Playing in Someone Else's Field: Perspectives of Early Career Inclusive Special Educators

This study examined the attitudes of special and general education teachers toward collaboration in an inclusive classroom setting. A semi-structured interview design was used to gain in-depth insights and explore the effectiveness of collaboration between special education and general education teachers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. After an initial screening questionnaire, six educators—four special education teachers and two general education teachers—were chosen for individual telephone interviews. The data revealed four core themes: (1) professional development, (2) limited communication between teachers, (3) insufficient resources, and (4) time constraints. Further investigation of collaborative practices between special and general education teachers is recommended to enhance inclusion.

Teachers’ self-efficacy is important as it affects their views on their ability to teach. In special education, self-efficacy is particularly critical because it helps teachers understand and assist students with special educational needs (SEND). The main objective of the current study was to examine special and general education teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive practices at Greek secondary education schools and how teachers’ age, gender, teaching experience, and training affect their self-efficacy for inclusive practices. The current research is primary, quantitative, correlational, between and within groups, and has a non-experimental design. A sample was conducted by 265 general and special education teachers. The Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale was used to measure teachers’ perceived self-efficacy to implement inclusive classroom practices. Results indicated that teachers of special education presented higher efficacy in using inclusive instructions, collaborating, and dealing with disruptive behaviors. The training was considered a significant factor that affected attitudes of self-efficacy towards inclusive practices. Demographic characteristics, such as age and gender, do not seem to be significant factors in the formation of self-efficacy towards inclusive practices, while the effect of teaching experience in special education was statistically significant on all components of the self-efficacy scale.

Students’ trauma-related behaviors are negatively impacting their academic and social/emotional outcomes in our schools. The effects of student trauma are far-reaching, resulting in behavioral outbursts and poor academic achievement. In order to address the trauma experienced by many of today’s students, and particularly students served in special education, programs that prepare teachers to work in special education should include training in trauma-informed pedagogy. To effectively implement trauma-informed instruction, special education teacher candidates should be provided opportunities to learn about, collaborate on, and implement trauma-informed pedagogy within their teacher preparation coursework, as well as field-based coursework within inclusive general education classrooms. Research suggests that one of the most impactful approaches to trauma-informed instruction for K–12 students utilizes a neurodiversity, growth mindset, strength-based framework, which encourages students to see themselves as powerful and increasingly successful in their academic learning. Gathering together these various insights from theory and research, special education preparation programs should incorporate three principled practices to improve our special education student outcomes: (a) preparation and practice in trauma-informed pedagogy, (b) re-framing K–12 learning to a neurodiversity/growth mindset perspective instead of the deficit perspective more common in special education, and (c) training and practice in authentic adult collaboration because collaboration among educators working with special education students has been shown to be highly effective. In this chapter, I provide definitions of and rationales for each of these principled practices from a graduate-level special education teacher preparation program followed by examples of highly effective instructional tools and activities that instructors may adopt and adapt to enhance their work in both special education and general education teacher preparation programs.

This paper addresses the national quantity demand, supply, and shortage of special education teachers (SETs) in comparison to general education teachers (GETs). The main data source was the 1999–00 Schools and Staffing Survey. Results indicated that the total demand for SETs increased 38% from 240,000 in 1987–88 to 330,000 in 1999–00, a rate of growth greater than the 26% increase observed for GETs. For entering teachers, the reserve pool was the predominant source of supply of both SETs and GETs. However, only 46% of first-time SETs completed extensive teacher preparation with degree majors in their primary areas of teaching, whereas the comparable figure for GETs was 82%. As an indication of the inadequate supply of extensively prepared teachers in special education, about 28% of first-time teachers hired in special education positions had completed teacher preparation in general education. Finally, a modest decline in the supply of degree graduates in special education has occurred since 1997–98 in spite of the increasing quantity demand for entering SETs.

