fivn

 

I
.tr
: a.
{Auk ‘
.mwi xi
.. : 2....
39...}...
. 1...?» ..

 

.. . ..... E. .
w??? z»:
a. n .x
., e.

_
O
:..
a bag?
magnum».
, r1

 

‘. . .. in)! |~
‘ “waviflaruiinlhnhhh
A. :u. In which
if? .3
.1}. 2m. .

.t

as:
i:.o...,.%tJ§:. .(UHA.
:. .u. .2 A: :1:
.v :-

 

.:. . . . ‘ . V ‘ ‘ M V f»i..h..i._o.7w.1lat.i.i.u.WIJ» .

t... a , .

$33.} ‘ . t , :.....t,.?...~m=. , .. , , V L‘gafikmfiwfiagggi

 

’3
" “mammal“
MICHIGAN STA
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048
33§3H9nl

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ARE WE PREPARED FOR REFORM? A STUDY OF
TRADITIONALLY- AND ALTERNATIVELY-CERTIFIED SPECIAL
EDUCATION TEACHERS IN TEXAS

presented by
LEAH HOPE WASBURN-MOSES

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Special Education

Wtaéww

Major Professor's Signature
April 15, 2005

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

’i—w— I —_ ,_,

.._.—._._-—-—.—.—.—---.-o-.-n—.-.o r

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 cfiWoOueindd—p. 15

ARE WE PREPARED FOR REFORM? A STUDY OF TRADITIONALLY- AND
ALTERNATIVELY-CERTIFIED SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN TEXAS

By

Leah Hope Wasburn-Moses

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2005

ABSTRACT

ARE WE PREPARED FOR REFORM? A STUDY OF TRADITIONALLY- AND
ALTERNATIVELYsCERTIFIED SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN TEXAS

By

Leah Hope Wasburn-Moses
New laws and policies promise to make dramatic changes in the field of special
education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 and
the No Child Lefi Behind Act of 2001 address standards for special education students
and require that they be included in statewide assessments and accountability systems.
While the demands on special education teachers change and grow, the field of teacher
preparation has been placed under pressure to respond to these changes (President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). One area of teacher
preparation that has changed is that of certification options for potential teachers. This
option is highly touted by the government and by influential national groups as an
answer to problems of teacher shortages and to criticisms of inadequate teacher
preparation (Dill, 1996; President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
2002). However, the field has not yet begun to explore how well prepared special
education teachers from any certification route are to meet the changing world of
practice (Coleman, 2001). This study examined the knowledge of new teachers
surrounding changes in special education law and practice through a Web-based
survey of altematively- and traditionally-certified special education teachers in Texas.
These teachers were assessed as to their knowledge of three areas related to the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 and the No Child

Lefi Behind Act of 2001: content and achievement standards, assessment, and access

to the general education curriculum.

To my family:
My husband Jered
My children Adam and Seth
My parents Mara and Philo
My brother and sister Aaron and Hope

for Everything.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Carol Sue Englert, for her

understanding, for her positive attitude, and for encouraging me to be myself.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge:

my committee members, Troy Mariage, Cindy Okolo, David Stewart, and
Cheryl Rosaen, for their support, their suggestions and their willingness to fit
me into their tight schedules;

my professors, Tom Bird, Sara Bolt, Patrick Dickson, Matthew Mayer, and
Suzanne Wilson, for their invaluable advice;

my colleagues, Emily Bouck, Joyce Burgener, and Debra Buursma, for their
personal and professional support;

the many Texas teacher educators who helped with data collection and with
explaining state policy, especially Peggy Gay, Kurt Van Gilder, Patricia
Lynch, and Joe Martin, who went above and beyond in recruiting participants
for my study;

my doctor, Frank Takyi, for putting up with me for nine months and for
delivering Seth during the data collection phase; and

my research assistant, Emily Battista, for all her hard work and her willingness

to rush to the hospital at a moment’s notice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Introduction to the Study ......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................. 6
The Changing Face of Special Education ................................................................ 6
Teacher Preparation in a Changing Field .............................................................. 10
A History of Alternative Certification ................................................................... 13
What is Known About Alternative Certification ................................................... 20
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 32
Research Setting .................................................................................................... 32
Participants ............................................................................................................ 34
Instrument .............................................................................................................. 35
Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 40
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 49

vi

Demographic Data ................................................................................................. 49

