Contributions from: Welch and Nagle
Abstract
The first part of this presentation explores two forces for change that are acting upon teacher education programs in the United States: policy-directed and field-initiated. In the past decade, the federal government has made several somewhat meagre attempts at influencing general education reform (e.g. Goals 2000: Educate America Act) through the establishment of voluntary content and performance standards for students. In direct contradiction to its "voluntary" orientation with general education, the federal government has been very prescriptive relative to special education reform. The 1997 amendments to IDEA mandate access to the mainstream curriculum and demand that students with disabilities be included in state-wide assessments and accountability systems. IDEA, coupled with the increasing numbers of children from diverse ethnic backgrounds and those at-risk of educational failure, has led to the expectation that U.S. schools must be more responsive to the needs of all students. A corollary expectation is that universities and colleges must also become more responsive by re-conceptualising the way general and special education teachers are prepared.
The second part of the presentation addresses a cross-disciplinary model for teacher education reform developed at the University of Utah: Professional Interdisciplinary Education (PIE). The critical elements of the PIE model include: (a) a common core of knowledge and skills taught to all general and special education teacher candidates, (b) the use of differentiated teaching materials and approaches that are focused on creating access to a meaningful curriculum, (c) advanced preparation within specialization areas (e.g. elementary education, secondary education and special education), and (d) the placement of integrated (both general and special education) cohorts working together in fie Id sites (e.g. professional development schools).
The presentation concludes with an interactive session on reactions to the PIE model, differing perspectives on the future of teacher education programs, and implications for teacher education in a continuum of professional development (pre-service, induction, career advancement).
Policy-Directed and Field-Initiated Change in the Preparation of General and Special Education Teachers
As suggested by a recent report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (The National Commission, 1996), higher education needs to rethink the way it is preparing both general and special education teachers. Historically, preservice preparation in general and special education have existed, for the most part, in isolation of each other. While special education has developed its training programs around the disability-deficit paradigm (learning differences and their concomitant problems reside solely within each child), general education has concentrated on preparing teachers to work in content areas with little attention to individual type or rate of learning. This paper explores two parallel forces for change that are acting upon teacher education programs in the United States: policy-directed and field-initiated. A cross-disciplinary model for teacher education reform currently under development at the University of Utah is presented as an example of how one institution of higher education is responding to the call for reform.
Federal Policy-Directed Initiatives
Recent U.S. federal policy initiatives (i.e., The 1997 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA-97] and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) are forcing significant changes in the way general and special education teachers approach instruction for students with disabilities in the public schools. Research suggests that the participation of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum and statewide assessments of student performance has varied considerably from state to state and district to district (Erickson, 1998; Erickson, Thurlow, & Thor, 1995; McLaughlin, 1998). The National Research Council (1997) indicates there is ample anecdotal evidence that states and local school districts have been keeping students with disabilities out of their accountability systems because of fears that they lower scores.
In response to these concerns, IDEA-97 requires that a student's individualized education program (IEP) must describe how the disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. In addition, the IEP goals must enable the child to access the general education curriculum when appropriate. The law requires an explanation of any individual modifications in the administration of state- or district-wide assessment of student achievement that are needed in order for the child to participate. To facilitate access to the general curriculum and participation in the state's accountability system, IDEA-97 also requires general education teachers to be members of the student's IEP team. Huefner (2000) suggests that the changes in IDEA 97 requiring general education teachers to be members of the IEP team provide a "new leverage to obtain the supports they [general education teachers] need to be effective with special education students" (p. 203). General educators will be in a better position to share their knowledge and insight on individual students and provide important information on how the student will fare in the general education curriculum and classroom setting.
Federal policy in general education, specifically recent changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), has also reflected the need for a more unified approach to teaching students with disabilities. For example, Title 2 of the ESEA states "All students can learn and achieve to high standards" (Subpart I, Section 211[1]). ESEA goes on to indicate that "professional development activities should improve the ability of [general education] teachers to help all students, including children with disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, and economically disadvantaged children, reach high State academic standards . . . professional development activities should involve collaborative groups of teachers and administrators" (Subpart I, Section 211[4A].
