Preparation of Teacher Candidates in Special Education: Instructional Strategy Insights - , Papers of History of Education

Download Preparation of Teacher Candidates in Special Education: Instructional Strategy Insights - and more Papers History of Education in PDF only on Docsity! Teacher Candidates' Understandings of Instructional Strategies in a Changing Field Leah Wasburn-Moses Miami University ABSTRACT: The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 require that students with disabilities be included in statewide assessments and general education accountability systems, thereby placing increased demands on special education teachers. At issue is how new teachers are prepared to respond to these changes. This study analyzed new special education teachers' understandings of instructional strategies in light of changes in special education law and practice, through a vignette assessment. Re- sults indicate that some teacher candidates may not possess the kinds of understandings that align with reform practices. Implications for policy, research, and practice in teaching and teacher education are presented. Federal legislation such as the recent Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 are making a significant impact on teacher practices and teacher preparation in special edu- cation (McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003; Presi- dent's Commission on Excellence in Special Edu- cation, 2002). These two laws address access to the general education curriculum and standards, as well as participation in state assessments, for all students (Thurlow, McLaughlin, & Elliott, 2003). Many education professionals see these as critical steps to improving student outcomes in special education (Thompson, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2003). Special education teachers themselves are re- porting changes in the field caused by these new mandates. In a nationwide survey of 400 general education and special education teachers, the majority of special education teachers indicated that, when compared to how it was 3 years ago, the curriculum for special education students is more similar to that of general education students and special education students are learning more content based on the state academic standards (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003). However, the application of uniform standards, curriculum, and assessments is new to the field, which has tra- ditionally relied on individualized standards as outlined in each student's individualized educa- tion plan (IEP; McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003; Pugach & Warger, 2001; Ward, Montague, & Linton, 2003). Problems involved in implementing the changes initiated by federal policy include inade- quate preparation and teacher attitudes and be- liefs supporting separate, individualized instruc- tion, curriculum, and assessments for students with disabilities (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003; Ward et al., 2003). Researchers and gov- ernment officials alike are emphasizing the im- portance of teacher preparation as a means to achieve the goals of federal policy (President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; Thurlow et al., 2003). "The adequacy of preparation of beginning special education teach- 66 Action in Teacher Education Vol. 29, No. 4 Address correspondence to Leah Wasburn-Moses, Miami University, Educational Psychology Department, 201 McGuffey Hall, Oxford, OH 45056. E-mail: wasburlh@muohio.edu. Teacher Candidates' Understandings of Instructional Strategies 67 ers to achieve curriculum access and involve- ment of students with disabilities in general ed- ucation rests heavily on teacher education pro- grams" (Otis-Wilbom, Winn, Griffin, & Kilgore, 2005, p. 149). In sum, teacher educators are urged to take responsibility for preparing teachers who have the ability, skills, and atti- tudes necessary to work in reformed contexts (Thompson et al., 2003; Whitten & Rodriguez- Campos, 2003). For example, knowledge of how to provide access to the general education cur- riculum, how to interpret results of statewide as- sessment, and how to adjust for instruction are imperatives for the special educators of today and tomorrow (McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003). In an age in which the entire field of special ed- ucation practice is reorganizing and teacher preparation is under scrutiny for supposed failure to produce quality beginning teachers, the study of new teachers' responses to reform in special education is crucial to the future of the field. The purpose of this study was to assess the understandings of instructional strategies of special education teacher candidates to ex- plore the extent to which such understandings are compatible with the types of understand- ings needed to teach in reformed contexts. Ef- fort was made to include candidates from al- ternative certification programs, given that they represent a growing and highly signifi- cant population of teachers ("Texans Blaze an Alternative Trail," 2004). The study used a vi- gnette assessment to evaluate the understand- ings of instructional strategies of teacher can- didates in the three areas identified as the intersection of Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act and NCLB: con- tent and achievement standards, assessment, and access to the general education curricu- lum (Thurlow & Thompson, 2003). Method Participants The target population for this study was every special education teacher candidate in the state of Texas who was preparing to receive certifica- tion at the end of the 2003-2004 school year. Selecting teachers who will receive certification at the same time circumvents one of the most confounding variables in research involving tra- ditionally and alternatively certified teachers: the problem of unequal populations. (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). One state was selected, as op- posed to multiple