Indians earned less than .5% of the total number of bachelor's degrees awarded.

Nationwide, 48% of American Indians do not graduate from high school. Of American Indians living on reservations, only 25% are high school graduates (Wald, 1998). The need for qualified American Indian special education teachers on the reservation or in public schools that serve American Indian communities is critical. American Indians have the highest overall disability rate compared to all other ethnic groups in the country. There is a projected number of more than 44,000 American Indian school-age students with disabilities. The primary goal of the Reaching American Indian Special/Elementary Educators (RAISE) program was to increase the retention rate of special education teachers working on the Navajo reservation. This program was designed in response to the Indian Nations At-Risk Task Force Study statement:

We must establish targeted incentive and support programs to
attract American Indian and Alaska Native young people into the
education profession. Increasing the number of Native graduates
who return to their own communities to teach would help reduce
the high teacher turnover rates in remote locations. (National
Advisory Council on Indian Education, 1990, p. 95)

Lancaster (1992) surveyed 45 rural school districts on Arizona reservations and found that whereas the average attrition rate was 35%, some schools reported a 100% turnover rate of special education teachers. Stressors such as the challenges of working with parents, geographical factors, cultural features (Helge & Marrs, 1981), and professional and social isolation (Helge, 1980) contributed to these teacher recruitment and retention problems. The purpose of this article is to provide a description of the Reaching American Indian Special/ Elementary Educators partnership project. This innovative, undergraduate, field-based program on the Navajo reservation focuses on preparing American Indian paraeducators to become fully certified elementary education and special education teachers. The goal of the program is not only to prepare more American Indian teachers, but also to focus former paraeducators (instructional assistants) on their new roles required as special education teachers in their local school district, located in an extremely rural and remote area of the Navajo reservation.

The Navajo (Diné) Nation covers approximately 27,000 square miles. It is the largest reservation in the United States, with a population of 250,000. The Navajo Nation is located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Most of the reservation consists of rugged, beautiful landscape with mountains, red rock formations, and high arid desert. Common vegetation includes sage, cacti, and pinion trees. Forests are found at the higher elevations. The reservation encompasses more than 10 national monuments, tribal parks, historical sites, and ancient ruins. A tribal government was established in 1923 (Navajo Tourism Office of Economic Development, 2000).

The RAISE program, situated in Kayenta, is a Northern Arizona University (NAU) and Kayenta Unified School District (KUSD) partnership program. Kayenta is located in Arizona, on the Navajo Nation. With a population of approximately 5,000, Kayenta is one of the largest communities on the Navajo Nation. The overwhelming majority of Kayenta residents are Navajo, but Ute, Hopi, and non-Native Americans also live there. Located approximately 150 miles northeast of the NAU campus at Flagstaff, Kayenta is accessible by a paved two-lane highway. In town, there are two large grocery stores, several restaurants and gas stations, two laundromats, a medical clinic, and three hotels. Recently, a traffic light was installed at the main intersection of the town. Outside of town, many families live in hogans, the traditional rural dwellings of the Navajo people. Although quite remote, Kayenta is a popular tourist destination and only a 15-minute drive from the famous, scenic Monument Valley.

The school district has four schools and approximately 2,740 students. It draws from an area of 3,000 square miles, and approximately 80% of its students ride the bus daily, some for as long as 3 hours. The primary school enrolls students in Grades K-2, the intermediate school in Grades 3–5, the middle school in Grades 6–8, and Monument Valley High School in Grades 9–12. A school district home language survey indicated that Navajo is the primary language spoken in 92% of students' homes. The primary and intermediate schools have a transitional bilingual classroom for each grade level from kindergarten through 5th grade, with approximately 18 to 25 students in each classroom. Whereas approximately 12 teachers in the district hold bilingual Navajo certificates, the majority of teachers hold an English as a second language (ESL) certificate. All teachers are required to begin work on a 21-hour ESL certification program in their first year of teaching. Beginning in 5th grade, an ESL program is available to all students, with the vast majority of students being taught by ESL certified teachers. Two hundred twenty-three students are enrolled in special education programs in the district (Heimbecker, Minner, & Prater, 2000).

In 1992, the Center for Excellence in Education at NAU in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education implemented a special education field-based program in Kayenta especially designed to prepare both Native Americans and non-Native Americans to teach in rural and underserved areas on American Indian reservations. In 1998, the special education field-based program became an undergraduate dual major program, with students majoring in special education and elementary general education. Since 1992, the student makeup of cohorts in the RAISE program has varied from year to year. Program participants are either Navajo paraeducators who work in inclusive elementary education classrooms in KUSD schools or non-native American NAU campus-based students who move from Flagstaff to Kayenta for three semesters to participate in the program. Typically, students recruited from the NAU main campus are non-Native American women in their early 20s who are following the traditional on-campus curriculum toward an undergraduate degree and teacher certification. Kayenta paraeducator participants are usually about 30-year-old Navajo women who are married with two or more children (Sealander, Eigenberger, Peterson, Shellady, & Prater, 2001). The overwhelming majority of participants are Navajo women. To participate in the program, some Navajo students must travel long distances for 1 to 2 hours to reach the university classroom in Kayenta.

Program Rationale

There are many challenges associated with preparing teachers to work with Native American children and parents, and often teachers have not been properly prepared to address these challenges. Consequently, numerous teachers who are less than fully qualified are working on American Indian reservations, and the retention of fully qualified teachers is an ongoing challenge. Few special education teacher programs focus on the preparation of teachers for rural and remote areas (Helge, 1983). The RAISE program was originally designed to provide a field-based and experiential special education program that would immerse non-native American students in the Native American culture. Students would study and teach in rural and remote areas and work in schools with culturally and linguistically diverse populations.

Another primary goal of the RAISE program is to address the challenges surrounding the retention and graduation of American Indians from teacher preparation programs. Although the university campus is adjacent to the Navajo reservation, relatively few American Indians enter the on-campus teacher education program, and even fewer graduate. As a result, there is a need for Navajo people who are prepared as teachers. Not enough Navajo children are taught and mentored by other Navajo people. The RAISE program provides a teacher education program that is delivered to students in their home community. This enables the participants to complete the program and yet remain with their families and sustain their support network. The students are not put at financial risk, because they are able to live at home and maintain their paraprofessional positions with the school district during the day while simultaneously attending teacher education classes during the evenings. Consequently, significant numbers of American Indian students have remained in the program, graduated from the university, and taken teaching positions in their home communities. These individuals have assumed leadership positions in their schools and districts, and they act as role models for other American Indian student teachers, paraeducators, teachers, and children.

Program Structure

Most of the funding for the RAISE program is provided by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. This grant enables delivery of a 3-semester program to each cohort of about 12 students. Grant funding pays for adjunct faculty salaries, the program manager's salary, the program administrative assistant's salary, student books, student materials, and student and staff travel for professional development. Grant funds for students' textbooks, fees, materials, and professional development are crucial because of the financial constraints faced by students, many of whom are adults with family financial responsibilities.

The program structure is a reconfiguration of the special education teacher education program operating on the NAU campus. This site-based program emphasizes the junction between theory and practice in that it enables teacher preparation within the context of public schools. The program is highly contextualized to the needs and strengths of Navajo people. The American Indian students typically enter the program with 45 hours of liberal arts courses completed. Liberal arts courses are usually taken at Diné Community College or Northland Pioneer Community College, both located on the Navajo Nation. The non-native American students typically take their liberal arts courses at the NAU campus in Flagstaff before entering the RAISE program at Kayenta.

The course of studies and the student teaching expectations for the program are similar to those at the home campus, but all courses are contextualized for the settings in which the students live and work. Ideas offered in the university courses are related to the participants' own K-12 classroom experiences. When not in the university courses, the paraeducators and campus students work daily in elementary classrooms. This practicum and on-the-job preparation is counted toward their university course credit. When teaching strategies are discussed in class, the students often practice these techniques in their practicum setting the following day. Throughout the program, the students complete all required elementary and special education courses, focusing on foundations, methods, assessment, curriculum, and the practicum course. Each practicum course takes place at a different level and school within the school district. The project manager and the appropriate school principal decide on the practicum placements, and these placements are supervised by KUSD cooperating teachers and the project manager. Within placements, the students routinely prepare and deliver lessons, assist with classroom discipline, attend staff functions, and participate in professional development activities.

All coursework is delivered on site at the RAISE classroom situated in the school district's intermediate school. The project manager generally teaches the classes two or three evenings a week. Typically, the program's principal investigator travels to Kayenta to teach one night a week or, in the past, has taught via interactive instructional television. Moreover, district teachers and administrators with master's degrees and expertise in certain subject areas are asked to teach when needed. NAU special education faculty from the Flagstaff campus often volunteer to give guest lectures or teach for the program. The classes offered by the program are detailed in Figure 1.