Teacher Perceptions ............................................................................................... 53
Description of Data ................................................................................................ 54
Results of Statistical Tests ..................................................................................... 64
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 65
CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................. 67
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 67
The Policy-to-Practice Gap ................................................................................... 68
Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes ................................................................................ 75
Potential Effects of the Policy-to-Practice Gap ..................................................... 79
Implications ........................................................................................................... 82
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 93
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 97
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Survey Instrument .......................................................................... 102
Appendix B: Sample Coding ............................................................................... 1 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 1 13

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Knowledge
(IDEA ’97) ............................................................................. 43
Table 2 Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning
(Question 1) ............................................................................ 44
Table 3 Sample Scoring for Open-Ended Test of Teacher Knowledge (IDEA
’97) ...................................................................................... 46
Table 4 Sample Scoring for Open-Ended Test of Teacher Knowledge (N CLB‘)7
Table 5 Participants’ Certification Type ............................................. 49
Table 6 Participants’ School Type ................................................... 50
Table 7 Participants’ Gender by Certification Type ............................... 51
Table 8 Participants’ Age by Certification Type ........ ' .......................... 51
Table 9 Disability Categories of Students Taught by Participants .............. 52
Table 10 Participants’ Perceptions of Their Preparation ........................... 54
Table 1] Provisions of IDEA ’97 Named by Participants ......................... 55
Table 12 Provisions of NCLB Named by Participants ............................. 56
Table 13 Participants’ Test Scores .................................................... 59
Table 14 Responses to Open-Ended Questions ...................................... 62

Table 15 Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Knowledge
(NCLB) ................................................................................ 110

Table 16 Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning
(Question 2) .......................................................................... 110

Table 17 Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning
(Question 3) .......................................................................... 111

Table 18 Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning
(Question 4) .......................................................................... 112

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Participants’ IDEA ’97 and NCLB Scores ............................... 57
Figure 2 Participants’ Total IDEA ’97 and NCLB Scores ........................ 58
Figure 3 Participants’ Total Test Scores ............................................. 59

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Study

Federal legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997 (IDEA ’97) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
will have a significant impact on both teacher practices and teacher preparation in
special education (Coleman, 2001; McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003; President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). One of the main goals of this
reform movement is to Shift special education as a system from a focus on process and
compliance to one that responds to calls for accountability for student performance
and student outcomes (President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
2002). Now, schools are required to ensure that special education students have
access to the general education curriculum and participate in state assessments
(Thurlow, McLaughlin, & Elliott, 2003). Many education professionals see these
steps as critical to improving special education student outcomes (Thompson, Lazarus,
& Thurlow, 2003).

However, researchers and government officials alike are questioning teachers’
ability to make such changes and are emphasizing the role and importance 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). Aside from
inadequate preparation, other problems involved in implementing the changes initiated
by federal policy include special education teacher attitudes and beliefs supporting

individualized instruction and curriculum, and alternate assessments (Belden

Russonello & Stewart, 2003; Ward, Montague, & Linton, 2003). Researchers are
urging teacher preparation programs to take responsibility for preparing teachers who
have the ability, skills and attitudes necessary to reform and inform the field of special
education (Thompson et al., 2003; Whitten & Rodriguez-Campos, 2003).

One type of teacher preparation that has been identified by the federal
government as a possible solution to these and other problems is alternative
certification (President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; Task
Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986). Alternative certification usually involves
older teacher candidates who already have a bachelor’s degree, and alternative
programs are usually shorter and more focused on field experience than the traditional
university-based four or five year undergraduate programs (Rosenberg & Sindelar,
2003). Although various types of alternative certification have existed for decades,
No Child Left Behind opens the door to these programs and encourages their
expansion (Brownell, Sindelar, Bishop, Langley, & Sec, 2002). Although researchers
have determined that alternative certification programs do attract more diverse
candidates, and that successful programs involve intensive classroom study,
mentoring, and supervision, research on alternative certification programs is scarce
(Wilson, F loden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). Comparisons of the knowledge and
performance of teachers from traditional and alternative programs have had mixed
results (Wilson et al., 2001; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Limitations of existing
studies include: (1) many are self-studies, (2) they often rely on questionable measures

such as supervisor ratings, (3) they attempt to compare extremely diverse groups of

teachers, or (4) they report on programs that are constantly in a state of flux (Wilson et
al., 2001; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001).