states, to minimize the con- founding variable of having various standards and licensure requirements (Geiger, Crutch- field, & Mainzer, 2003). Specifically, Texas was selected for two reasons. First, the state is well known for its long-standing assessment and accountability systems; as such, these concepts are not new to K-12 education professionals in this area. Sec- ond, Texas has the greatest number of alterna- tive certification programs in special educa- tion (National Clearinghouse in Professions on Special Education, 2003a). This popula- tion was therefore selected because of the in- creasing number of teachers who are certified in this manner in special education and gen- eral education. Procedures The data were collected online. Supervisors in the 34 Texas special education teacher prepa- ration programs identified by the National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Edu- cation (2003a, 2003b) were asked to provide the number of individuals in their program who would complete their certification at the end of the 2003-2004 school year. Traditional teacher candidates, defined as those enrolled in an institution of higher education for comple- tion of their first college degree, were finishing their courses of study at various institutions of higher education in the state of Texas. Alter- native candidates, defined as those who were currently teaching and who already held un- dergraduate degrees in another field, were com- pleting their programs and teaching special ed- ucation full-time. The lengths of alternative programs varied but averaged just under 2 years. Solicitation occurred by direct mail and e-mail, with follow-up telephone calls to super- visors who did not respond to the initial solic- itations. Supervisors were asked to forward an 70 LEAH WASBURN-MOSES Table 2. Sample Coding for Question 4: "What Factors Would You Consider When Making Decisions About Participation in State Standardized Testing?" Response Code Category Based on her grade levels Sara should Recommended alternate exam Recommended alternate exam probably take the alternate exam Oral administration for math testing Suggested specific modifications, Suggested specific modifications, would be recommended accommodations accommodations Does she do better in small groups? Learning style Current performance and abilities I would look at the grades and Grades, test scores in classes Current performance and abilities benchmarks taken on those subjects I would consider whether she is able to Abilities and current level of Current performance and abilities understand the questions by herself performance on the state test or whether she can read the grade level test Accommodations should match those Modifications used in the Modifications used in the that have been provided in classroom classroom classroom experiences 6 alternative programs and 9 traditional pro- grams participated in the survey. After two follow-ups, surveys were returned from 194 of the 451 special education teacher candi- dates at participating institutions, compos- ing a 43% overall return rate. Based on available data from the Texas Education Agency (2006a, 2006b), demo- graphics of participants and the settings in which they taught appear to be comparable to teacher and school demographics col- lected by the state of Texas (see Table 3): 83.5% of the participants in the current study were females, compared to 80.6% of special education teachers in Texas (Texas Education Agency, 2006a). Just over half the teachers in the sample (52.1%) were teach- ing or student teaching in elementary schools, whereas 56.2% of all schools in the state of Texas are elementary schools; 19.6% of the teachers were placed in middle schools, whereas 20.9% of the schools in the state are middle schools; and 23.2% were placed in high schools, whereas 22.8% of the schools in Texas are high schools (Texas Ed- ucation Agency, 2006a). Finally, about one third of the participants in the current study (33.5%) were certified through traditional programs, compared to 31.2% of special edu- cation teachers certified in the state of Texas in the 2003-2004 school year (Texas Educa- tion Agency, 2006b). Data on the age of new teachers were unavailable. Responses by Question The first question asked participants what ad- ditional information they wanted from teach- ers before making recommendations to the team. The majority of responses related to cur- rent accommodations and modifications (35.7%) and current academic progress (33.2%; see Table 4). Participants appeared to be concerned with the student's low academic performance. They wanted to know what sup- ports were available in the student's current placements, and they wanted details about her progress within those settings. For example, they asked about tutoring, test administration, grades, and the integrity of implementation of accommodations and modifications. Personal and background issues were addressed in 23.7% of responses. These responses included socioemotional and medical issues, learning style, and issues surrounding her home life. Furthermore, 7.5% of responses asked about the student's response to testing, whether state standardized testing, formal individual testing, or informal testing in the classroom. The second question asked participants to address three important issues for the IEP. Par- ticipants had been provided with basic informa- tion about functioning in academic areas, grades, placement, and results of state testing. Although not all participants provided three is- sues, the most common response related to is- sues surrounding current functioning (30.2%; Table 3. Participant Demographics (in Percentages) Current Study Gender Female Male Missing data Total School type Elementary Middle school High school Missing data Total Certification type Traditional Alternative Missing data Total Age 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+ Missing Total 83.5 13.9 2.6 100.0% 52.1 19.6 23.2 5.2 100.0% 33.5 64.9 1.5 