The itinerant service delivery model is used across the United States to provide services to young children (ages 3 years—6 years) with disabilities whose primary placement is a community-based early childhood program. Although this model is a common component of the least-restrictive-environment continuum of service delivery options, the roles and responsibilities of itinerant early childhood special education (ECSE) teachers are poorly understood. The purpose of the Delphi studies reported here was to examine the perceptions of diverse stakeholder groups (i.e., itinerant ECSE teachers, ECSE teachers who work with itinerants, parents of children served by itinerant ECSE teachers, and supervisors of itinerant ECSE teachers) regarding the key roles and responsibilities of itinerant ECSE teachers. Delphi methodology enabled the researchers to determine common and divergent perspectives among the four stakeholder groups. Results of this research indicate a wide disparity in the perceptions of the four stakeholder groups regarding the nature of itinerant ECSE teachers' roles and the associated responsibilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Buysse, V., Schulte, A.C., Pierce, P., & Terry, D. (1994). Models and styles of consultation: Preferences of professionals in early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention , 18, 302—310.
2.
Buysse, V., & Wesley, P.W. (1993). The identity crisis in early childhood special education: A call for professional role clarification. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 418—429.
3.
Cannon, G., Idol, L., & West, J. (1992). Educating students with mild handicaps in general classrooms: Essential teaching practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 300—317.
4.
Clayton, M.J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17, 373—387.
5.
Dailey, A.L., & Holmberg, J. (1990). Delphi: A catalytic strategy for motivating curriculum revision by faculty. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 13, 129—136.
6.
Dalkey, N.C. (n.d.). The Delphi methodology. Retrieved November 5, 2003, from http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/v2-ch45a.htm
7.
Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. (1986). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Middleton, WI: Green Briar Press.
8.
Dinnebeil, L.A., & McInerney, W. (2000, December). Project DIRECT: Defining itinerant roles for early childhood teachers. A presentation at the national DEC conference, Albuquerque, NM.
9.
Dinnebeil, L.A., McInerney, W., Roth, J., & Ramaswamy, V. (2001). Itinerant early childhood special education services: Service delivery in one state. Journal of Early Intervention , 24, 36—45.
10.
Horn, E.L., Li, J., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, S. (2000). Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 208—223.
11.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2001). Embedded learning opportunities as an instructional strategy for supporting children's learning in inclusive programs. In M. Ostrosky & S. Sandall (Eds.), Teaching strategies: What to do to support young children's development (Vol. 3). Denver, CO: Division for Early Childhood.
12.
Johnson, L.J., & LaMontagne, M.J. (1993). Using content analysis to examine the verbal or written communication of stakeholders within early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 73—79.
13.
Kontos, S., & Diamond, K. (1997). Preparing practitioners to provide early intervention services in inclusive settings. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models, and practical strategies (pp. 393— 410). Baltimore: Brookes.
14.
Lieber, J., Capell, K., Sandall, S., Wolfberg, P., Horn, E., & Beckman, P. (1998). Inclusive preschool programs: Teachers' beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 87—105.
15.
Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications . Retrieved November 5, 2003, from http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch1.html
16.
McWilliam, R.A. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Interdisciplinary models . In DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 127—146). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
17.
McWilliam, R.A., Wolery, M., & Odom, S.L. (2001). Instructional perspectives in inclusive preschool classrooms. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 503—530). Baltimore: Brookes.
18.
Murry, J.W., & Hammons, J.O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Review of Higher Education, 18, 423—436.
19.
Odom, S.L., Horn, E., Marquart, J.M., Hanson, M.J., Wolfberg, P., Beckman, P., et al. (1999). On the forms of inclusion: Organizational context and individualized service models. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 185—199.
20.
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M.L., Smith, B.J., & McLean, M. (2004). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
21.
Stayton, V.D., Miller, P.S., & Dinnebeil, L.A. (2003). (Eds.). DEC personnel preparation in early childhood special education: Implementing the DEC recommended practices . Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
22.
Striffler, N., & Fire, N. (1999). Embedding personnel development into early intervention service delivery: Elements in the process. Infants and Young Children, 11, 50—61.
23.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). 24th annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
24.
Wilhelm, W.J. (2001). Alchemy of the oracle: The Delphi technique. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 43, 6—26.
25.
Wolery, M. (2004). Recommended practices in child-focused interventions . In DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 71—106). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
26.
Wolery, M., Ault, M.E., & Doyle, P. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY : Longman.
27.
Zoski, K., & Jurs, S. (1989). Priority determination in surveys: An application of the scree test. Evaluation Review, 14, 214—219.