Within special education, the research base on alternative certification is
almost nonexistent, despite the fact that nearly 10% of new teachers are becoming
certified through alternate routes (SPeNSE, 2002). Most of the alternative
certification programs in special education are even newer than those in general
education (Buck, Polloway, & Robb, 1995; Geiger, Crutchfield, & Mainzer, 2003).
Although one pilot study has located programs around the country and collected basic
factual data on these programs, neither detailed program descriptions nor outcome
data on graduates exists (Geiger et al., 2003; NCPSE, 2003a; Rosenberg & Boyer,
2003).

While many see alternative certification as a solution to problems such as poor
preparation, a homogeneous teacher population, and teacher shortages, others believe
that they pose a serious threat to teacher quality and to the future of the teaching
profession, in part due to their reduced focus on coursework and under-reliance on
faculty for supervision (Buck et al., 1995; Geiger et al., 2003). As a field, special
education needs to examine the efficacy of both alternative and traditional programs in
preparing teachers to meet the new wave of challenges brought on by current reform
efforts.

Statement of the Problem

With the passage of the Individuals with IDEA ’97 and NCLB, which mandate

access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of students with disabilities

in general accountability systems, officials predict radical changes in the field of

special education (Coleman, 2001; Pugach & Warger, 2001; Thompson et al., 2003).
Researchers question whether teachers prepared under any route are adequately
prepared to meet the challenges brought on by new legislation (Coleman, 2001;
O'Shea, Stoddard, & O'Shea, 2000). Further, professionals are urging more research
in the area of alternative certification for several reasons: (a) alternative certification is
growing rapidly, (b) it may offer a solution to serious shortages in the field, and (c) the
field of special education has very little knowledge about the characteristics or quality
these programs (Buck et al., 1995; Geiger et al., 2003). In an age in which the
following conditions exist, the study of teacher preparation in special education is
crucial to the future of the field:

0 the entire field of special education practice is reorganizing

0 teacher preparation is under scrutiny for failure to produce effective teachers

0 immediate solutions are needed to address teacher shortages

o unstudied alternative routes are becoming commonplace
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the perceptions, knowledge and

reasoning of special education teacher candidates related to IDEA ’97 and NCLB.
The study included candidates from both traditional and alternative certification
programs in order to compare responses. It assessed teacher candidates in three areas:
(a) content and achievement standards, (b) assessment, and (c) access to the general
education curriculum. This knowledge base is critical for teachers in the field of

special education, who will be responsible for carrying out the reforms mandated by

these two laws (Thompson et al., 2003; Thurlow & Thompson, 2003). The purpose of

this study was threefold:

to assess special education teacher candidates’ perceptions of their preparation,
both generally and with respect to skills related to IDEA ’97 and NCLB;

to assess special education teacher candidates’ knowledge and reasoning
surrounding the implementation of IDEA ’97 and NCLB; and

to assess differences between new traditionally- and alternatively-certified

special education teacher candidates in the above areas

The research questions guiding this study were:

What are special education teacher candidates’ perceptions of their
preparation, both generally and related to IDEA ’97 and NCLB?

What is the breadth and depth of special education teacher candidates’
knowledge and reasoning needed for the implementation of IDEA ’97 and
NCLB?

What differences exist between new traditionally- and alternatively-certified
special education teachers in their perceptions, knowledge, and reasoning

surrounding the implementation of IDEA ’97 and NCLB?

CHAPTER 2
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Changing Face of Special Education

Both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997
(IDEA ’97) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) were developed as
part of the movement toward standards-based reform that included students with
disabilities in these reform efforts. IDEA ’97 includes several provisions to be
addressed in students’ IEPs that reflect this movement: a statement of present
performance and needs and how they affect progress in the general curriculum, annual
goals and objectives related to progress in the general curriculum, and services,
supports and modifications needed for success in the general curriculum. In addition,
IDEA ’97 ensures that students with disabilities participate in all state- and district-
wide assessment (Thurlow et al., 2003).