99.9% 55.2 21.6 11.3 8.2 3.6 99.9% Note. Numbers may not sum to 100.0%, because of rounding. Dashes (-) indicate data not available. "Texas Education Agency (2006a). bTexas Education Agency (2006b). Table 4. Responses to Question 1: 'What Additional Information About Sara's Program Would You Want to Ask the Teachers Before Making Recommendations to the Team?" Category n (%) Representative Responses Accommodations, modifications 88 (35.7) Has she had any accommodations or modifications to her lessons or work to help her? What adaptations have been tried and have they been successful? What modifications have been made to the course work and the tests? Current academic progress 80 (33.2) Discuss her progress in her language arts class I would also want to look at some of her work from her other classes In what areas is she receiving the grades she gets or is she receiving D's across the board? Personal, background issues 57 (23.7) What are her parents' feelings about how she is achieving in the classroom? Does she have any vision or hearing problems? How well does she get along with her peers? Response to testing 18 (7.5) How was she tested? Has she been tested and if so what are her scores? When taking the state standardized test did she have alternative testing? Total 241 (100.1) Note. Many participants gave more than one response, thus bolstering the number of responses to that greater than the number of partici- pants (N = 194). Percentage may not sum to 100.0%, because of rounding. Texas Comparison Data 80.6a 19.4 100.0% 56.2a 20.9 22.8 99.9% 31.2b 68.8 100.0% 72 LEAH WASBURN-MOSES see Table 5). These issues included grades, suc- cess with annual goals, and how Sara responded to in-class activities. In 26.3% of responses, participants mentioned the need to assess and target literacy skills. Accommodations and modifications were mentioned in 23.3% of re- sponses. These responses included which ac- commodations and modifications were cur- rently in place for the student and how successful they had been. About one tenth of responses (10.3%) suggested a need to review the student's current placement. These re- sponses suggested the need for a restrictive placement because of low grades or at least the need to review the placement with the possibil- ity of a restrictive placement. Just under one tenth of responses (9.9%) mentioned issues with state assessment. These responses sug- gested that the IEP team recommend an alter- nate state assessment or review modifications and accommodations made on previous state tests. The third question asked participants how they would support the student's reading and writing in the general education classroom. The relevant information contained in the vi- gnette included grade-equivalent scores in reading and writing and that reading, compre- hension, and writing were areas of weakness. The largest portion of responses (43.6%) sug- gested various accommodations and modifica- tions, such as giving hard copies of notes, shortening assignments, and modifying texts (see Table 6). Although these responses are examples of accommodations, 22.3% of re- sponses discussed the need to read to the stu- dent and write for her. For example, partici- pants mentioned allowing oral administration of tests, taped texts, and having assignments read to her. Next, 15% of responses addressed a need for teaching skills and strategies and the need for one-on-one instruction with a teacher or peer. For instance, some partici- pants suggested that the student would benefit from direct literacy instruction and the teach- ing of cognitive strategies for reading. Finally, 9.0% of responses explicitly addressed the need to collaborate with general education colleagues to support the student's reading and writing. Table 5. Responses to Question 2: 'What Are the Three Most Important Issues in Sara's Education That You Think Should Be Addressed in Her Individualized Education Plan, and Why?" Category n (%) Representative Responses Current functioning 79 (30.2) Her present levels of performance What are her specific problems with the content? What stage is Sara at and what does she need to progress? Literacy skills 69 (26.3) Increasing her reading level-this is affecting all of Sarah's education Reading comprehension Reading improvement classes Accommodations, modifications 61(23.3) The current modifications provided Are the modifications in place being implemented correctly? Accommodations Review placement 27 (10.3) Place her in resource-level academics to address her specific needs Which subjects she should be pulled out for if any? All special education classes Issues with state assessment 26 (9.9) Sara should take state tests that would allow her to be successful but at the same time be a true assessment of what she knows Standardized testing Does she qualify for alternative testing in her state? Total 262 (100.0) Note. Many participants gave more than one response, thus bolstering the number of responses to that greater than the number of partici- pants (N = 194). Teacher Candidates' Understandings of Instructwonal Strateges to meet the same academic standards as non- disabled students," "She is not on an equal footing with the rest of her peers," "With a learning disability we cannot expect her to perform the same as non-disabled students," and "She cannot be successful in the same way as non-disabled students." Comments indicat- ing that it is unfair to hold such a student to general education standards included the fol- lowing: "Why should she be expected to do something that she clearly cannot do?" "That's like asking a cat to bark," "It is not right to compare her to a non-disabled student," and "She has proven that she cannot pass in her general academic classes-so why should she be held to the same academic standardsr' Furthermore, participants appeared to be concerned with the student's self-esteem and her need to experience success. This theme was illustrated in explanations regarding why the student should not