Unique Features

Throughout the RAISE program, the students learn about each other culturally, with all participants living on the Navajo reservation. Typically, the students in every new cohort participate in two orientations. The first orientation occurs on the Flagstaff campus, where special education and American Indian faculty and students make presentations. The goal of this orientation is to share information about the American Indian culture and to discuss potential issues that could arise during the program (e.g., cultural taboos on the dissection of animals). A second orientation occurs in Kayenta, where again the program and cultural issues are discussed. Throughout the program classes, non-Native American, Navajo, and Hopi cultures are discussed. The American Indian participants are encouraged to act as cultural advisers to the non-Native students recruited from the NAU-Flagstaff campus. Non-Native American students experience the Navajo culture firsthand at such events as Navajo weddings, ceremonies, and the Navajo Nation Fair.

Although the required courses are identical to those of the on-campus teacher education program, the RAISE program courses are modified to be culturally relevant and to meet the needs of Navajo educators and educators of Navajo students. The classes use a great deal of cooperative learning. Education is geared toward the whole student and his or her needs (social, spiritual, etc.). American Indian values are respected and incorporated wherever possible.

Many elementary and foundations courses incorporate Navajo teachings. Local Navajo teachers provide input when students develop culturally relevant unit plans in their university courses. Navajo educators from within or outside the district participate as guest speakers. Cultural taboos are discussed within the context of university and elementary school lessons. When students cannot attend classes because of Native American ceremonies, these needs are respected and accommodated by the instructors. Student research and presentation topics incorporate issues pertaining to native education (e.g., culturally relevant curriculum, boarding schools and intergenerational trauma, teacher preparation for teaching Navajo students, etc.).

Other culturally relevant activities that take place outside of the required coursework include a hike into the Havasupai Native American community at the base of the Grand Canyon. Havasupai Canyon is approximately 200 miles from Kayenta. During most years, the program participants (students and instructors) complete the 9-mile hike into the canyon on the first day of the trip. The second day is spent in the Havasupai school and community. On the third day, all participants return to Kayenta. As well as providing opportunities for professional development and cultural exchange, this trip allows the program participants to bond as a group outside university classes. The bonding and the new friendships that develop between the Navajo and the non-Navajo students contribute to the high retention rate of program participants.

The Navajo context plays a tremendous role in the program, but so does the school district contextualized experience. The RAISE project manager lives in school district housing and is readily available to meet with students as needed. This housing arrangement has also allowed the project manager to collaborate with many local teachers who support the program as cooperating teachers and guest speakers. The project manager is involved with various school events and offers professional development workshops for local teachers. This reciprocity helps facilitate a good working relationship and communication between the program participants and the school district personnel. Non-Native American students recruited from the NAU-Flagstaff campus are also housed in apartments provided by the school district. These students have the opportunity to become involved in community and district events (e.g., church activities, Girl Scouts, coaching sports, volunteer fire department).

In addition to providing students with culturally relevant educational settings, the RAISE program also makes special efforts to engage students in the profession of education. With the support of faculty, all students in each cohort are required to collaboratively research, write, submit, and deliver academic papers at professional conferences. The program participants have presented papers at local, regional, and national conferences. Student papers that have been published in the conference proceedings of national conferences focused on special education issues relevant to the district and to Navajo students.

Retention/Program Results

Students enter the program as a cohort, see each other daily, and are encouraged to work cooperatively in class and on assignments. The students also assist and support each other in personal ways (e.g., offering rides to class, helping with childcare). We think that these and other factors have contributed to the high program retention rates. Between 1992 and 2000, the retention rate of American Indians has been nearly 100%, with 58 American Indian participants completing the program. Fifty-one Navajo RAISE graduates are now certified teachers working with the school district. By the program's end, on December 16, 2001, six more Navajo students had completed the program; they were student teaching in the spring of 2002 and plan to continue working for the district as certified teachers.

Challenges

With the frequent turnover of KUSD administrators, the program personnel must ensure that the district personnel remains informed of the goals and benefits of the RAISE program. Local administrators are crucial to the success of the NAU-KUSD partnership. Similar issues have been encountered on the university campus. For example, when upper level and mid-level administrators change, the program personnel must inform them of the program goals and enlist their support. This transition takes much time and effort on the part of program personnel. Unless field-based projects receive administrative support from the main campus, the quality of the programs may be affected or the programs may cease to exist.

One problem that RAISE has encountered since 1992 is retaining the on-site project managers for more than 1 year. Many university professors are very interested in having the rich experience of working and teaching on the Navajo Nation, but only for a short time. One reason for this is the teaching, administration, counseling, and suspension demands placed on the project manager, which leave little time for scholarship. As a consequence, field-based professors may run the risk of not obtaining promotion or tenure. To address the high turnover of project managers, the principal investigator-a campus-based professor-serves as a liaison between NAU and KUSD. This has been an effective method to maintain continuity from one year to the next. The principal investigator also works with the on-site project managers to develop and maintain their scholarly productivity.

The few project managers who have remained in the position for more than 1 year are able to draw on the experience gained from working with a previous cohort. They are more familiar with district administrators, teachers, policies, and curricular documents. Moreover, each has gained valuable experience related to Navajo culture, language, politics, spiritual beliefs, and history.

Program Evaluation

Ongoing program evaluation has been built into the RAISE program. All program participants are required to keep a daily reflective journal that documents their feelings and experiences with the program (e.g., courses, teaching, professional development activities). Program personnel review these journals several times each semester. Student achievement of the competencies outlined in the grant program proposal is assessed in practicum settings, under the supervision of project personnel and mentor teachers, and through written and oral presentations in university coursework. An informal survey conducted among RAISE participants from the 1994–1995 school year showed that the students had gained a great deal of cultural and educational experience. Many American Indians stated that the program had given them the opportunity to further their education without having to relocate their families and move to the main campus. Other Navajo participants felt that the program had given them the opportunity to view the non-Native American dominant culture in a different way than they had previously. By the end of the program, both Native and non-Native American participants felt more confident in the classroom (Delany-Barman, Prater, & Minner, 1997). Recent, unpublished follow-up data obtained from RAISE program graduates indicate that the participants have been very satisfied with the program. The participants cited strengths of the program that included the opportunity for hands-on experience in the district classrooms. The participants also commented on the tremendous advantage of being able to bring daily classroom challenges to evening NAU courses, thus receiving immediate feedback from professors and classmates. Year after year, the Navajo participants expressed that the most positive part of the program was the ability to remain in their community with their families, retain their positions with the school district, and take classes in the evening. This is in contrast to many other American Indian students who come to campus for coursework and are not successful because of their family, community, or employment obligations.

One participant stated that she had been a substitute teacher for 14 years, working most of the time with students with special needs. As a current program participant, she felt that she was able to improve her teaching as she acquired new strategies and skills for working with school-age children with special needs. The fact that the RAISE program is community based continues to be a highlight expressed by the participants. Other program highlights that participants included in their evaluation are the almost one-on-one instruction and the personal attention they receive. The opportunity to present findings at state or national conferences is viewed as being an extremely valuable experience for students.

Cultural features discussed by the program participants included the different cultural experiences brought into the NAU coursework by having Navajo paraeducators and non-Native American students from the NAU main campus. The program's focus on American Indian issues in education and Navajo culture teaches the students to be more aware of cultural issues while teaching. Some participants stated a need for more culture to be incorporated into the program (e.g., Navajo child rearing, Navajo philosophy).

Participants commented on the positive impact of the program. For example, one student stated that the information received in class was not just beneficial for teaching but was great for her personal growth and future graduate work. One student wrote, “The greatest impact is that I am more competent when teaching learners at all levels, not just students in special education.” Another student commented that being able to finish college was allowing her to be an example to her children. She considered that showing them that getting a degree is possible was her greatest accomplishment. Finally, a student indicated that her experience in the program gave her a better idea of the needs of all students in her community and that she now knew that she could make a difference.

On the other hand, the participants also listed weaknesses of the program. The primary concern for students was the intense coursework required of them each semester. Some students felt that the course demands contributed to stress in their families. As stated previously, the participants are full-time students while holding full-time jobs. Other weaknesses expressed by participants related to the distance between Kayenta and the NAU campus. It was difficult for program participants to access NAU services (e.g., registrar, financial aid) and to communicate among the varied offices.

A true collaborative partnership between NAU, the U.S. Department of Education, and the KUSD has been crucial to the success of the RAISE program. The school district provides teacher apartments for the program managers and the students recruited from the main campus. The district also provides space for the program classroom for teaching university courses. Furthermore, the school district provides sites for student teaching placements and for the practicum. Teachers and administrators from the school district act as instructors and guest speakers for some program courses and are involved in the interviewing and the selection of potential program participants. NAU contributes tuition waivers for all teacher education coursework required in the program. The university also contributes the necessary on-campus administrative support to oversee this grant program. The RAISE partnership has been mutually beneficial to both institutions. Non-Native American students have learned powerful professional and personal lessons from the program. Students graduate from the program at a high rate, and most Navajo students remain in the area and secure teaching positions with the school district. The RAISE program could not have been developed and maintained without the continuous funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.

American Association for Employment in Education. (1999). 1999 job search handbook for education. Evanston, IL: Author.