No Child Left Behind builds on these themes. In general, the act requires all
states to develop accountability plans. These plans include a single assessment and
accountability systems for all students, and the development and alignment of grade-
level content standards with these assessments. Schools must report data on student
participation and assessment results in order to demonstrate whether they have made
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), based on benchmarks for achievement that are set
by the state and federal government. Adequate Yearly Progress also takes the
performance of several subgroups into account, including that of students with

disabilities (Thurlow et al., 2003).

Both IDEA ’97 and NCLB promise to make radical changes in special
education. Thurlow (2002) writes that “the greatest promise of standards-based
reform for students with disabilities is that it will result in programmatic and
instructional improvements” (p. 199). She explains that the first step in applying
standards involves special educators in obtaining the state standards and determining
how they are being applied. The application of uniform standards is extremely new to
the field, which has traditionally relied on individualized standards as outlined in each
student’s IEP (McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003).

Similarly, many students with disabilities historically have been exempted
from state testing (Ward et al., 2003). However, standardized testing is one of the
hallmarks of NCLB, mandating the participation of all students. Special education
teachers are now involved in crucial decision-making processes regarding the
selection of options for state testing and accommodations (Hollenbeck, Tindal, &
Almond, 1998).

As for access to the general education curriculum, Pugach and Warger (2001)
report that through this provision, “IDEA has focused attention - as well as
compliance requirements - squarely on the curriculum” (p. 194). They continue by
arguing that the curriculum historically has been excluded from discussion of special
education practices. They assert that special educators can no longer view the
curriculum as the content of a student’s IEP.

Thurlow and Thomspon (2003) have articulated the points of intersection of
these two crucial laws as they affect students with disabilities. They write, “together,

[IDEA ’97 and NCLB] require us to address content standards, achievement standards,

assessment, and access to the general curriculum.” These new laws are seen as
making a significant impact on the field of special education. McLaughlin and
Thurlow (2003) explain that “the concept of uniform and common standards is foreign
to many [special education] teachers” (p. 446). They argue that the long tradition of
separate standards and individualized instruction for students with disabilities hinders
teachers’ ability to address these new policy demands, or even to see policy goals as
possible to achieve. The authors consider teachers’ knowledge of how to provide
appropriate supports and accommodations to allow access to the general education
curriculum, how to interpret results of statewide assessment, and how to adjust for
instruction as imperative for the special educators of today and tomorrow
(McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003).

As a result of the emphasis of reformers on these three areas, the field of
special education has shifted from a focus on individual goals and individualized
instruction to a focus on inclusion in general education classrooms and the application
of uniform standards, curricula, and assessments (McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003).
Special education teachers themselves are reporting changes in the field caused by
these new mandates. In a nationwide survey of 400 general and special education
teachers, over half of special education teachers indicated that (1) the curriculum for
special education students is more similar to that of general education students
compared to three years ago; and (2) special education students are learning more
content that is based on the state academic standards compared to three years ago

(Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003).

As for the future of the accountability movement, researchers predict an
increasing trend toward holding both teachers and students accountable for student
performance, through promotion and graduation examinations, teacher examinations,
merit pay raises, and other policies (Barton, 1999; DeFur, 2002). State accountability
policies are being clarified and expanded, as well as being articulated through rules for
how students with disabilities will participate and be accounted for within these
systems (Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Robey, 2001). Another way in which
special education teachers are being affected by NCLB is through the “highly
qualified teacher” mandate. In 2003-2004, no state required secondary special
education teachers to possess degrees or pass certification exams in the content areas
they taught, even though the frequency of occurrence of special education teachers
teaching content classes was still widespread (Carlson, Brauen, Kalein, Schroll, &
Willig, 2002). These practices are problematic, as only about 10% of special
education teachers are licensed in language arts or social sciences, and 5% or less in
science or mathematics (Coleman, 2001). Further, they run counter to the highly
qualified teacher mandate, and are still being scrutinized at the state and federal levels
("Quality counts 2004: Special education in an era of standards," 2004).