be held to the same standards as her general education peers. For example, "Sara . . . is not seeing success. As she gets older and this continues to happen she could begin to shut down," "The student will feel bad about herself," and "Sara tries hard and does not see positive results." Finally, chi-square tests did not reveal any differences between responses by alternative and tradi- tional candidates in any question. General Themes Three major themes emerged from partici- pants' responses across all five questions that give insight into their understandings of teaching practices in special education: using accommodations and modifications to bypass a student's disability, using current levels of performance to determine the curriculum and placement for a student, and using special ed- ucation to shelter a student from failure. First, responses related to accommodations and modifications were common responses to each of the four questions addressing the student's IEP and current programming. Participants wanted to know what accommodations and modifications the student was receiving, how they had been implemented, and to what ef- fect. The participants suggested the need for reviewing and possibly changing her current accommodations and modifications. The most common reaction to Question 4 (which asked what factors participants would consider when making decisions about Sara's participation in state testing) was to suggest accommodations and modifications for the testing, such as ex- tended time and having questions read to her. Less than half of responses recommended fac- tors that corresponded to state guidelines, such as current level of performance and grades. Second, participants tied the student's current performance to the curriculum that she should receive, her placement (i.e., self- contained or special education classes versus general education classes), and the level of state test that they recommended for her. They appeared to base decisions on statements about poor grades and below-grade-level achievement. Some participants believed that the student should not be held to the same ac- ademic standards or have access to the same curriculum as nondisabled students. The most common reason for this response was attrib- uted to her disability and low achievement level. Either reviewing current placement or recommending restrictive placement was a major response category for the question ad- dressing the student's IEP needs. Again, when participants were asked what factors they would consider in making decisions about state testing, over one fourth simply recom- mended an alternate exam for the student. Those who gave reasons cited her low ability and performance level. Participants were fairly consistent in how they addressed standards, assessment, and ac- cess. Regarding standards, they did not appear to view them as one set of grade-level expec- tations for everyone in a grade but as multiple sets of benchmarks to be tied to a student's achievement and ability level. For example, one responded, "I believe that Sara should be held accountable for goals and objectives as stated in the IEP's because that is the aca- demic standard proposed," and another said, "I think she should be held to the same academic standards as her skill level ... to hold her ac- countable for the academic standards that go with her age would be a little harsh." Only one 75 76 LEAH WASBURN-MOSES or two participants alluded to standards in each of the other four questions, which did not explicitly address them. Some participants discussed assessment (in terms of standardized testing), even though only one question directly addressed this issue. Again, they primarily appeared to be concerned about making proper decisions about which type of test most closely matched the student's performance level in the class- room and implementing appropriate accom- modations and modifications on state tests. Few discussed tying testing to instruction, cur- ricula, and standards (whether special educa- tion or general education). Regarding access to the general education curriculum, most participants addressed this issue in terms of accommodations and modifi- cations for Sara in the general education class- room. Respondents asked which accommoda- tions and modifications had been targeted for Sara, her response to them, and how they were implemented. Again, responses indicated that some participants believed in questioning and changing the student's placement, most often to a restrictive placement, because of her per- ceived academic limitations. A final theme in the responses involved using special education services to shelter a student from failure. Some expressed that the student needed a restrictive placement to ex- perience success. Many stated that the student needed to take an alternate exam and be granted accommodations to boost her scores and self-esteem. Many participants advocated for individual standards and curriculum to in- crease school success. Discussion This study found a gap between descriptions and predictions of changes in special educa- tion policy and practice and new special edu- cation teachers' understandings about prac- tices in the field. Participants' responses indicated a more individualized approach to special education practice in the three areas assessed than that required by current policy. Strong beliefs on the part of new teachers may further complicate this issue. Conflicts uncov- ered in this study mirror other common ob- stacles in teacher education and continuing tensions between policy and practice. Implica- tions for research and practice in teaching and teacher education are presented. Needs of Standards-Based Reform In the new area of standards-based reform, every child is included in assessment and ac- countability systems and must have access to the general education curriculum. To meet these goals, the Educational Policy Reform Research Institute outlined the knowledge and skills necessary to "support the