Baca, L., & Cervantes, H. (1998).The bilingual special education interface (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1994). CEC policies for delivery of services to exceptional children. Reston, VA: Author.

Delany-Barman, G., Prater, G., & Minner, S. (1997). Preparing Native American special education teachers: Lessons from the Rural Special Education Project.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 16(4), 10–15.

Geiger, W. (1994, March).A longitudinal view of supply from teacher education institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Council for Exceptional Children, Denver.

Heimbecker, C., Minner, S., & Prater, G. (2000). Community based teacher education programs. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Indigenous Indian education for a new century (pp. 35–44). Flagstaff, AZ: Learn in Beauty American Indian Education Conference.

Helge, D. (1980).National research identifying problems in implementing comprehensive special education programming in rural areas. Murray, KY: Murray State University, National Rural Research and Preparation Project.

Helge, D. (1983). Models for serving rural children with low-incidence handicapping conditions. Murray, KY: Murray State University, National Rural Research and Preparation Project.

Helge, D. (1984). The state of the art of rural special education.Exceptional Children, 4, 294–305.

Helge, D., & Marrs, L. (1981). Personnel recruitment and retention in rural America. Bellingham: Western Washington University.

Hofmeister, A. (1984). Tools for rural special education.Exceptional Children, 4, 344–350.

Lancaster, L. (1992). Recruitment and retention of special education on Indian reservations. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Marrs, L. (1984). A bandwagon without music: Preparing special educators. Exceptional Children, 4, 334–342.

Martin, B. (1998). Needed: Special education.Rural Education Quarterly, 3, 111–119.

National Advisory Council on Indian Education. (1990). 17th Annual report to the United States Congress, Fiscal year 1990. Washington, DC: Author.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1994). Recruiting and retaining special educators: It's everybody's job. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Education Association. (1992).1991-92 Estimates of school statistics as provided by the state departments of education. Annapolis Junction: Author.

Navajo Tourism Office of Economic Development. (2000). Discover Navajo-The official Navajo Nation visitor guide.Window Rock, AZ: Navajo Nation, Office of Economic Development.

Ravitch, D. (1990). Diversity and democracy: Multicultural education in America.American Educator, 14(1), 16–20, 46–48.

Sealander, K., Eigenberger, M., Peterson, P., Shellady, S., & Prater, G. (2001). Challenges facing teacher educators in rural, remote, and isolated areas: Using what we know and what we have learned.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 20(1/2), 13–21.

Towson, A., & Bening, L. (1987). Rural special education.Rural Education, 1, 7–14.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999).Designated teacher shortage area. Retrieved April 2001 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/Students/repayment/teachers/tsa. html#4

Wald, J. (1998).Culturally and linguistically diverse professionals in special education: A graphic analysis. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