As Whitten and Rodriguez-Campos (2003) summarize, “[the current reform]
movement has created the need to redefine the roles of special education teachers and
prepare them to assume different roles to meet these challenges teacher preparation
programs across the nation are modifying and redeveloping their programs” (p. 138).
However, as the results of this study demonstrate, teacher preparation programs may

not be doing enough to ensure adequate preparation in this age of reform. Although

new teachers know the facts of the reform movement and its basis in law, they are not
being well prepared to make the kind of changes in the field discussed above
(Brownell, Sindelar et al., 2002).

Teacher Preparation in a Changing Field

These new reforms and resulting policies have researchers questioning whether
in fact teacher preparation programs are preparing special educators to meet these
goals (Coleman, 2001; President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
2002). O’Shea, Stoddard, and O’Shea (2000) state that “preparing educators to work
with students with disabilities in general education curricula is fundamental to legal
mandates and educational reform” (p. 125). Clearly, attention to all of these new
competencies needed by special education teachers is of paramount importance if the
field of special education wishes to prepare and retain high quality teachers who will
effectively change the face of practice in special education and who will be able to
affect student outcomes.

This study uses the three points of intersection of NCLB and IDEA ’97 that
have been articulated by Thurlow and Thompson (2003): (a) content and achievement
standards, (b) assessment, and (c) access to the general education curriculum. The
importance of teacher knowledge of IDEA ’97 and NCLB, as well as competencies
surrounding changes in practice due to these laws, is supported by national standards
for teachers. Evidence of this emphasis can be seen in the standards put forth in each
piece of what is referred to as “the three-legged stool” to achieve teacher quality:
accreditation (Council for Exceptional Children’s professional standards for new

teachers, included by NCATE), licensing (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and

10

Support Consortium’s beginning teacher standards), and certification boards (National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards for advanced certification) (National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996).

For the accreditation piece, the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC)
Common Core of Knowledge and Skills Essential for All Beginning Special
Education Teachers requires teachers to be able to “conduct instructional and other
professional activities consistent with the requirements of law, rules and regulations,
and local district policies and procedures.” The standards also include knowledge and
skills needed for the implementation of IDEA ’97 and NCLB, such as knowledge of
“legal provisions, regulations, and guidelines regarding assessment, reporting and
using data to guide decisions regarding placement and instruction, knowledge of
curriculum, collaboration and consultation with general education teachers and other
school personnel in order to support student integration into various learning
environments (Council for Exceptional Children, 2002).

As for teacher licensure, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (INTASC) recommends that both general and special education teachers
“have knowledge of the major principles and parameters of federal disabilities
legislation” (INT ASC, 2001, p. 16). They also assert the importance of teacher
knowledge and skills in making accommodations, adaptations and modifications to the
general education curriculum in order to include students with disabilities into general
education. In addition, the standards stress the importance of collaboration between
general and special education teachers in order to ensure shared responsibility for

students and improved outcomes. They require both general and special education

11

teachers to have in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and modes of inquiry
in the content areas they teach (INTASC, 2001).

Certification Boards have also recognized these changes. The National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) requires teachers to possess knowledge
and skills in all three areas mentioned above. They assess teachers as to their
“grounding in special education as well as vocational and general education laws that
affect students with disabilities” (NBPTS, 2003b, p. 13). They refer to skills
important to the implementation of IDEA ’97 and NCLB in each of their four areas of
standards, including communication skills, understanding assessment, a core body of
knowledge in the content areas, and the use of modifications, adaptations and
accommodations in order to support students in general education.

Because of the great need for standards addressing the three areas that are the
focus of this study, the Educational Policy Reform Research Institute (EPRRI) and the
National Center on Educational Outcomes (N CEO) collaborated to produce a set of
principles that encompass “key knowledge and skills that all educators need to
increase the participation and performance of students with disabilities in standards-
based environments” (Thompson et al., 2003, p. 17). These ten standards include
knowledge of how to tie IEP goals to grade-level content standards, how to support
students with disabilities in achieving grade-level academic standards, and recognition
that federal legislation related to standards, assessment and access applies to every
student.