Hardman, McDonnell, and Welch (1998, p. 9) suggest three reasons why teacher education programs in general and special education must respond to these policy initiatives and finally come together in the preparation of new teachers:
Traditional Courses for Prospective General Education Teachers
Teacher preparation programs in general education often include a single course intended to provide prospective teachers with skills to meet the broad needs of students with disabilities. Jones and Messenheimer-Young (1989) identified two predominant types of special education course work required for prospective general education teachers. One is a course on exceptionalities that focuses primarily on legislation, characteristics, and traditional categories with little emphasis on adaptive instructional techniques that can be used in mainstream settings. Such courses typically provide little or no information regarding curricular and instructional adaptation to meet the academic needs of students with disabilities. Teacher candidates exit this course with definitions of disabling conditions and legal guidelines but few, if any, skills related to instructional strategies.
Conversely, the second type of course typically is designed to provide teacher candidates with information on how to modify and adapt curriculum, instruction, and learning environments (Jones & Messenheimer-Young, 1989). While adaptive mainstreaming courses attempt to provide teacher candidates with specific strategies they also may use in their classrooms, this type of course fails to promote collaboration with other professionals such as special educators. These courses do not promote educational partnerships that would enable educators to collaborate with other professionals in the schools. Welch and Sheridan (1993) suggested that this type of course may perpetuate a feeling of isolation and lack of support.
The results of a comprehensive national survey of teacher education programs revealed that preservice general educators in the U.S. felt ill-equipped to teach students with special needs (Goodlad & Field, 1993). Another study found similar results in that practicing general education teachers considered their preservice course work as being inadequate in providing information and skills to serve students with disabilities (Phillips, Allred, Brulle, & Shank, 1990).
Traditional Courses for Prospective Special Educators
Baumgart and Ferguson (1991) suggest that special educators have "sought badges of identity that would secure their special status within the larger group" of education (p. 331). By developing a unique body of expertise and skill, special education separated itself from general education in teacher education and practice in the field. While general education created a distinction between elementary and secondary, special education created an internal categorized system according to disabling labels (Baumgart & Ferguson, 1991). The categorical view reflects a focus on etiology, characteristics, and strategies for specific categories of disabilities (Goodlad & Field, 1993). Consequently, prospective special educators entered and exited categorical preservice preparation programs that focused on service delivery for specific segments of the disabled student population (Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 1992).
Historically, prospective special educators have been prepared to individualize instruction often using methods and techniques that are not applicable nor generalizable to classroom settings (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989). Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1982) listed some of these special interventions including optometric vision training, visual perception training, auditory perception training, perceptual motor training, and psycholinguistic training. Special educators have traditionally provided educational services in segregated settings (Haring & Billingsley, 1984). These services are detailed in the student's IEP. Therefore, prospective special educators learn to become managers of the IEP. The objectives on the IEP typically included specialized interventions that are implemented in special segregated settings. Consequently, teacher candidates in special education preparation programs are not usually provided skills that would enable them to work with classroom teachers since that was not perceived as part of their role. Furthermore, unless special educators received training in general education, they often have little or no ideas of the realities of the general education classroom (Sindelar, Pugach, Griffin, & Seidl, 1995).
The historical paradigms of preparation programs in general and special education appear to be inadequate in meeting the needs of teachers and students alike. "To the extent that teachers are trained and socialized to expect that there are two types of students (and teachers) - normal and special - general education teachers will perceive that they are incapable of teaching special students" (Roach, 1991, p. 4).
alternative approaches to prepare educators to meet the diverse needs of all students, including those with students with disabilities. In addition to the two predominate types of courses completed by teacher candidates in general education, some programs now include a course on educational partnerships that is required for teacher candidates in both general and special education. In this course, teacher candidates learn a variety of methods during field-based activities to collaborate in the classroom, school, and community to meet the needs of all students (Welch & Sheridan, 1993).
Field Perspectives on the Need to Reform Teacher Education Programs
Including students with diverse learning needs in all aspects of school life is a continual process rather than a specific event (Hewitt, 1999) or a new program (Brady, Hunter, & Campbell, 1997). This process is viewed with considerable trepidation from public education because it requires such dramatic change in current educational practice. The purpose of this section is to provide a field-based perspective on the knowledge and skills needed by both general and special educators in order to create schools that offer equity and excellence for all students.