                            Semester 1
ESE 380             Introduction to the Exceptional Child
              3 hours
ESE 424             Fundations of Special Education: ED, LD, MR,
OHI, OH       3 hours
ESE 499             Delivery of Rural Education Services
              1 hour
EPS 324             Educational Psychology
              3 hours
ECI 321             Elementary School Curriculum
              3 hours
ECI 308             Teacher Aide Practicum
              1 hour
EDF 301             School and Society
              3 hours
Total credit hours
              17 hours
                            Semester 2
ESE 423             Assessment of the Exceptional Child
              3 hours
ESE 460             Collaboration in Special Education
              3 hours
ESE 499             Delivery of Rural Education Services
              1 hour
ECI 306             Science in the Elementary School
              3 hours
ECI 307             Social Studies in the Elementary School
              3 hours
ETC 447             Technology in the Classroom
              3 hours
ECI 308             Teacher Aide Practicum
              1 hour
Total credit hours
              17 hours
                            Semester 3
ESE 425             Classroom Management of the Exceptional Child
              3 hours
ESE 450             Methods in Special Education: ED, LD, MR,
OHI, OH       3 hours
ESE 499             Delivery of Rural Education Services
              1 hour
ESE 308             Teacher Aide Practicum
              1 hour
ECI 300             Math in the Elementary School
              3 hours
ECI 309             Literature 1: Developmental Literature and
Language Arts 3 hours
ECI 310             Literature 1: Read Theory, Decoding, and
Language Arts 5 hours
Total credit hours
              19 hours
FIGURE 1. Classes offered by the Reaching American Indian
Special/Elementary Educators (RAISE) program. ED =
emotional/behavior disorders; LD = learning disabilities; MR =
mental retardation; OHI = other health impairments; OH =
orthopedically handicapped.

~~~~~~~~

By Connie Heimbecker; Catherine Medina; Patricia Peterson; Denise Redsteer and Greg Prater

CONNIE HEIMBECKER, PhD, was a visiting professor and project manager for the RAISE program from 1999 to 2001. With the RAISE project completed, she decided to remain in Kayenta as a professional development facilitator with the KUSD, to continue working with former RAISE participants, and to teach graduate courses in Kayenta with Northern Arizona University on a part-time basis.

CATHERINE MEDINA, PhD, is an associate professor of special education at Northern Arizona University. Her area of interest is bilingual multicultural special education equity for ethnic minority students. She is a co-principal investigator for the RAISE project.

PATRICIA PETERSON, PhD, is an associate professor of special education at Northern Arizona University. Her specialization is bilingual multicultural special education. She is currently principal investigator on several rural site-based bilingual multicultural special education projects.

DENISE RED-STEER, MA, has been the program coordinator for the RSEP and RAISE projects. She is currently program coordinator supporting several rural bilingual multicultural special education projects.

GREG PRATER, PhD, is a professor of special education at Northern Arizona University. He has been involved with K-12 partnerships throughout the state of Arizona. He is a co-principal investigator of the RAISE project. Address: Connie Heimbecker, PO Box 39, Kayenta, AZ 86033.

ABSTRACT Education in rural Russia has always played a significant role in ameliorating the life of rural communities and enhancing the agrarian sector of the economy. Rural schools constitute 68.8% of all Russia's primary and secondary schools. Unfortunately, it is the rural school that has been badly affected by the current socio-economic crisis. Among a myriad of factors, the efficacy of rural education is largely dependent on teacher preparation. The paper concentrates on the contemporary condition of rural schools, some issues of rural teacher preparation and requirements of the teacher whose mission is to promote quality education in Russia's rural educational institutions.

Although all the people in the world represent a single monolithic human race, urban and rural residents' lifestyles, their adherence to basic human values and their attitudes to the issues of education have always differed more or less distinctly (Nachtigal, 1992; Smith & Lotven, 1993; Sinagatullin, 1994; Seal & Harmon, 1995). Today these differences are not markedly distinct in, for example, northern European countries, whereas in some parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America noticeable urban/rural distinctions are observable. Moreover, in certain countries, such as Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, the differences between urban and rural standards of life, as well as between the quality of urban and rural education, are rapidly becoming pronounced and marked (Dzurinsky, 1999). As for the overall urban and rural population figures, in contemporary nation states the numbers are estimated to approximate 60 to 40%, respectively. For instance, in 1999 the proportions of urban and rural populations in Russia were 76 and 24%, in the UK, 89 to 11%, in the Netherlands (the most densely populated country in Europe), 89 to 11%, in China, 29 to 71% and in Egypt, 45 to 55% (Famighetti, 1999).

In Russia rural education has traditionally played a significant role in promoting better living standards for rural residents, advancing agricultural production and, on the whole, in resolving the fate of the land and peasantry, the quality of social development, the prosperity, or, on the contrary, the poverty and backwardness of Russia (Ermolaev, 1991). It is abundantly clear now to any insightful Russia citizen that the decline of a rural school in a village will lead to the demise of the village itself.

For years the most distinguished and experienced scholars and educators in Russia have carefully conceptualised, designed and implemented effective educational programmes for primary and secondary schools. Meanwhile, a wide range of issues directly related to rural education and rural teacher preparation have been inexcusably considered as questions of minor importance and set aside (Kondratenkov, 1989; Suvorova, 1992; Vinogradova, 2000). Rural schools, constituting 68.8% of all the nation's secondary educational institutions, are attended by 28.8% of the entire school student population (Pichugina & Guryanova, 1999). Mere mention of these figures speaks for itself.

This article aims to portray the true state of rural schools in Russia, focuses on some issues of rural teacher training and describes some requirements a rural teacher should possess to address the needs of contemporary rural education.

It would be appropriate to start with a brief survey of the development of rural Russia The Russian peasantry, which originated in the 9th century, in 1719 constituted about 90% of the entire population; in 1857, 83%. The reorganisation of agriculture, which Russia started in the 1990s, can be referred to, by straining the point, as the fifth reform. The four preceding ones, the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the Stolypin reform in 1906, the Soviet decree on land and the forced collectivisation of agrarian labour in the 1930s, did not solve any major problems in agriculture (Akhmadeev, 1992).

During the 1960s-1980s the rural population declined considerably, due to an exodus of the workforce to urban areas. Lured by the growing opportunities for decent paying jobs and the pleasures of urban life, thousands of young and middle aged villagers left their native areas. Intensive and planned urbanisation also added to desolation of the villages. Among these migrants were a considerable number of highly qualified rural teachers (Zuev, 2000).

It is worthwhile to add that migration from rural to urban areas has been a world wide tendency since the 1870s. Due to urbanisation and industrialisation, flourishing in most parts of the world at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, millions of rural residents moved to urban centres. Another influx of migration struck after World War II, mainly in 1950s-1970s. The population of many urban centres has increased overwhelmingly over the last 60-70 years (Famighetti, 1999).

A contemporary rural community in Russia usually consists of people who live in one or several neighbouring villages, belong to a collective or state farm, formerly called a `kolkhoz' or `sovkhoz', `abbreviations of the terms kollektivnoye khozyaistvo (collective farming) and sovetskoye khozyaistvo (soviet enterprise), and go out daily to work on the land or attend to the livestock. Private farmers make up professional groups of their own.

In the minds of some urban residents, the word `rural' is often associated with the notions `uncultured', `illiterate' and `backward'. Sadly, biased attitudes to rural reality are a global tendency and surface even in societies with less extreme rural/urban differences. With regard to the USA, Herzog and Pittman (1995) say:

    Click on your thesaurus, when your cursor is on the word
    `rural' and see what you find. Our computers listed
    `provincial', `uncultured', `unrefined', `hinterland',
    `backward', and `forsaken' as synonyms for `rural'. For
    `urban', the thesaurus listed `civic', `civil' and
    `cultured'. Over time, such connotations have a way of
    becoming the norm. (p. 114)

A list of similar quotes could be longer.

A gradual transition to a market economy has attracted a certain number of young enthusiasts to rural areas where they have set up private farms. The collective and state farms have shifted from wasteful to more economical and meaningful management strategies. It has become possible for agrarian enterprises to establish direct business contacts with foreign counterparts. In spite of positive changes, rural Russia experiences a lot of problems. The working population is tending to shrink because little is being done at the local level to arrest the decline in the rural population. Having a preference for urban styles of life, school graduates and young working people continue leaving the villages. Bureaucratic and antiquated administrative structures chronically lack financial resources. Without sponsorship from the industrial centres, the local authorities are unable to support the agrarian economy, not to mention cultural and educational institutions. For this reason, on some collective farms the peasants' payments are delayed for months at a time. The median income in rural settings is lower than that in metropolitan areas (Usmanov, 1999; Vinogradova, 2000). All these negative tendencies, increasing social tension, have a consequent negative impact on rural education and its stronghold, the rural school.

Present day secondary education in Russia embraces 11 years of study and, unlike some western, particularly American, standards, is conducted in schools of three types: primary (Forms 1-4), main secondary (Forms 1-9) and general secondary (Forms 1-11). In subsequent contexts the terms primary, main secondary and general secondary education are relevant. Rural primary schools as autonomous bodies are mainly located only in small villages. In larger settlements they function within main secondary or general secondary schools. Rural kindergartens exist independently of primary schools.

Currently a new educational doctrine is being designed. Both federally and locally, education policy makers are looking forward to implementing an approach commonly practiced in many countries, a 12 year secondary education programme. This regenerated educational scheme is already being implemented in primary classes (Editorial, 2000; Novokshonov, 2000).

Rural schools have both advantages and disadvantages. The advantageous position of Russia's rural schools is similar to that of rural schools in other countries and manifests itself in the following aspects.

• As classes are small and have an intimate atmosphere, teachers can pay ample individual attention to each student and better teach their pupils and parents. Because teachers are closer to parents, adequate parental participation in school policy and child development can be obtained.
• When compared with their urban counterparts, rural children and teenagers are `closer to the land and nature', more industrious and diligent and possess higher moral and personal characteristics.
• In small and remote villages the school is not only the educational centre of the community but also the social and cultural heart. In such rural settlements the school reflects and shapes the entire socio-economic infrastructure (Seal & Harmon, 1995; Suvorova, 1999).

Confronting the same problems as any secondary school, an average Russian rural school faces a lot of additional, uniquely rural and mostly national difficulties.

• Rural schools chronically lack financial resources. Because of insufficient federal and local annual funding, which is much lower than in most of the countries of Europe and Asia (Borevskaya, 1997; Dzurinsky, 1999), the majority of rural schools cannot afford modern laboratory equipment and necessary teaching aids or subscribe to essential pedagogical literature.
• In isolated and impoverished regions rural schools experience an information deficiency and lack the necessary cultural assets peculiar to urban settings: museums, libraries, movie houses, fitness centres, sports grounds, etc. Rural schools have few links with a global network of information and resources.
• Rural students have to spend much more time doing household work. In addition to their basic occupation on a collective or state farm, Russian rural residents traditionally raise their own cattle and poultry, grow vegetables and fruit and build houses to provide a residence for themselves or their children. When done by families themselves, these occupations require extra time and energy. Engaged in these and other household activities after classes and on weekends, rural girls and boys are deprived of sufficient time to study at home.
• Some rural teenagers find themselves under the influence of the so-called psychological syndrome of inferiority about their birthplace and about being a rural dweller, allegedly considering themselves as worth nothing but a `villager', `peasant', `dung scraper'. Gradually internalising this inferiority complex, they try to rid themselves of rural reality by plunging into the metropolitan life and becoming `urbanised'.
• Some rural schools have closed completely because of the migration of young residents to better locales. To make things worse, with the school being closed most of the remaining villagers also tend to shift to urban areas.
• Rural schools experience teacher shortages. Foreseeing difficult working conditions in a rural milieu, some graduates of pedagogical institutions prefer to find a job in an urban school upon receiving their diploma. Other graduates quickly become discouraged with the living conditions and leave the profession within the first 2-3 years. Still others, who choose to stay, are often compelled to teach in a variety of content areas, some outside their field of competence.