achieve- ment of academic content standards by stu- dents with disabilities" (Thompson et al., 2003). These guidelines include understand- ing legislation, policy, and standards and rec- ognizing that these apply to every student; de- signing learning environments and planning for instruction in such a way to support the achievement of grade-level academic content standards for all students; developing IEPs that support the achievement of grade-level aca- demic content standards; and making appro- priate assessment participation determinations for students with disabilities. Collaboration between general education and special education is crucial because educa- tors need to possess complex content knowl- edge and deep understandings of students to be successful in this new environment (Ham- merness & Darling-Hammond, 2005). Stan- dards for teacher certification are now linked to standards-based reform (Thompson et al., 2003). In fact, the state of Texas demonstrates an example of this linkage in the Educational Policy Reform Research Institute report. Its most recent state certification examinations for special education teachers, part of the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards, went into effect in fall 2003. The standards for special educators include requirements that new special education teachers have knowl- edge of major legislation affecting students with disabilities; be able to work collabora- tively to design IEP goals and objectives that align with state standards; be able to use infor- Teacher Candidates' Understandings of Instructional Strategies mation from a variety of sources to suggest and implement appropriate accommodations and modifications; and understand the signifi- cance of state testing in planning for students (Thompson et al., 2003). Clearly, Texas has taken these three areas into account when de- signing programs and planning for the educa- tion of new special education teachers. However, participants did not appear to be taking this perspective when planning for stu- dents. For example, they did not tie assess- ment to standards, curriculum, and instruc- tion, nor did they present the factors currently required by the state of Texas for use in mak- ing assessment,related decisions (Texas Assess- ment Program, 2004). Their interpretations ap- peared to be based on individual goals and current and past functioning. Despite this na- tionwide push toward inclusion in general ed- ucation classes and holding all students to a set of uniform standards, many participants in the current study stressed the need to review the student's placement and proposed a sepa- rate placement and separate academic pro- gramming. Many also believed that the stu- dent should be held to different standards and given an alternate state assessment. Some thought that an increase in special services and specialized curricula was necessary to in- crease student success. These views contradict current trends in the field, despite the fact that they are considered legitimate ways to view special education services. At the time of the study, current Texas rules and regulations regarding decision mak- ing surrounding state testing stipulate that committees will make such decisions "based on their knowledge of the child, the child's present levels of performance, and the state adopted curriculum" (Texas Assessment Pro- gram, 2004, p. 1). However, when asked what factors the participants would consider when making such decisions, less than 30% sug- gested consideration of the student's current performance and abilities. Few appeared to be- lieve that the student should be held to grade- level academic standards, and interpretations of "the same academic standards" were varied. Again, these views illustrate the policy-to- practice gap faced by the field of special edu- cation, which has traditionally meant special- ized instruction for students who are seen as being unable to perform to grade-level standards. Teacher Beliefs Some participants seemed adamant that hold- ing students with disabilities to general edu- cation standards was not only impossible but unfair. The fact that special and general edu- cation teachers hold such attitudes toward state-mandated standardized testing is well documented (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003; Crawford, Almond, Tindal, & Hollenbeck, 2002; Ward et al., 2003). Special education teachers often believe that their students should be held to different standards and re- ceive curricula different from those of their general education peers. Special education teachers state a strong belief in individual cur- ricula and individualized instruction (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003; Crawford et al., 2002). Public school teachers soundly reject mandates for special education students outlined in NCLB. [They oppose] man- dating that special education students take the same standardized tests as their general education counterparts. They also oppose mandating that special education instruction be aligned with state academic content standards for students their age. (Belden Russonelo & Stewart, 2003, p. 2) Yet, current policy is in conflict with these fundamental beliefs. A Texas-based survey shows that these ed- ucators' opinions do not differ from those ex- pressed nationally. Specifically, through a sur- vey of 286 general education teachers and 91 special education teachers, Ward et al. (2003) found that teachers do not agree with the practice of standardized testing for their stu- dents. In particular, they believe that the test- ing does not improve student motivation, that it negatively affects inclusive practices, and that it is not a good measure of student learn- ing. Participants in the current study appeared 77 80 LEAH WASBURN-MOSES to meet these needs, researchers and program developers should consider questions such as the following: What types of instruction, activities, and support can aid candidates' under- standings about