Curriculum
Inherent in the IDEA-97 requirement for access to the general curriculum and participation in state and district assessments is the understanding that students with disabilities must have the opportunity to learn the same material and be held to the same standards as their nondisabled peers (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1999; National Research Council, 1997). In order to fulfill this requirement, teacher candidates in special education will need to understand the link between standards assessment, accountability, individualization and the daily content of their instruction (Kilgore & Griffin, 1998; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1999; National Research Council, 1997). General education teacher candidates will need to understand how to universalize or adapt curriculum for students with disabilities, as well as how IEP goals can be infused across the content areas.
Several researchers have suggested that both general and special educators are concerned about the IDEA-97 requirement that students with disabilities must be included in state and district-wide testing. One fear is that participation in normative assessments of academic achievement will damage the student's self esteem and the image of the school; another is the belief that teaching to the general curriculum will be at the expense of more functional needs (Geenan & Ysseldyke, 1997; McLaughlin, Henderson, & Rhim, 1998; National Research Council, 1997). General and special educators need to know the type of accommodation and modifications that can be made to standardized tests so that the validity of the tests is not compromised. They will also need to utilize alternative assessment techniques such as authentic and functional assessments or portfolios.
Pedagogy
Separate professional preparation programs have created the belief that the knowledge and skills required by special education and general education teachers are highly distinct. General educators have traditionally focused on a "whole group" perspective with regard to curriculum development. The emphasis is on constructivist pedagogies in the ascendency, while neglecting classroom management and discipline issues. Special educators, on the other hand, are prepared to focus more on teaching explicit skills through direct instruction or applied behavior analysis (Kilgore & Griffin, 1998), individualized needs, and intensity of instruction (National Research Council, 1997) with little emphasis on the larger curriculum issues.
Every educator needs information on the learning principles behind various pedagogical methods and to learn new ways of teaching students with diverse learning styles (McGregor et al. 1998). Constructivist models, thematic approaches, cooperative learning and a curriculum that is based on multiple intelligence theory must be married with co-teaching strategies, peer tutor systems and positive behavioral interventions. However, the most important point is that all teachers must be grounded in different pedagogical approaches in order to create an understanding of the interconnectedness of curriculum and instruction.
Collaboration
Collaboration capitalizes on the skills and expertise of general and special educators and is a critical feature in the successful inclusion of students with diverse needs in a general education setting (Beloin & Peterson, 1998; Hardman, McDonnell, & Welch, 1998; McGregor et al., 1998; Wood, 1998). Collaborative teams encourage feelings of positive interdependence, promote creative problem solving, merge the unique talents of skillful educators and lead to an acceptance of mutual responsibility for student learning (McLaughlin et al. 1998; Wood, 1998).
Adopting a collaborative mode requires a radical change in the way educators think and behave and in the way schools are organized. General and special education teachers are prepared quite differently, use distinctive professional language, and largely inhabit different educational terrains. General educators are often not familiar with the roles of consultation and collaboration, and even regard each other as different species (Janney & Snell, 1997; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998; Skrtic, 1991). This can cause considerable conflict in terms of role distinction and territoriality for both general and special educators (Wood, 1998).
School Organization
The traditional organizational structure of schools decoupled special education from general education and led to a dysfunctional relationship (Pugach, 1988; Skrtic, 1991). Thus, neither general educators nor special educators find it easy to understand or to assimilate easily into the new and foreign culture of inclusive education (Goessling, 1998). Educators in both fields have different beliefs and expectations concerning the norms of collegiality, the relationship between faculty and administration, and the organization of special services within the school (Kilgore & Griffin, 1998). In addition, general and special educators have different traditions, rituals, symbols and languages (Goessling, 1998).
In a dual education system, special educators and their students do not take part in the full life of the school and are not socialized in the same way as their general education peers. General educators still perceive special education as a safety valve (Tomlinson, 1982), and that the primary role of special educators is to prevent students with disabilities from disrupting the education of other students (Hewitt, 1999; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998). Although many special educators are physically located in mainstream schools, in many respects, they are not part of the school culture. Clearly, a fundamental purpose of the new IDEA-97 requirements (i.e., general educators must be part of the IEP team; students with disabilities must have access to the general curriculum; and no student will be left out of the state or district accountability system) is to alter the perceptions of general educators relative to the role and function of special education teachers. Teachers will need to understand the organizational structure of both systems, as well as the have the ability to move comfortably between the two cultures until a third school culture is created: one that incorporates the best of both (Goessling, 1998).