Seventy-five general and 65 special education teachers working in the same 65 elementary schools in 12 different U.S. school districts were surveyed about their mindsets concerning the malleability of writing and intelligence as well as their practices for teaching writing. All teachers taught writing to one or more fourth-grade students receiving special education services, including students with learning disabilities. Both general and special education teachers typically held a growth mindset toward the malleability of writing and intelligence. Collectively, these teachers’ mindsets predicted writing frequency (i.e., frequency of students’ writing) and how often they taught writing skills and processes once variance due to teachers’ preparation, efficacy to teach writing, teaching experience, and type of teacher was first controlled. The observed relationships between teachers’ mindsets and reported practices for teaching writing were not mediated by type of teacher (i.e., general or special education). General and special education teachers did not differ in writing frequency for three types of writing collectively (narrative, informative, and persuasive) or how frequently they made 18 adaptations for teaching writing collectively, but general education teachers reported teaching writing skills and processes more often than their special education counterparts. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are presented.

Tbere has long been concern in special education about the shortage of teachers who are fully certified in their main teaching assignment. Based on a national probability sample of 46,599 public school teachers, this research provides data on the certification status of both special and general education teacbers. Findings are presented for four types of teachers who enter the teaching force each year, and for two types of teachers who continue in public schools from the prior year. Results showed a chronic annual shortage of about 29, 000 fully certified teachers in special education (9.8%), a level that was almost twice the number in general education (5.59%). The shortage of fully certified teachers in special education was attributable mostly to entering teachers (32% not fully certified) and to continuing teachers who had not become established in their teaching positions (14% not fully certified). These percentages were higher than observed in general education, a finding partly due to the higher rate of turnover of teachers in special education. Implications for teacher education, professional development, and retention are discussed.

This current study is an exploratory, secondary data analysis of a survey assessing training, district support, and confidence of school administrators when it comes to special education teacher evaluation. The present study specifically examines (a) if the influence of district training regarding special education teachers influences the confidence of school administrators to evaluate and observe special education teachers, (b) if administrators with a general education credential differ from administrators with a special education credential regarding the type of district support needed to better evaluate special education teachers; and (c) if possessing a special education credential influences an administrator’s confidence when evaluating both general and special education teachers at their school site. Results indicated that district training regarding special education teacher evaluation increased administrator confidence and that administrators with general education credentials desired more district support overall than did their counterparts with a special education credential. The data also showed that administrators with a special education credential felt significantly more confident evaluating special education and general education teachers than did their counterparts from general education backgrounds. Implications for the field of special education evaluation and future directions are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to compare the differences in rural secondary special and general education teachers' perceptions of their efficacy in teaching students in an inclusive classroom. The sample consisted of 148 rural secondary general education and 32 special education teachers. The researchers used an independent-samples t test to determine if there was a difference in the efficacy of student engagement for general and special education teachers. Results indicated there was a significant difference in the efficacy of student engagement for general and special education teachers. The researchers completed further examination using stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine the extent to which teacher characteristics predict efficacy in student engagement. Implications of the findings for policy and practice in rural schools are also discussed.

Studies have reported higher levels of absenteeism due to illness among special education teachers compared to other teachers, but it is not known which factors might contribute to this difference. We examined whether health, health behaviors, and exposure to violence at work differed between special education and general education teachers in Finnish basic education. Survey data from 5760 general and special education teachers were analyzed with multilevel logistic models adjusted for individual- and school-level confounding factors. No difference was found between the health behaviors of general and special education teachers. The differences in physical and mental health between the two groups were also relatively small. With regard to work-related violence, however, male special education teachers were 3 times more likely to be exposed to mental abuse, and 5 times more likely to be exposed to physical violence when compared to their male colleagues in general education. Although female special educators were also at an increased risk of mental abuse and physical violence compared to their female general teacher colleagues, their odds ratios for such an encounter were smaller (2- and 3-fold, respectively) than those of male special education teachers. The school-level variance of physical violence toward teachers was large, which indicates that while most schools have little physical violence toward teachers, schools do exist in which teachers' exposure to violence is common. These findings suggest that special education teachers may benefit from training for handling violent situations and interventions to prevent violence at schools.