The efficacy of rural education is largely dependent on the quality of teacher preparation. There is no nationwide strategy for rural teacher education in present day Russia. Each pedagogical college, institute or university faculty, as well as each region or autonomous republic, offers its own rural teacher training programme. Most concerned are provincial and regional pedagogical institutions enrolling a high percentage of rural school graduates who are expected to return to rural settings after completing their studies.

The Birsk State Pedagogical Institute, located in the Republic of Bashkortostan and where the author of this paper works, is a typical teacher training higher institution. Preparing teachers' cohorts for rural schools is one of the salient educational and socio-cultural strategies of the Institute. For example, in 1997, among the 400 Institute graduates 239 (59.75%) preferred a job in a rural school; in 1998, 63.4% of all graduates became rural teachers; in 1999, village schools of Bashkortostan welcomed 65.8% of the Institute diploma holders (Usmanov, 1999). Among other higher pedagogical institutions in Russia concerned with rural teacher education we can mention the Barnaul, Smolensk and Ulyanovsk State Pedagogical Universities, the Irkutsk State University and the Arzamas, Bryansk, Elabuga, Orel, Shuya and Sterlitamak State Pedagogical Institutes.

As for other countries, they have no nationwide politics exclusively for rural teacher preparation either. Nevertheless, some universities have developed additional rural teacher education programmes to address the needs of local rural settings. For example, among them are such US higher institutions as the University of New Mexico, University of Alaska Fairbanks and Kansas State University (Smolkin & Suina, 1999).

Despite some differences on the socio-economic and ethno-geographic levels, the problems rural schools encounter in different parts of Russia have much in common. For this reason, teacher training institutions have to address, in large part, similar needs in teacher preparation for rural settings. Therefore, we assume that the requirements for rural teacher qualifications which we offer below may be, to a significant extent, extended to many regions of Russia, as well as some other corners of the world.

In addition to the basic curriculum content, common to all Russian secondary schools, rural schools necessitate that teachers have: (1) a positive attitude and strive for values concerned with rural education and rural Russia; (2) a specific knowledge base; (3) the professional skills necessary to effectively teach and bring up rural children.

(1) In the domain of attitudes, a rural teacher is required to possess the following characteristics.

• A positive attitude toward working and living in a rural setting. A teacher's professional duty and the so-called "inner call" should constantly summon him or her to establish residence and settle in the countryside and contribute to enhancing rural education. Respecting and increasing the historical heritage as well as the contemporary welfare of the local community is another pervasive mission of the rural educator. Rural teachers must be aware and proud of belonging to the prestigious teaching profession and of doing a great and noble job in the countryside.
• A clear understanding of the concept of democracy and how to apply this new phenomenon in rural schooling. Although every teacher in Russia should understand the essence of democracy, for rural teachers, who work in remote, information deficit areas, are the last to `hear' about new trends in education and who are usually less qualified than urban teachers, it is much more important to have a very clear understanding of this new concept. There are many educators who are inclined to underestimate democratic principles, whereas others go overboard in putting them into classroom practice.
• A good understanding of the concept of pluralism in human society. Unlike 15-20 years ago, when a typical Russian village boasted an ethnically homogeneous population, today, due to ever increasing migration, the ethnic structures of villages are becoming more of a mosaic. With the changing structure comes a novel undertaking for rural teachers: they must help young people perceive and interpret human behaviours and social situations from different cultural and ethnic viewpoints. Teachers and students must come to realise that human diversity is a normal part of social life.

(2) Besides basic curriculum knowledge, rural teachers are required to possess specific knowledge to better interact in the school and local setting.

• Knowledge about and acquaintance with the rural community. Knowing the rural community's socio-economic problems, the concept of what a good community is and how to strengthen it, the school's rote in bettering the socio-cultural atmosphere in the rural setting: at these factors add to teacher efficacy.
• Knowledge of the overall agrarian policy of the country. Because democratic policy in Russia toward its agrarian economy is in the process of `being born', such knowledge is of paramount value for any rural teacher.
• An expanded, supplementary knowledge base about the world in addition to basic professional erudition. The majority of museums, libraries, book shops, cinemas, clubs for children and teenagers, international youth organisations, fitness centres and sport arenas are located in metropolitan areas. An urban student can enjoy any of these `luxuries'. This is not an easy task for a rural student, because villages have very few such `splendors' or none at all. Few computers installed in rural schools have Internet access. Because rural students depend more on their teachers for knowledge, information and direction than their urban peers, the rural teacher, as a valuable and, often, the only source of information in impoverished educational settings, should be much more knowledgeable about the world than his or her urban counterpart.

(3) The attitudes and knowledge components are linked to and affect the skills component of teachers' professional mastery.

• A dedicated rural educator must be able to stimulate and inspire students with a love and passion for their native land and culture. To successfully achieve these goals both teachers, especially newcomers, and students should thoroughly learn their rural area and community. Even though rural students might already be well acquainted with their native village and community, teachers must strive for the students to make a more thorough historical, geographical and ethno-cultural exploration of the immediate locale. The more students understand their community and its historical heritage, customs and traditions, the more they are likely to stay or return to their native place and succeed their parents in farming activity.
• One of the goals of a rural teacher is to instill in students an attitude of concern for the rural environmental resources. Pollution of the rural environment by factory waste, mineral run-off from fields and various poisonous substances has degraded the ecological situation throughout rural Russia. Each student should know that agrarian activity and the healthy existence of rural residents depend upon finite environmental resources. Environmental damage, frequently not reversible, often occurs abruptly. Monitoring of the rural environment is important not only to the health and survival of the rural society, economy and education, but also to the effective functioning of urban society. The dialectics of the rural-urban environmental interconnection was clearly and intelligibly expressed by Theobald and Nachtigal (1995): `Healthy urban communities will exist only if there are healthy rural communities. In turn, healthy rural communities cannot exist without healthy urban communities' (p. 135).
• In educating children a rural teacher is required to use and benefit from the positive factors of the school and rural setting (Aldoshina, 1999). Despite the continuing economic difficulties and decline of rural communities, most residents remain patriots of their farmland. Industriously helping each other in everyday life, they sustain native customs and cultural traditions, value their ethnicity and cultural heritage and respect teachers, who are often the only highly literate individuals in the rural community. Traditionally, a rural school is a close knit community where children and teachers know each other very well. Rural students, familiar with physical labor since their childhood, are not as ambitious as urban students in satisfying their consumer interests. In comparison with their individualistically minded urban peers, rural students are usually good collectivists. An observant teacher should take into consideration and make use of these and other favourable factors in educating students.
• Orienting students to professions crucial in rural settings is another important mission of a rural teacher. Effective professional orientation is a powerful means of encouraging students to choose a future occupation in the village and farm area. Previous large-scale efforts at professional orientation undertaken in the 1980s-1990s by Russia and such countries as the UK, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, France, Canada, New Zealand and Japan proved fruitful in this regard (Darmodekhin, 1992). For instance, in Russia, under the supervision of local school district authorities a considerable number of rural graduates in the Belgorod, Orel, Smolensk and Nidzny-Novgorod regions chose a job in a rural area (Sinagatullin, 1994). These days, professional orientation strategies need to be refocused and redesigned to address the interests of the approaching market economy in rural settings.

The development of private farming will inevitably entail changes in rural education and rural teacher training. In certain localities a standard or agrarian secondary school will be preferable; in other areas home schooling, now widely practiced in many countries, might be a suitable outcome. Those parents who have already made their choice to home school their children are convinced that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

The unceasing decline of rural communities in the northern and eastern coastal parts of the country, as well as geographic and climatic difficulties, require non-typical educational strategies. In such extreme conditions it would be appropriate to sustain the so-called standard/correspondence education enabling children to study at the nearest school during certain periods of the year and stay at home and study by correspondence during seasonal deer breeding and fishing. In so doing, young people from farming communities would be of more assistance to their parents and local labour communities.

Today education in rural areas offers a real challenge to an insightful teacher because rural communities contain many of those important values that will keep the whole society strong in future years. A striking truth about working in a rural school rests on the premise that a rural teacher is expected not only to provide students with high quality learning opportunities in caring and supportive environments, but also to `take root' in the rural area. Improving and sustaining rural education in good order is a sacred cause for contemporary Russia. We assume that this task is equally important in many other countries of the world as well.

Correspondence: Internatsionalnaya ul., 120-B, apt. 3, Birsk, Bashkortostan, Russia 452320.

AKHMADEEV, A.A. (1992) Rossiyskaya derevnya v usloviyakh sovremennogo agrarnogo krizisa (The Russian village under the present-day agrarian crisis), thesis, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation.

ALDOSHINA, M. (1999) Detskiye folklorniye prazdniki (Folk festivities for children), Selskaya Shkola, 2/3, pp. 74-83.

BOREVSKAYA, N.E. (1997) Kitayskaya model obrazovaniya v aziatskom kontekste (The Chinese model of education in the Asian context), Pedagogika, 3, pp. 86-95.

DARMODEKHIN, S.V. (1992) Uchebnaya i professionalnaya orientatsiya: opit razvitikh stran (Academic and professional orientation: the experience of the developed countries), Pedagogika, 9/10, pp. 113-118.

DZURINSKY, A.N. (1999) Razviyiye Obrazovaniya v Sovremennom Mire (The Development of Education in the Modern World) (Moscow, Vlados).

EDITORIAL (2000) Natsionalnaya doctrina obrazovaniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii (The national doctrine of education in the Russian Federation), Natsionalnoye Obrazovaniye, 2, pp. 14-18.

ERMOLAEV, V. (1991) Budet dzit shkola -- budet dzit selo (If the school exists, so will the village), Narodnoye Obrazovaniye, 8, pp. 14-19.

FAMIGHETTI, R. (Ed.) (1999) The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2000 (Mahmah, World Almanac Books).

HERZOG, M.J.R. & PITTMAN, R.B. (1995) Home, family, and community: ingredients in the rural education equation, Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), pp. 113-118.

KONDRATENKOV, A. E. (1989) Neotlodzniye problemi malokomplektnoy shkoli (The urgent problems of the small rural school), Sovetskaya Pedagogika, 6, pp. 23-26.

NACHTIGAL, P.M. (1992) Rural schools: obsolete ... or harbinger of the future?, Educational Horizons, 70(2), pp. 66-70.

NOVOKSHONOV, Y. (2000) Obrazovaniye Rossii: shag v novoye tisiacheletiye (Education in Russia: a step into the new millennium), Uchitel, 2, pp. 4-8.

PICHUGINA, G.V. & GURYANOVA, M.P. (1999) Trudovaya podgotovka selskich shkolnikov: tsifri i facti (The labour training of rural students: data and facts), Shkola i Proizvodstvo, 5, pp. 10-12.

SEAL, K.R. & HARMON, H.L. (1995) Realities of rural school reform, Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), pp. 119-124.

SINAGATULLIN, I.M. (1994) Formirovaniye Professionalnoy Gotovnosti Utchitelia k Rabote v Selskoy Malokomplektnoy Shkole (Professional Teacher Education for the Small Rural School) (Birsk, Birsk State Pedagogical Institute).

SMITH, J.M. & LOTVEN, B.A. (1993) Teacher empowerment in a rural setting: fact versus fantasy, Education, 113, pp. 457-464.

SMOLKIN, L. & SUINA, J. (1999) Teacher training in a multicultural society: a New Mexico experience, in: I.M. SINAGATULLIN (Ed.) Developing Education in the Multicultural Setting (Birsk, Birsk State Pedagogical Institute).

SUVOROVA, G.F. (1992) Chemu utchit v selskoy shkole? (What should be taught in the rural school?), Pedagogika, 3, pp. 31-36.

SUVOROVA, G.F. (1999) Kultura povedeniya--svoystvo vospitannogo cheloveka (The culture of behavour is an asset of a well-bred person), Selskaya Shkola, 1, pp. 44-47.

THEOBALD, P. & NACHTIGAL, P. (1995) Culture, community, and the promise of rural education, Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), pp. 132-135.

USMANOV, S.M. (1999) Osnovniye napravleniya deyatelnosti Instituta na 1999/2000 uchebni god (The main objectives of the Institute activity for the 1999/2000 academic year), report presented at the institute Scientific Council Sitting (Birsk, Birsk State Pedagogical Institute).

VINOGRADOVA, V. (2000) Selsky sotsium: negativniye yavleniya i potentsialniye resursi (The rural community: negative tendencies and potential resources), Direktor Shkoli, 2, pp. 27-33.

ZUEV, M.N. (2000) Istoriya Rossii (The History of Russia) (Moscow, Droba).