The University of Utah Professional Interdisciplinary Education Model
As this new century begins, general and special education are moving in tandem toward an increasing emphasis on improving student results and system-wide accountability. The inclusion of students with disabilities in the reform rhetoric creates the timely opportunity to consider the needs of a diverse and often neglected student population within the context of teacher education (Strawderman & Lindsey, 1995). Emerging practice is focused on preparing all prospective teachers to work together as partners in meeting the needs of all students in a unified system (Downing & Bailey, 1990; Welch & Sheridan, 1995). This approach reflects and combines what Strawderman and Lindsey (1995) identified as three trends in the preparation of new teacher candidates: 1) infusion of special education course work into existing course work, 2) restructuring field experiences to include work with special populations, and 3) implement cross-disciplinary training.
In response to the expectation that universities and colleges must become more responsive to broad-based educational reform by reconceptualizing the way all teachers are prepared, the University of Utah is developing a "Professional Interdisciplinary Education Model" (PIE). The critical elements of PIE include: (a) a common core of knowledge and skills taught to all general and special education teacher candidates, (b) the use of differentiated teaching materials and approaches that are focused on creating access to a meaningful curriculum, (c) advanced preparation within specialization areas (e.g., elementary education, secondary education and special education), and (d) the placement of integrated (both general and special education) cohorts working together in field sites (e.g., professional development schools) (See Figure 1 below).
Common Core of Knowledge
PIE is premised on the need to merge preservice curricula and field experiences for general and special education teacher candidates. In developing PIE, critical knowledge and skills common to general and special education were identified. All teacher candidates are required to complete courses in the common core during their first year followed by a preparation program in their areas of specialization (e.g., elementary, secondary, or special education).
Social and organization foundation.
This course serves as an overview of the history, philosophy, and sociology of education. Building on this foundation, teacher candidates employ an organizational development and systems theory approach to gain an understanding of external and internal influences on the school and classroom. This includes cultural and systemic factors. The course includes a macro-perspective of school structure as well as micro-perspective of classroom ecology.
examination of child/adolescent development.
A significant component of the course is consideration of individual differences. It is from this context that characteristics of a diverse student population are explored. This includes a cross-categorical perspective that considers a student's interaction with the environment. The course will examine the ecology of learning and classroom properties that will accommodate individual differences.
Instruction and curriculum.
Models of instructional design and curricula are introduced in this course. Pedagogical factors that predict student success will be considered. The course will include an overview of various strategies that can be used for adapting instruction and curriculum.
Assessment and analytical methods. The course on assessment and analytical methods consists of two parts: research and practice. The research portion of the course will provide a theoretical perspective of various assessment procedures to help the teacher candidate become informed consumers of assessment procedures. A variety of approaches include action research, curriculum-based assessment, authentic assessment (portfolio), reflection, outcome-based assessment/criterion-referenced tests, and norm-referenced assessment.
The practice portion of the course will present the purpose and function of assessment. This will include an examination of the selection, administration, and interpretation of various assessment techniques that can be used to plan instruction as well as monitor student progress. Teacher candidates will also learn how various assessment procedures can be used to identify students who might be eligible for various support systems, such as special education programs.
Collaboration and partnerships.
The premise of this course is that classroom teachers cannot meet the needs of children with disabilities on their own. The various roles of educators from various disciplines will be examined to gain a greater understanding of the human resources within the school that can be used to forge partnerships in meeting the needs of a diverse student population. Teacher candidates will review various models and approaches that can be used in collaborative partnerships. These include collaborative problem solving, teacher assistance teams, collaborative consultation, and team-teaching. Specific skills in the areas of interpersonal communication and conflict management will also be developed in this course.
Legal foundations.
A variety of legal issues will be examined in this course. Preprofessionals will gain insight regarding the rights of students, parents, and educators. This examination includes various litigation in special education (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), Chapter I (Education Consolidation and Improvement Act), and bilingual education (Bilingual Education Act of 1968). Other professional issues such as confidentiality and censorship will also be explored.
