National Provisions for Certification and Professional Preparation in Low-Incidence Sensory Disabilities - A 50-State Study

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Stanley

Multi method study examines how U.S. states prepare and license educators for students with low-incidence sensory disabilities (LISD). Document review and structured interviews with state education agency representatives assess program availability and intensity, as well as licensure versus endorsement regimes. Findings show 38 states offer at least one LISD preparation program, while 12 offer none, and program intensity varies widely. The study also identifies relationships between licensure regimes and LISD program counts, arguing that many states lack capacity to supply trained professionals and offering recommendations for states, national organizations, and institutions of higher education.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages18

Reading Time45 min

AccessFree to download

Study Purpose and Background

Rarity of LISD and Barriers to Service

Need for Trained Educators

Research Methods

Data Collection Across All 50 States

SEA Website Review

SEA Director Interviews

Literature and Policy Framework

Preparation Programs and Licensure Influence

Certification Regimes

| | | | | --- | --- | --- | | Howley, C. , Howley, A. , & Telfer, D. (2017) . National provisions for certiﬁcation and professional preparation in lowincidence sensory disabilities: A 50-state study. American Annals of the Deaf, 162(3), 277–294.
NATIONAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTIFICATION AND PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION IN LOW-INCIDENCE SENSORY DISABILITIES: A 50-STATE STUDY
MULTI METHOD STUDY examined the 50 U.S. states’ preparation and licensure practices regarding students with low-incidence sensory disabilities (LISD) . The researchers used document review and structured interviews with state education agency representatives. It was found that institutions of higher education (IHEs) in 38 states offer at least one LISD preparation program; 12 states offer no programs at all. Further, program intensity, a measure of state capacity to serve students with LISD, varies from 0 to about 3 programs per million state residents. States also differ by the regime used to qualify teaching candidates, using either licensure or endorsement. Nationally, being an LISD licensure regime is, all else being equal, negatively correlated with number of LISD programs. The findings suggest that many states lack the capacity to supply enough trained professionals to serve students with LISD. Recommendations are framed for states, national organizations, and IHEs. | | | | CRAIG HOWLEY, AIMEE
HOWLEY, AND DEBORAH TELFER
CRAIG HOWLEY IS SENIOR RESEARCHER AND AIMEE HOWLEY IS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, WORDFARMERS ASSOCIATES, ALBANY, OH. TELFER IS DIRECTOR AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, CINCINNATI, OH. | Keywords: low-incidence sensory disabilities, blindness, deafness, teacher preparation, teacher licensure, education policy, special education, rural areas.
In the present article, we report findings from a 50-state study of preparation programs and professional licensure for low-incidence sensory disabilities (LISD) : hearing impairment (HI), visual impairment (VI), and deafblindness (DB) .1 Preparation and licensure are fundamental to adequately serving students with low-incidence sensory disabilities. And these students are not typically served adequately.
First, by deﬁnition, students with | LISD—even among those students with individualized education programs—are comparatively rare, accounting for only 1.2% of students ages 6–21 years served under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; Ofﬁce of Special Education Programs, 2015) . This rarity may bethe primary difﬁculty: The squeak of this small wheel remains unheard (Johnson 2013) . Second, most parents of these children understandably prefer that they be served in neighborhood schools (Kamenopoulou, 2012), where, however, general education teachers have scant experience or preparation to serve them adequately (Corn & Spungin, 2003; Luckner & | 277 A VOLUME 162, NO. 3, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF PROVISIONS FOR LISD CERTIFICATION, PREPARATION | Muir, 2002) . Third, and most surprisingly to the uninformed, too few professional training programs exist nationwide (Ludlow, Conner, & Schecter, 2005) . Worse still, established programs disappear faster than new ones come into being to replace them (Dolman, 2010; Johnson, 2013) . Fourth, and as a result of all these challenges, many (probably most) districts nationwide lack the organizational capacity they need to support teachers, parents, and students involved with students with LISD (C. Howley & A. Howley, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Müller, 2005) . This situation, moreover, has persisted in American education since the middle of the 20th century (Clarke, 1985; Johnson, 2013; Mason, 2000; Smith & Wild, 2006) .2
Serving these students well, then, logically requires access to educators with relevant training. This assertion is unexceptional and bland, but the durable problems just enumerated have for decades kept states, districts, schools, and

FAQs

What is the main focus of the 50-state study on low-incidence sensory disabilities?

The study examines how states prepare and license professionals to serve students with low-incidence sensory disabilities, and how these licensure provisions relate to preparation program availability.

How were data collected for the study?

Researchers gathered data from all 50 states through inspection of state education agency (SEA) websites and structured interviews with SEA special education directors or designated representatives.

What did the study find about LISD preparation programs across states?

Institutions of higher education in 38 states offer at least one LISD preparation program, while 12 states offer none, with program intensity varying substantially across states.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Stanley