~~~~~~~~

By Ilghiz M. Sinagatullin, Birsk State Pedagogical Institute, Russian Federation

This district-university partnership program is meeting the personnel needs of a 17-district region in the California desert where over 40% of their special education teachers had been employed without appropriate credentials. The program was designed to respond to the geographic and population (68% Hispanic.) demographics of the report. Utilizing an alternative credential option (the Internship Credential), courses, extensive practica support, assistance and supervision, and continuing professional development opportunities were provided for teachers in this rural desert region. Preliminary results indicate that 70 teachers completed their Specialist Credential, and the retention rate of these professionals has been approximately 85%. It has been indicated, too, that coaches who provide extensive mentoring of Intern teachers during their two years of working toward full certification have favorable views of the program.

Chronic shortages of fully qualified special education teachers thwart efforts to deliver appropriate educational services to students with disabilities. The problem is particularly acute for school districts in rural and/or sparsely populated regions, which comprise approximately two-thirds of the nation's school districts (Hicks, 1994). Rural districts have been defined as those either located in counties that (1) have fewer than 150 inhabitants per square mile, or (2) where 60% or more of the population served by a district live in communities no larger than 5,000 inhabitants (Helge, 1984). In addition to population sparcity, rural districts frequently are characterized by geographic barriers (mountains, desert terrain, untransversable roads) that serve to isolate them from access to the services and opportunities available in urban communities and by populations that are predominantly poor, minority, immigrant, and/or migrant.

At the time that the program described in this article was developed, nearly half of all special education teachers in the region were not fully certified. The nearest special education teacher credentialing programs were located over 100 miles away in a large urban area. Round trip travel required three to five hours of driving over rugged mountains where dangerous mountain winds, periodic fog, and snow are commonplace during the winter. Not surprisingly, new credentialed teachers became available within the region only rarely.

The districts of this sparsely populated region resorted to employing teachers with little to no special education preparation and who, because of their geographic isolation, had little opportunity for attaining full certification. The resulting situation was detrimental to students with disabilities for whom they are responsible, as well as to the teachers themselves. For the students affected, there was little assurance of appropriate educational and related services. For teachers, inappropriate expectations, lack of special skills, limited support, and attendant job dissatisfaction resulted in an unusually high teacher turnover. These teachers moved into general education teaching assignments (Billingsly & Cross, 1991), relocated to locales where there were better opportunities to pursue special education certification, or left teaching altogether. The districts, then, by necessity, replaced them with teachers who also were uncertified, a widespread practice that has been documented by Sullivan (1995).

In this article, the literature on rural special education teacher shortages is reviewed. Then, there is a delineation of the collaborative model of personnel preparation that was designed to respond to the specific needs identified in the county in question. Finally, there is a preliminary evaluation of the program. Included in the evaluation are teachers who entered the program beginning in 1990 and the 1997-98 school years.

Located across a mountain range from the nearest metropolitan area, the county encompasses over 4,300 square miles of desert terrain and currently has a population of 139,000 residents (approximately 31 people per square mile). Eighty-five percent of the population is of Hispanic background and about 36% of the population over five years of age reside in homes where English is the only language spoken (Valley of Imperial Development Alliance, 1998). The median income in the county is the lowest in the state with 43% of the families living below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990). Approximately half of the residents over age 25 have not graduated from high school and only nine percent hold bachelor's degrees or higher. Special education services are provided by 17 separate districts under the guidance of a Special Education Local Planning Area (SELPA), which has countywide responsibilities. Higher education courses are available from a community college and a two-year, upper-division branch campus of a large, state university located across a mountain range over 100 miles from the center of the county. This branch campus builds on the programs of the region's two-year community college offering upper division coursework as well as fifth-year general education teaching credentials. Various advanced credential programs, such as the special education program described in this article, and MA Degree programs "imported" under the auspices of academic departments on the main campus of the urban university are offered.

An array of barriers impede the supply of special education teachers to rural and/or sparsely populated regions. Among these are distance from teacher credential programs, (Helge, 1981, Horn, 1985; Marrs, 1984; Mathes & Carlson, 1986, 1987; Seifert & Kurtz, 1983) and the failure of preservice preparation programs, most of which are located in more urbanized areas, to address issues relating to teaching in rural regions (Campbell, 1985; Carr, 1995, Cole & Leeper, 1995; Gold, Russell, & William's, 1993; Helge, 1984; Horn, 1985; Luft, 1993; Marrs; Minner & Lepiche, 1993). It seems clear that most teacher candidates in special education prefer to teach in suburban communities (Bell, Bull, Barrett, Montgomery, & Hyle, 1993) and that the preparation of individuals who reside in the community improves the retention of rural special education teachers (Berkeley & Ludlow, 1991; Bornfield, Hall, Hall, & Hoover, 1997; Gamble, 1995; Gold, et. al, 1993; Helge & Marrs, 1982; Mathes & Carlson, 1986, 1987; &; Muse & Thomas, 1992).

There are challenges when teacher preparation programs are offered in rural locales. They may provide only limited access to specialized curriculum models, to cutting-edge materials and approaches, and to state-of-the art adaptive equipment (Association of Teacher Educators, 1986; Barker & Beckner, 1987; Marrs, 1984). If the program is being "imported" from a distant campus, there may be a reliance on adjunct faculty of unknown or indifferent quality (Helge & Marrs, 1982) and there may be little supervision or quality control of their courses. Finally, individuals who are teaching full time on emergency permits or waivers have fiscal and family constraints that make then unable to pursue an intensive program of study (Spence, Noel, & Boyer-Schick, 1986). These factors combine to extend the credentialing process over several years, during which time attrition is high.

When rural regions are served by teacher preparation programs located elsewhere, additional difficulties arise. The program content may not reflect local community values or include specific concepts and competencies about service delivery in rural regions (Carr, 1995; Cole & Leeper, 1995; Gold, et al, 1993; Helge, 1984; Luft, 1993; Marrs, 1984; Minner & Lepiche, 1993). Having had little to no prior experience in rural areas, many students do not adjust well to learning conditions, limited social relationships, and the cultural values of the region in which they find themselves (Bell, et al, 1993; Davis, 1987; Helge & Marrs, 1982; Horn, 1985; Mallory & Berkeley, 1987; Muse & Thomas, 1992; Savelsbergh, 1994).

Another major drawback to preservice preparation has been the inability of programs to provide adequate arena-of-reality practica in rural classrooms. Marrs (1984) noted that there may not be sufficient number of qualified teachers who can provide effective practicum opportunities for the trainees. Further, geographic distances between the university and the rural community can make transportation for students and university supervisors problematic. The instructor costs for practicum (typically offered at a ratio of two to three students per unit of faculty workload), as well as the travel costs associated with supervision can be prohibitive, leading to infrequent supervision of questionable quality. As a result, preservice students may have insufficient or inadequate direct contact with important aspects of the rural educational and social environment leading to difficulties in adjusting to the working conditions, social relationships, and cultural values of a given rural region.

According to Marts (1984), prospective rural special educators fall into three categories: Individuals who have grown up in rural communities and who know and are comfortable with the culture and the social and professional rural milieu; Individuals who are place-bound in rural areas and are forced into teaching special education by the circumstances; and, Individuals who accept special education teaching assignments in rural areas but who are completely unprepared for the social and professional realities of rural living.

Individuals in the first group are likely to remain a special education teacher in the rural community for the duration of their careers. The second group of teachers tend to get out of special education into other teaching positions as quickly as possible. The third group of individuals tend to leave special education teaching in the rural community within a very short time, contributing to high attrition rates of 30%, 50%, or even 100% over a three year period of time (Helge, 1984; Association for School, College, and University Staffing, 1994; U. S. Office of Education, 1995)

Nationally and within the state, teacher attrition is greater in special education than in general education (Boe, Cook, Bobbitt, & Terhanian, 1998; Levine, Doorlag, & Cegelka, 1993) and has been particularly acute in rural regions (Helge, 1984; Berkeley & Ludlow, 1991; DeYoung, 1991; Gold, et al, Savalesbergh, 1994). High rural attrition rates have been attributed to such factors as: the absence of accessible teacher credential programs (Helge, 1981; Helge & Marrs, 1982; Horn, 1985; Mathes & Carlson, 1986, 1987; Siefert & Kurt, 1983), inadequate resources (Mathes & Carlson, 1986, 1987), differences in the values of new teachers with those of the rural communities in which they find themselves, and teachers' feelings of social and professional isolation and lack of professional opportunities (Gold, et al, 1993; Lemke, 1995; Luft, 1993; Stone, 1990; Theobald, 1991). Attrition also occurs when untrained individuals employed on temporary permits lack the skills to deal effectively with students and are unsuccessful in coping with the unique, stressful aspects of rural education (Cole & Leeper, 1995; DeYoung; 1991; Helge, 1984; Minner & Lepiche, 1993; Lemke, 1995; Luft, 1993; Rosenholtz, 1989).