Student and environmental management.
A variety of theoretically-based models for managing students and classrooms will be presented. Teacher candidates will examine the ethics, policies, and procedures regarding the management of challenging student behavior. The course will include skills for managing ecological factors within various learning environments. The course will also present a variety of strategies for teaching social competence for students with disabilities.
Preparing Special Education Teachers as School Support Specialists
Beyond the common core, teacher education candidates move into specialization courses and field experiences in three areas: elementary education, secondary education, and special education. Although teacher candidates take courses specific to their emphasis area (e.g., special education), all candidates come together in professional development schools during field experiences and student teaching.
school support specialists in three domains (academic, challenging behavior, and functional life skills). Students may choose an emphasis in either elementary or secondary education programs. In addition to content specific skills, prospective special education teachers are prepared to meet the responsibilities of four professional roles: instructor, collaborator, consultant, and coordinator (Building Partnerships, 1997).
In the role of instructor, the special education teacher must be able to understand and apply specialized instructional techniques, including accommodation and adaptation of classroom environments, teaching methods, and curriculum to meet individual student needs. The teacher must effectively work with students in academic and/or adaptive skill content areas. Academic content areas include basic, remedial, or adaptive skill instruction in reading, mathematics, language, etc. Adaptive skill domains include areas such as learning strategies, social skills, self-care, health and safety, employment training, recreation/leisure, and socialization. As an instructor, the teacher must foster student self-determination, self-management, and choice-making while applying methods to motivate learning, and promote individual student participation.
In the role of collaborator (in partnership with parents and other school professionals), the special education teacher must be able to apply multiple assessment techniques in identifying the educational needs of students with diverse learning and behavioral needs, and link assessment techniques to appropriate curriculum and instruction. As a collaborator, the teacher is able to apply effective problem-solving strategies to facilitate the academic and/or adaptive skill development of students with diverse learning and behavioral needs across a variety of educational environments. In conjunction with general education colleagues, the special education teacher co-teaches students who have diverse learning and behavioral needs across a variety of subject areas using large and small group teaching methods. Teaching methods include direct instruction, cooperative group techniques, activity-based approaches, and other appropriate techniques to motivate students and encourage responding. As a collaborator, the teacher also works with guidance personnel and other educators to develop teaching strategies that will foster the valuing and acceptance of diversity. Finally, the teacher must be able to apply effective accountability procedures for evaluating individual student progress and long-term results.
In the role of consultant, the special education teacher must be able to serve as an expert resource and trainer for school personnel and parents on effective instructional practices for students with disabilities. Expertise may be provided in both content areas (such as effective approaches to teaching reading to students with disabilities) and/or problem-solving skills (such as strategies to motivate students to participate in class activities).
In the role of coordinator, the special education teacher must be able take the lead responsibility for organizing the activities of the school team relative to the development, implementation and evaluation of student IEPs. Teachers must be able to efficiently utilize school resources relative to the needs of students with disabilities. The teacher also coordinates the supervision of paraprofessionals, peer support, volunteers, etc., and facilitates positive communication with parents.
In the role of coordinator, the special education teacher must be able take the lead responsibility for organizing the activities of the school team relative to the development, implementation and evaluation of student IEPs. Teachers must be able to efficiently utilize school resources relative to the needs of students with disabilities. The teacher also coordinates the supervision of paraprofessionals, peer support, volunteers, etc., and facilitates positive communication with parents.
PIE As One Component of a Professional Development Curriculum
The professional development of general and special education teachers must be seen from a longitudinal perspective. The common core and specialization components of PIE are the initial phase in a three phase process that extends throughout a teacher's career. As suggested by Hardman et al. (1998) the mentoring and evaluation of teacher candidates should be initiated from the beginning of a student's preservice program and remain in place for an induction period of at least one year following certification. Beyond the induction period, continuing and coordinated professional development activities between higher education and the schools must be an integral part of every teacher's career.
References
Baumgart, D., & Ferguson, D.L. (1991). Personnel preparation: Directions for the next decade. In L.H. Meyer, C.A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 313-352). Baltimore, Paul H. Brooks.