instructional strate- gies related to standards, assessment, and access as applied to students with disabilities? What types of instruction, activities, and support can lead to candidates' con- sideration of standards, assessment, and access when planning for stu- dents? What types of instruction, activities, and support can aid candidates in navi- gating the positives and negatives of the current reform movement in pur- suit of better student outcomes for students? The current study was also an exploration of a relatively new type of assessment: vignette assessment. Although reliability was estab- lished by Jeffries and Maeder (2004), the use of vignettes as assessments of teachers' under- standings is not used widely in the professional literature. This type of assessment may have implications for large-scale studies in which direct teacher observation is not possible. Vi- gnettes can be seen as an alternative or a sup- plement to common assessments, such as knowledge tests and student test scores. The use of students' standardized test scores to evaluate teachers can be problematic in spe- cial education, where teachers may directly serve students for only a small portion of the day (Brownell & Dingle, 2006). For the pur- poses of the current study, the vignette did ap- pear to uncover several themes that have been reported in other studies and in a rich manner that captures participants' own words. Some further questions for research involving vi- gnettes as teacher education and assessment tools include the following: How can vignettes be used in instruction and assessment of teacher education to deepen and assess teacher candi- dates' understandings of instructional strategies? How can vignettes be used in conjunction with other assessments in such a way as to capture in-depth thought processes? Limitations and Conclusion This study has two major limitations: first, a low response rate and a limited sample and, second, indirect and limited measures. These difficulties affect generalizability, particularly that to different states, types of teacher under- standings, and performances in the field. Par- ticipation in surveys is contingent on partici- pants' interest in the subject matter, difficultly of the task, and amount of effort required (Beatty & Herrmann, 2002). This may ac- count for the low response rate, given that qualitative questions cannot be answered as rapidly as quantitative questions. The use of a computer survey can also serve to limit the length and quality of comments from respon- dents. Additionally, to calculate population size and response rate, this study relied on the National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education database (2003a, 2003b) of teacher preparation programs for the popula- tion of special education teacher preparation programs. Given that the study included indi- viduals from only one state, generalizability to other states is limited. It is well known that what is termed alternative certification varies dramatically across states and even within states (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003). In the case of Texas, such programs were run by edu- cational service centers and universities. Ad- ditionally, the environment in Texas, in its long history of testing, may differ from those of other states (Ward et al., 2003). This history might have affected participants' attitudes and beliefs about testing, causing their responses to compromise generalizability to teacher candi- dates of other states. Second, the survey attempted to assess teacher candidates' understandings of instruc- tional strategies, particularly as they related to standards, assessment, and access to the Teacher Candidates' Understandings of Instructional Strategies 81 general education curriculum. It did not di- rectly measure teachers' practices through use of an observational component. Furthermore, as stated, the online format of the survey pre- cludes in-depth responses. Ideally, probes would assess the deliberation surrounding par- ticipants' responses. The President's Commission on Excel- lence in Special Education (2002) concluded that "the current system of pre-service and in- service education is not sufficient to produce personnel who can ensure students with dis- abilities achieve satisfactory outcomes" (p. 57). The results of this study help to illustrate a gap between policy and practice in teacher education. Coherent teacher education pro- grams, focused on preparing teachers to im- prove student outcomes in an era of standards- based reform, need to be created. Both positive and negative outcomes should be con- sidered. Furthermore, we need to be able to describe good teaching and good teacher edu- cation in these new contexts. Attention should be paid to how to create such positive attributes in traditional and alternative prepa- ration programs that align with effective prac- tices in the field. We should continue to ques- tion whether current policy is in the best interests of the children served. As such, con- tinued advocacy and attention to new policy directions are imperative for all who are in- volved in special education systems. U References Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. E (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing: Teach- ers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384-397. Beatty, P., & Herrmann, D. (2002). To answer or not to answer: Decision processes related to survey item nonresponse. In R. J. A. Little (Ed.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 71-86). New York: John Wiley. Belden Russonello, & Stewart. (2003). Expecta- tions, achievements and challenges: Teaching special education students. Washington, DC: Author. Brownell, M., & Dingle, M. (2006, November). Defining teacher quality in special education: What we have learned about teaching reading. Pa- per presented at the Council for Exceptional Children's Teacher Education Division, San Diego, CA. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative re- search (2nd ed., pp. 509-336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crawford, L., Almond, P., Tindal, G., & Hollen- beck, K. L. (2002). Teacher perspectives on in- clusion of students with disabilities in high- stakes assessments. Special Services in the Schools, 18(2), 95-118. Feistritzer, C. E., & Chester, D. (2003). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information. Geiger, W. L., Crutchfield, M. D., & Mainzer, R. (2003). The status of licensure of special educa- tion teachers in the 21st century (COPSSE Doc- ument No. RS-7E). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Spe- cial Education. Hammerness, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). The design of teacher education pro- grams. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Brans- ford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: John Wiley. Huefner, D. S. (2000). The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under IDEA '97. Jour- nal of Special Education, 33, 195-204. Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of quali- tative research design: Minuets, improvisa- tions, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative re- search (2nd ed., pp. 379-400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jeffries, C., & Maeder, D. W. (2004). Using vi- gnettes to build and assess teacher understand- ings of instructional issues. Professional Educa- tor, 27(1), 17-28. Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges encountered by first- year special education teachers. Journal of Spe- cial Education, 35(2), 66-74. McLaughlin, M., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educa- tional accountability and students with dis- abilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17, 431-451. National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (2003a). Alternative routes to certifi- cation in special education. Retrieved October 82 LEAH WASBURN-MOSES 10, 2003, from http://www.special-ed-careers .org/career_choices/altcert.html National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (2003b). Undergraduate programs in special education. Retrieved December 11, 2003, from http://www.special-ed-careers.org/ career-choices/preparation.html O'Shea, L. J., Stoddard, K., & O'Shea, D. J. (2000). IDEA and educator standards: Special educators' perceptions of their skills and those of general educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 125-141. Otis-Wilborn, A., Winn, J., Griffin, C., & Kilgore, K. (2005). Beginning special educators' forays into general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 143-152. President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing spe- cial education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa- tion Office of Special Education and Rehabil- itative Services. Pugach, M. C. (1992). Uncharted territory: Re- search on the socialization of special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Educa- tion, 15, 133-147. Pugach, M. C., & Warger, C. L. (2001). Curricu- lum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Educa- tion, 22, 194-196. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of re- search on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan. Schwartzbeck, T D. (2003). Targeting subgroups. School Administrator, 60(11), 16-20. Special education at a crossroads. (2004). CEC To- day, 11, 1. Texans blaze an alternative trail. (2004, June 25). Teacher Quality Bulletin, 5. Texas assessment program: TAAS/TAKS, SDAA, LDAA. (2004). Retrieved June 3, 2004, from http://www.mckinneyisd.net/specialed/forms/ SE_004.pdf Texas Education Agency. (2006a). Core products, staff information 2005-2006. Retrieved Octo- ber 11, 2006, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ adhocrpt Texas Education Agency. (2006b). Teacher pro- duction by certification area: Initial certifica- tion count 2003-2004. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/data Thompson, S., Lazarus, S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). Preparing educators to teach students with disabilities in an era of standards-based re- form and accountability. College Park, MD: In- stitute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth. Thurlow, M. L., McLaughlin, M., & Elliott, J. (2003). Accountability and students with disabili- ties: What do we know and what do we not know? College Park: University of Maryland, Educa- tional Policy Reform Research Institute. Thurlow, M. L., & Thompson, S. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Considerations for the assessment of students with disabilities. Retrieved November 13, 2003, from http://www.education.umn .edu/NCEO/Presentations Vehovar, V., Batagelj, Z., Manfreda, K. L., & Zaletel, M. (2002). Nonresponse in web sur- veys. In R. J. A. Little (Ed.), Survey nonre- sponse (pp. 229-242). New York: John Wiley. Ward, M. J., Montague, N., & Linton, T. H. (2003). Including students with disabilities and achieving accountability: Educators' emerging challenge. Corpus Christi: Texas A&M University. Whitten, E., & Rodriguez-Campos. (2003). Trends in the special education teaching force: Do they reflect legislative mandates and legal re- quirements? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 138-145. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (No. R-01-3). East Lansing: Michigan State Uni- versity, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occu- pational stress and burnout among special ed- ucators: A Review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 31, 325-346. Zeichner, K. M., & Schulte, A. K. (2001). What we know and don't know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certifica- tion programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 266-282. Af 44 40 Leah Wasburn-Moses is assistant professor of special education at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Her research interests are in teacher education, special education, and policy.