Although teaching is considered a high-stress profession, research on stress-related outcomes among teachers, such as absence from work due to illness (i.e. sickness absence), remains scarce. It is possible that teachers are not a homogeneous group but include subgroups with particularly high risk of sickness absence, such as special education teachers. To examine differences in sickness absence rates between special and general education teachers in a large cohort of 2291 Finnish lower secondary school teachers. Register data on teachers' job titles, sociodemographic characteristics and sickness absence were obtained from 10 municipal employers' registers. Indices of sickness absence included rates of short-term (1-3 days) and long-term (>3 days) absence spells during 2003-05. With multi-level models adjusted for individual- and school-level covariates, we found that although the absolute level of sickness absence was higher among women than among men, male special education teachers were at a 1.36-fold (95% CI: 1.15-1.61) increased risk of short-term and a 1.33-fold (95% CI: 1.01-1.76) increased risk of long-term sickness absence compared with male teachers in general education. Among women, there were no differences in sickness absence between special and general education teachers. Compared to male teachers in general education, male teachers in special education appear to have an excess risk of absence from work due to illness. Future studies should examine the causes for this excess risk and determine the need for preventive interventions.

To improve educational services to students with disabilities, the United States government has mandated that each state develop a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development. The following article highlights the results of a state-wide needs assessment conducted by one state's Department of Education in order to tailor their system of personnel development. Four percent of the state's general educators, and 6% of the state's special education teachers completed the surveys for a total of 289 surveys. Perceptions of ability to positively affect students, understanding of inclusion, self-efficacy in serving students in inclusive settings, the need for inservice training in various areas, and the availability of supports to promote inclusion were examined for both special and general education teachers. In every area assessed, special education teachers rated their efficacy, ability, understanding, and resources higher than general education teachers. These results are discussed in terms of meeting professional development needs for both groups of teachers.

The main aim of this article is to examine whether self-efficacy in the collaboration between general and special education teachers translates into the quality of teaching practice in co-taught classes and, if so, whether the benefits of co-teaching experienced by teachers mediate this relationship. The study involved 335 special education and general teachers from Polish primary schools. The results show that self-efficacy in collaboration is a predictor of the quality of teaching practice as assessed by teachers of both groups; this relationship is mediated by the benefits experienced from co-teaching. The relationship between efficacy in collaboration and teaching practices is stronger for general than for special education teachers. It is noted that special education teachers experience more benefits from co-teaching than do general education teachers. The implications for practice are discussed.

New special education teachers beginning their career field have many job-related responsibilities and activities to adjust to and learn about. The most important success factor of special education teachers' job is collaboration.Collaboration happens constantly when teaching students with disabilities. In particular, collaboration is an important job responsibility of a special education teacher (Rapert, 2018). The purpose of the current survey study was to provide guidance and explore various collaboration strategies and areas new special educators struggle with. The ultimate purpose of this research was to aid in the development of a collaborative handbook, describing the core components collaboration and providing resources to help support new special education teachers in those identified core components.<br>This study had twenty four potential teacher participants in a Midwestern junior high school. Fourteen teachers voluntarily completed a needs assessment survey. The survey includes twelve questions about collaboration and communication in their school. Fourteen teachers provided their viewpoints of collaboration and communication in their school. Results showed that teachers see the following as core collaboration and communication components for successful collaboration: (1) an equal partnership between special education and general education teachers, (2) adequate preparation time, (3) consistent collaboration, and (4) effective communication strategies. Another interesting finding is that only three out of fourteen teachers indicated they agreed that special education teachers and general education teachers were viewed as equal partners in the classroom. Other findings are about lack of time, the existence of a regular collaboration and communication method. Twelve teachers indicated they had a lack of time in order to collaborate and plan with the special education teachers. Six out of fourteen teachers reported that regular collaboration happened between both general and special education teachers. Eleven teachers indicated e-mailing is the easiest way to communicate. <br>Based on the survey responses and receiving wide responses about teacher’s viewpoints regarding collaboration and communication in their building, a guide to help new special education teachers successfully collaborate with all teachers would be beneficial. Giving a new teacher the tools to be successful in an already challenging position, can increase their confidence and understanding of what is expected in the building. Outlining the best way to communicate, and collaborate with all teachers in the building including teachers who many not directly work with special education students daily. The handbook guides and walks through how to set up conferences and meetings with staff and parents of the student. Given a guide on who to contact, when to contact, and having a checklist prior to setting up one of the various meetings a special educator conducts can help a new teacher tremendously in feeling confident and understanding the building procedures. With the approval from the junior high schools principal this handbook was created to guide new teachers at the specific junior high school. <br>