Beloin, K., & Peterson, M. (1998). Teaching the inclusive teacher: restructuring the mainstreaming course in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 4, 306-318.
Brady, M. P. , Hunter, D. , & Campbell, P. C. (1997). Why so much confusion? Debating and creating inclusive schools. The Educational Forum, 61, 240-6. Building partnerships: Preparing special education teachers for the 21st century. (1997) Washington, D.C.: Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Downing, J., & Bailey, B.R. (1990). Sharing the responsibility: Using a transdisciplinary approach to enhance the learning of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1, 259-278.
Erickson, R.N. (1998). Special education in an era of school reform: Accountability, standards, and assessment. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Resource Center.
Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Thor, K. (1995). 1994 state special education outcomes. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Geenan, K. , & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). Educational standards and students with disabilities. The Educational Forum, 61, 220-229.
Goessling, D. P. (1998). Inclusion and the challenge of assimilation for teachers of students with severe disabilities. Journal for the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 3, 238-251
Goodlad, J.I., & Field, S. (1993). Teachers for renewing schools (pp. 230-243). In J.I. Goodlad & T.C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and special education. New York: Merrill.
Hardman, M.L., McDonnell, J., & Welch, M. (1998). Preparing special education teachers in an era of school reform. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Resource Center.
Hardman, M.L., McDonnell, J., & Welch, M. (1998). Preparing special education teachers in an era of school reform. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Resource Center.
Hewitt, M. (1999). Inclusion from a general educator's perspective. Preventing school Failure, 43(3), 133-34.
Huefner, D. S. (2000). Getting comfortable with special education law: A framework for working with children with disabilities. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers.
Janney, R. E. , & Snell, M. E. (1997). How teachers include students with moderate and severe disabilities in elementary classes: The means and meanings of inclusion. Journal for the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 3, 159-169.
Jones, S.D., & Messenheimer-Young, T. (1989). Content of special education courses for preservice regular education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 154-159.
Kilgore, K. L. , & Griffin, C. C. (1998). Beginning special educators: problems of practice and the influence of school context. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 3, 155-173.
Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1989). The current situation. In D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality and education for all (pp. 3-24). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
McGregor, G. , Halvorsen, A. , Fisher, D. , Pumpian, I. , Bhaerman, B. , & Salisbury, C. (1998). Professional development for "all" personnel in public schools. CISP Issue Brief, 3, 3, 1-12. EDRS ED: 429405.
McLaughlin, M. (1998). Special education in an era of school reform: An overview. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Resource Center.
McLaughlin, M.J. , Henderson, K. , & Rhim, L. M. (1998). Snapshots of reform: How five local school districts are interpreting standards-based reform for students with disabilities. Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform. EDRS ED 423653.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (1999). Linkage of the IEP to the general education curriculum. Quick turn around forum. Department of Education, Washington, DC. EDRS ED: 428489.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future: Summary report. New York: Author.
National Research Council. (1997). Educating one and all. Students with disabilities and standards- based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Phillips, W.L., Allred, K., Brulle, A.R., & Shank, K.S. (1990). The regular education initiative: The will and skill of regular educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 182-186.
Pugach, M. C. (1988). Special education as a constraint on teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 3, 52-59.
Roach, V. (1991, October). Special education: New questions in an era of reform. Issues in Brief, 11(6), 1-7.
Sindelar, P., Pugach, M., Griffen, C., & Seidel, B. (1995). Reforming teacher education: Challenging the philosophy and practices of educating regular and special educators. In J.L. Paul, H. Rosselli, & D. Evans (Eds.), Integrating school restructuring and special education reform (pp. 140-166). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Skirtic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education. A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
Strawderman, C., & Lindsey, P. (1995). Keeping up with the times: Reforms in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 95-100.
Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. London: Kegan Paul. Welch, M., & Sheridan, S.M., (1993). Educational partnerships in teacher education: Reconceptualizing how teacher candidates are prepared for teaching students with disabilities. Action in Teacher Education, 15, 35-46.
Wood, M. (1998). Whose job is it anyway? Educational roles in inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64, 2, 181-195.
Ysseldyke, J.E., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Critical issues in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M.L. (1992). Critical issues in special education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
 |
 |