Perhaps the most productive approach for reducing attrition of rural special educators is to offer training in the communities in which the teachers live (Gamble, 1995; Helge, 1981; Horn, 1985; Marrs, 1984; Mathes & Carlson, 1986, 1987). "Commitment to place" has been identified as the singularly most important factor in the retention of rural special educators (Gamble, 1995; Muse & Thomas, 1992; Wei, Shapero, & Boggess, 1993). Additional recommendations for reducing the attrition of rural special education teachers tend to focus on reducing the teachers' sense of social and professional isolation, increasing their instructional skill levels, and expanding their career opportunities.

Related strategies include holding a pre-school year orientation for new teachers (Luft, 1993; Miller & Sidebottom, 1985), pairing new teachers with master teachers (Rosenholtz, 1989; Lemke, 1995; Miller & Sidebottom, 1985; Muse & Thomas, 1992), assigning each new teacher an out-of-class project that requires interaction with other school personnel (Miller & Sidebottom, 1985), and having administrators make regular visits to the beginning teachers classroom (Miller & Sidebottom, 1985). Designing opportunities for the beginning teachers to interact with one another (Davis, 1987; Swift, 1984, Miller & Sidebottom, 1985) is another retention strategy. Additional strategies include expanding into new professional roles, such as mentoring (Theis-Sprinthall & Sprinthall, 1987) and release days for inservice and other professional development opportunities (such as visiting the classrooms of experienced teachers) (Davis, 1987; Miller & Sidebottom, 1985; Swift, 1984). Opportunity to pursue a master's degree (Chapman & Green, 1986; Metzke, 1988; Cegelka, Doorlag, & Sarot, 1995) is also associated with higher retention of rural special education teachers. Finally, providing fiscal support for training has been identified as a critical feature of preparing teachers in economically depressed rural regions (Spence, Noel, & Boyer-Schick, 1986);

Of all of these strategies, one of the most critical is the quality of mentoring provided by peers and administrators. New teachers for whom clear expectations and goals are set and who receive specific, constructive feedback on their actual teaching practices tend to experience early success as teachers, a factor predictive of long-term teacher retention (Chapman & Green, 1986; DeYoung, 1991; Helge 1985; Horn, 1985; Lemke, 1995; Metzke, 1988; Rosenholtz, 1989).

The program model described here was designed in collaboration with the SELPA, the districts, and branch campus faculty from the state university located in the neighboring metropolitan area. The program design incorporated an interagency collaboration approach, as advocated by Simpson, Whelan, and Zabel (1993), as well as key features of university-rural community partnerships implemented in Squires and Ryan-Vincek's (1994) rural preparation project. The program was designed to reflect the extensive literature on the challenges and needs of rural special education teachers. The seven key components of the model include (1) its collaborative structure; (2) making the program locally available during the school year; (3) providing instructional experiences on the main campus during the summer; (4) using external grant money to support student costs as well as coursework that otherwise would not be available in the region; (5) using an alternative credential option to provide a two-year credential preparation program to in situ teachers; (6) implementing a coach-of-coaches model to provide four semesters of supervision to Interns over a vast geographic region; and, (7) addressing continuing professional growth and development needs of participants after they complete their credential. These features and their relationship to the retention barriers and strategies identified in the literature are depicted in Table 1. Each of these features is discussed in the following paragraphs.

As described earlier in this article, teacher preparation availability within the local region is a significant step in addressing personnel shortages in rural regions. Prior to the development of the regional preparation program, nearly half of the special education teachers were without full certification and most of these were making no progress toward obtaining such certification. The typical scenario would be for the individual to teach in special education with an emergency permit for the five years permitted by law, and, then, to transfer into general education classes. leave teaching, or move from the region. Those rare students who did manage to travel to this urban university campus to enroll in credential courses found that courses were not always sensitive to the service delivery and demographic variables in their rural region.

In developing the rural preparation program, there was a strong commitment to ensuring that this off-campus program would retain the quality of the main campus program. For that reason, the majority of the faculty who taught courses in the rural region during the academic year were either tenure-track faculty or the same adjunct faculty who routinely teach at the main campus. A branch campus policy of providing matching time (e.g., three units of release time for a three-unit course) served as an incentive for main campus faculty to travel to the branch campus. For selected courses, local special education administrators were selected to serve as instructor or co-instructor in order to ensure service delivery relevance in the training.

During each of their four semesters of enrollment, participants took between nine and 13 credit hours of courses and practica. Typically, this included one to two three-unit courses and a one-unit topical workshop each semester, as well as practicum. These courses were offered locally in conjunction with the upper-division branch campus with funding of the courses split between that campus and the federal grant. Flexible course schedules encompassing late-afternoon, all-day, and weekend class meetings in combinations that fit the schedules of students and instructors.

The two-year design of the program meant that students had to complete at least one six-week summer session of coursework. Because department faculty were unwilling to travel to the desert in the summer, students had to come to the urban campus for summer preparation. This had the advantage of providing access to cutting edge approaches, curricular materials, and equipment, frequently lacking in sparsely populated areas (Association of Teacher Educators, 1986; Barker & Beckner, 1987; Helge, 1991; and Marrs, 1984). It also provided access to a broad array of teaching models available within the year-round schools in the urban region (Swift, 1984; Miller & Sidebottom, 1985; Davis, 1987). Finally, participants, most of whom had grown up and received all of their education within the rural region, were provided the opportunity to interact with their peers from urban and suburban school districts and to do so as full-time students, a status which many of them had never previously experienced.

Without federal and state grant funds, the program would not have been possible. First, and perhaps most critical, special education courses had never been a part of the program offerings at the branch campus. The potential for obtaining grant funding to meet this pressing local need led the branch campus administrators to agree to support approximately half of the total number of 24-25 course units offered each year. The mileage, hotel, and per diem costs for faculty to commute to the region were split more or less evenly between the federal grant and the branch campus. Program administration and faculty advising/coordination time were funded by the federal grant.

The federal grant also provided students with partial scholarships during the academic year as well as full tuition scholarships and living stipends for summer coursework. A state grant, funded by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing for Internship Credential Programs, also supported a portion of the interns' summer living stipends, as well as the non-contract time of peer coaches ($120 per semester per intern) and the costs of intensive "fast track" workshops designed to meet pressing skills needs identified during any given year.

The program was developed as a collaborative effort of the department of special education on the main campus of the university, the local branch campus that serves this rural region, the SELPA the 17 districts of the county, and the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Funding for the program has been provided collaboratively by all partners. In addition to the grant-supported program components described above, the SELPA has provided staff support to the program. Districts have committed to providing up to three release days per semester for intensive coursework and training, and they contribute staff time of master teachers to serve as coaches.

A dual admissions procedure has been established wherein districts have made employment determinations, the university has made decisions relative to the eligibility of candidates for program admission and for recommendation to the state for Internship Credential status. District directors of special education serve on the Program Steering Committee assisting in resolving program issues and setting program direction. The SELPA administrator and staff are involved in the day-to-day coordination, admission, retention, advisory, and instructional activities. This high level of collaboration has made it possible to offer the program within the two-year time constraints of the alternative credential option (described in the following paragraphs) and ensured "local ownership" of the program, thereby involving many local district and county school administrators.

The Internship Credential is an alternative credential preparation option designed to assist districts in meeting areas of significant teacher scarcity. This credential stares permits personnel without certification to serve as classroom teachers for a maximum of two years during which time they must complete all credential requirements. This credential option promotes timely progress toward full credential status, low turnover of non-credentialed teachers, and greater program continuity for students.

The Internship Credential status is advantageous to teachers because time served counts toward salary increments and tenure. Further, it addresses the participants' critical need for a livable income while pursuing post-baccalaureate credential preparation. Many students are burdened with debt from their undergraduate programs, and they have families that they must support. For districts, this option alleviates employment pressures, ensures that preparation and support are provided to teachers-in-training, and improves the quality of educational services offered to students with disabilities.

All eligible program participants are required to obtain the Internship Credential. Other individuals, such as those who did not yet meet all prerequisite qualifications (e.g., prior completion of a general education credential or passage of the state Basic Skills Aptitude Test) also were admitted to the two-year Internship program. It is important to note that all participants were treated as Internship Credential teachers relative to program sequence, course load, and peer coaching.

Coaching has been found to be an effective strategy to translate research into classroom practice (Gersten, Morvant, and Brengelman (1995) and trained local educators can develop the skills to provide supervisory support for special educators who work in rural areas (Billingsley & Jones; 1993; Turner, Ludlow, & Wienke, 1987). The coach-of-coaches model developed through our program addressed the geographic and fiscal barriers of providing support and supervision to teachers-in-training in sparsely populated regions.