The well-documented special education teacher shortage in the U.S. has significant negative consequences for students with disabilities who require specially designed instruction from special education teachers. To address this shortage, special education teacher preparation programs should explore innovative approaches to recruiting and training future special education teachers. One such approach is the paraeducator-to-teacher (PTT) pipeline in which paraeducators complete preservice coursework and on-the-job training to earn their special education certification. In this article, we present two PTT pipelines that exist within one special education teacher preparation program. First, we review the literature on PTT pipelines and their efficacy in building the field. Next, we provide an overview of the special education teacher preparation program of interest and its state context, followed by descriptions of the program’s two PTT pipelines. We then discuss the levers that support implementation of each PTT pipeline. Finally, we present considerations for special education teacher preparation programs to ensure PTT pipelines expand the special education teaching workforce with well-prepared, high-quality special education teachers equipped to support students with disabilities.

Event Abstract Back to Event From Sweden to South Africa: 14,500 km of Diversity in Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs Gail Coulter1, M. C. Lambert1 and M. Lynn Woolsey2* 1 Western Washington University, United States 2 Emirates College for Advanced Education, United Arab Emirates Background Special education teacher preparation programs vary widely across the world. This research highlights the commonalities, differences and innovative practices of special education preparation programs from a variety of selected universities from North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Goals of the Study The purpose of the comparison is to identify and share effective practices and pioneering ideas about how best to prepare special education teachers to serve students with disabilities. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate and facilitate an international conversation about how the field prepares teachers for students with special needs so that we can learn from each other. Method This study included three types of data collection: 1.) Review of 115 College and University Websites, 2.) a 9 question survey and 3.) 48 selected in-depth e-mail conversations. Results included 48 personal responses representing 26 programs across Asia, Australia, North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Summary of Results Of the 48 responses, 20 of them were consistent across all dimensions. Consistent responses were from programs undergraduate/post baccalaureate and Master’s degree. Major differences between programs and countries included the fact that in more programs than not, any teacher can teach any child—including a child with disabilities. More programs were delivered in a hybrid fashion than a face-to-face model. Slightly more programs offered an Inclusive focus rather than a Generalist or Specialist focus. Sadly, in many programs, no practicum opportunities are offered. Although there are similarities across programs and across the world in SPED teacher preparation, some of the differences in training, such as no practicum offers and a license to teach any child regardless of disability, can mean that teachers walk into the classroom woefully underprepared to work with children who have disabilities. Conclusions Approximately 93 million children in the world have a disability but the prevalence could be even higher (UNICEF, 2018). The specialized training of their teachers varies across program, across countries and across continents. This study is an initial attempt to document the state of Special Education Teacher Training across multiple countries. Through the establishment of connections we hope to lay the foundation for future collaborations and research. Figure 1 References UNICEF (2017). Disabilities in programmes. UNICEF. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/disabilities/index_65304.html Keywords: international special education, Training for Inclusive Education, Special Education Teacher Training Programs, International Teacher Training, Special education teacher training Conference: 4th International Conference on Educational Neuroscience, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 10 Mar - 11 Mar, 2019. Presentation Type: Poster Presentation Topic: Educational Neuroscience Citation: Coulter G, Lambert MC and Woolsey M (2019). From Sweden to South Africa: 14,500 km of Diversity in Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs. Conference Abstract: 4th International Conference on Educational Neuroscience. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2019.229.00029 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 05 Mar 2019; Published Online: 27 Sep 2019. * Correspondence: Dr. M. Lynn Woolsey, Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, drmarylynnwoolsey@gmail.com Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Gail Coulter M. C Lambert M. Lynn Woolsey Google Gail Coulter M. C Lambert M. Lynn Woolsey Google Scholar Gail Coulter M. C Lambert M. Lynn Woolsey PubMed Gail Coulter M. C Lambert M. Lynn Woolsey Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.