Coaches are fully-credentialed teachers selected jointly by the district, the SELPA, and the university. Following the initial three to four years of program implementation, almost all of the coaches have themselves been graduates of the Internship Credential program. Whenever possible, the coach is a teacher at the same school as the Intern, although sometimes the coach is from another school or even a neighboring district. The coaches make a minimum of nine direct and indirect (i.e., video analysis) observations of the Interns each year.

Each Intern is videotaped for three 45-minute lessons each semester. The coaches and the Intern Support Liaison (ISL) from the university utilized a systematic observation system to analyze a 10-minute section of each tape to determine whether Intern's skills are improving over time at an appropriate rate. The videotapes are evaluated in terms of (a) content pedagogy, (b) time in direct delivery of instruction, (c) student responses per minute, (d) praise,/rule-reminding ratio, (e) accuracy or appropriateness of student responses, (f) management of problem behaviors, (g) relevance to the core curriculum, and (h) demonstration of other effective instructional strategies.

The coaches and his/her Intern teacher meet to review the videos, compare analyses, reflect on performance, and develop strategies for improvement. In addition, the coaches spoke with their Interns frequently by phone, assisted them in obtaining needed resources, and provided other support and assistance. Every four to six weeks, the ISL would meet with the coaches and SELPA staff for one-half day to review Intern progress and identify and resolve difficulties. As a group, they reviewed video segments from selected Interns, with the ISL assisting coaches in identifying areas for Intern improvement and providing training in coaching/mentoring. Immediately following each of the coaches' meetings, the ISL held an Intern seminar in which she viewed portions of their videos and facilitated their self-evaluation and self-reflection. She designed future seminars and all day "Fast Track" workshops (up to four a year) to provide intensive training in skill areas identified through these meetings. As instructor of both of the methods courses, the ISL was in an ideal position to work with the Interns to strengthen areas of weakness and to help the Interns bridge theory and practice.

At the ISC meeting, the Intern's needs were reviewed and an Individual Intern Support Plan is developed. Guided by the "Hierarchy of Support" (See Figure 1), the ISC might target increased use of the school site's new teacher support services, specific types of in-class support by SELPA staff, Intern visits to classrooms of "master" teachers and/or attendance at specialized workshops and trainings, one-on-one classroom management support from school site staff, assistance from the district Director of Special Education on IEP development, and so forth. One option could be for the ISL to work directly with the Intern in the classroom to improve Intern performance and/or to determine whether or not the Intern has demonstrated sufficient skill to receive a passing practica grade, thereby retaining eligibility for the two-year Internship Credential. The formation of an ISC was viewed as intensive intervention and, typically, there were only to three ISCs formed each year. Following the initial Intern Support Council (ISC) meeting, there would be at least one follow-up meeting to review the success of the Individual Intern Support Plan.

The availability of a preparation program within a geographic area increases the availability of trained personnel and the retention of current teachers. In this program, Interns are residents with roots in the community, and they are well immersed in the local values, lifestyles, and service delivery systems, factors associated with long-term retention (Bornfield, et al, 1997; Gold, et al, 1993; Gamble, 1995; Helge & Marrs, 1982; Muse & Thomas, 1992).

High quality preparation also has been identified as another teacher retention factor (Helge, 1984; Marrs, 1984; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sweeney, Warren, & Kemis, 1991). Program quality was maintained through the use of regular university faculty and carefully selected local adjunct faculty. During the summer, the curriculum and technology resources available at the main campus, as well as the year-round programs of the urban/suburban districts that surround the that campus, provided the teachers with access to current information on best practices, as recommended by the Association of Teacher Educators (1986), Barker & Beckner (1987), Helge (1991), Marrs (1984), Swift (1984), Miller and Sidebottom (1985), and Davis (1987).

Also incorporated into the program were many of the strategies found in the state's successful new teacher support and assistance programs (Pearson & Honig, 1992). These included such strategies as release time for teachers to visit other professionals and attend workshops or intensive courses and frequent contacts with key administrators. Additional retention strategies were designed to promote continued professional growth and development of the participants after their two-years as Internship Credential teachers. For example, the program's "Fast Track" workshops continued to be available to the teachers after they complete the credential program. The opportunity for continued professional development has been linked to increased teacher retention in rural areas (Cegelka, et al, 1995; Chapman & Green, 1986; and Metzke, 1988). As this is a graduate program, Interns completing their credential had only 12 to 15 units of coursework remaining for the MA Degree. For five years, separate federal funding supported the offering of this coursework at the branch campus, facilitating 34 teachers in the completion of their master's degrees. Another professional development opportunity supported peer coaches for new Intern teachers. Finally, during the culminating semester of Internship Credential preparation, district and SELPA administrators assist the interns in developing individual Professional Development Plans to guide their continuing development in the years immediately following the program.

The program began in Fall, 1990, with the first graduates completing their credentials in Spring, 1992. Between Spring, 1992 and Fall, 1998, there have been 71 program participants who attained full special education certification. A total of 34 teachers also have earned Master of Arts degrees during this time. Table 2 depicts the status of these participants. Sixty of the 71 (85%) credential program graduates remain as special education teachers in the region, with 94% remaining in the field of special education.

Of those individuals completing the special education MA Degree, 88% have been retained as special education teachers in the region and 97% have remained as special educators. Further analysis of retention data revealed that all credentialed teachers who have served as peer coaches to new Intern teachers have remained as special education teachers in the region.

A program satisfaction survey was completed by current Internship coaches (n = 10) during the 1997-1998 school year. Results indicate that 80% of the current coaches are graduates of the collaborative credential program. The mean age of coaches is 41.1 years with an average of 10 years total teaching experience and an average of 6 years teaching experience in special education. The coaches were asked to answer each question using a Likert-type scale from one ("disaster") to five ("very well"). A rating of 1 was considered a "disaster," a rating of 2 was considered "not so well," a rating of 3 was "adequate," a rating of 4 was "fairly well," and a rating of 5 was "very well." The results of the questionnaire were tabulated for the group:

(a) To the question of how the coaches perceived the internship model to be working, the coaches gave a mean rating of 3.8. Their primary concerns had to do with the infrequency of courses/attention directed toward the credential in Severe Handicaps.

(b) The coaches rated the over-all quality of the support and supervision provided the interns in the program as fairly well with a mean rating of 4.0.

(c) The coaches had favorable opinions 3.95 about the overall quality of support and assistance provided by the four-semester sequence of practica using the coach-of-coaches model. Most felt that this support would be improved if they had more opportunities to work with the Interns in their classroom.

(d) The coaches were of the strong opinion that the traditional one-semester of practicum supervision available in the traditional, main-campus program, would be inadequate in developing high quality special education teachers. They gave an average 2.0 rating to the question about the probability that a traditional one-semester of practicum supervision would result in the development of high quality special education teachers.

Additionally, the coaches noted several strengths of the model. These included: (1) high levels of communication and high quality of feedback for both coach and intern, (2) opportunities for practice and refinement of good teaching strategies for the intern and the coach, (3) contact among teachers promoted the sharing of ideas, and (4) the ability of Interns to view videotaped lessons multiple times in order to enhance their teaching ability.

The collaborative model of alternative certification of in situ teachers has been developed to reflect the literature on rural special education teacher preparation. The model attempts to respond to key barriers in effective teacher preparation as well as to incorporate most of the recommended program design strategies that have been identified in the literature.

The retention rates for graduates who participated in the program over a seven-year period of time are quite high: 85% to 93%, depending upon the status variable considered. The fact that participants who completed the MA degree and/or became coaches have a higher retention rate is supportive of the assertions of Helge (1984) and Marrs (1984) that the provision of professional development and/or career ladder opportunities in rural areas promote retention.

It is probable that the most critical contribution to high teacher retention rates is that credential preparation was made available to uncertified teachers within the region. The coach-of-coaches model has made it feasible to offer the program by providing an effective and economically affordable practica supervision alternative to teachers across 4,300 square miles of desert terrain. The district, SELPA, and university collaboration inherent in the model reduces the practical costs to approximately one-fifth the cost of traditional approaches. The district coaches, the SELPA staff, the university ISL, and the collaborative ISC function together in a single system to support special education teachers. Early and continuous mentoring appears to contribute to the early success of the participants, a factor associated with high retention rates. Further, this support feature facilitates the professional development of the Intern teachers and the effective educational services for the children that they teach. It appears to contribute to the retention of those who serve in coaching roles. An important, but somewhat unintended benefit of the model has been the development of a cadre of highly skilled mentor teachers in districts throughout the county. These teachers constitute a rich staff development and leadership resource that can benefit schools and children of the region far into the future. It is interesting that the coaches felt that more "real-time" classroom observations would improve the quality of their support and assistance that they provide. This perception bears consideration and should be explored.

Future evaluation efforts are needed to ascertain the extent to which specific model elements contribute to program success. Such evaluation would expand the field's database on "best practices" for rural special education teacher preparation and provide guidance to program development efforts. Given the uniquely high retention rates of program graduates over