No Child Left Behind addresses teacher preparation specifically by requiring

that all teachers be “highly qualified” by the year 2006. It defines “highly qualified”

12

as those teachers who hold full state licensure or those who hold a bachelor’s degree
and who have passed certain state tests (Brownell, Sindelar et al., 2002). Brownell et
a1. (2002) discuss how this provision opens the door to alternative certification
programs and reflects the current Administration’s belief that traditional programs fail
to attract the best teacher candidates by “imposing high barriers and tolerating low
standar ” (p. 2). This type of policy will have a significant impact on special
education teacher preparation, as special education has always experienced severe and
widespread teacher shortages (Boe, Cook, Bobbitt, & Terbanian, 1998).
A History of Alternative Certification

Between 1950 and 1970, the teaching force in the United States doubled in size
(Dill, 1996). As states began to increase certification requirements, researchers
initiated studies that involved tracking the rapid teacher turnover, noting that it was
mainly the best and brightest who left the teaching profession (Schlechty & Vance,
1983; Vance & Schlechty, 1982). Teacher education institutions were blamed for an
inability to recruit and retain talented individuals as teachers, and for requiring teacher
candidates to take a variety of “soft” courses that pose no utility for them as teachers
(Galluzzo & Ritter, 1986). Influential groups such as the Holmes Group and the
Carnegie Foundation wrote or commissioned reports condemning current teacher
education practices, claiming that “too few [teacher candidates] completed
academically demanding undergraduate programs. . .too many. . .complain that their
education courses failed to prepare them for teaching” (Task Force on Teaching as a
Profession, 1986, p. 71). Universities were not seen as committed to colleges of

education, and the promise of low wages and limited opportunities for advancement

13

combined with increased career options also contributed to the choices of high-ability
individuals to pursue options outside the teaching profession (Dill, 1996).

In the 19803, a variety of non-traditional teacher education programs were
established in several states in order to compensate for shortages found particularly in
urban and rural areas, and to attract the type of individuals mentioned above who had
chosen not to pursue a degree in education. In addition, these programs were expected
to “serve as a catalyst to reform traditional teacher education” (Zeichner & Schulte,
2001, p. 268). As alternative certification programs proliferated, debate among the
various stakeholders in teacher education began to escalate. Proponents of alternative
certification believed that individuals simply needed content knowledge (which
candidates already possessed) and a quality internship in order to be effective teachers.
They hoped that these programs would lure the “best and brightest” into teaching by
offering reduced coursework and by recognizing and offering credit for candidates’
varied life experiences through “fast-track” certification options (Dill, 1996). Those
involved in traditional teacher education argued that such alternative routes
undermined education as a field by denying the existence of a specialized body of
knowledge that is crucial in order for candidates to become effective teachers. They
felt that teacher education institutions had been threatened, as those institutions
historically had held exclusive rights to prepare teachers (Dill, 1996; Zeichner &
Schulte, 2001).

Fenstermacher (1990) characterized this debate by focusing on three
continuums surrounding issues pertaining to the preparation of teachers. These three

continuums are: (1) how close training occurs to practice; (2) the extent to which

14

training emphasizes pedagogy versus content; and (3) the extent to which training
focuses on conforming to practices or to revising practice. Alternative certification
tends to place training close to practice, emphasize content over pedagogy, and
concentrate on conforming to current practices in the field. He emphasized that the
debate over alternative versus traditional certification had “focused on how training
should be carried out, with scant attention to the goals and purposes for initial teacher
preparation” (p. 164).

Others outside the teacher education arena also had a voice in the debate. In
the early 19905, the Bush administration came out in favor of alternative certification,
and commissioned a series of studies through the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI) (Dill, 1996). This stance marked the first federal involvement in
teacher preparation, an area that historically had been left strictly under state
regulation (F enstennacher, 1990). A decade later, in December of 2001, Congress
passed the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
This act granted over three billion dollars for Title II, Preparing, Training and
Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals, which includes “establishing
programs that recruit qualified professionals from other fields and provide such
professionals with alternative routes to teacher certification” (F eistritzer & Chester,
2003, p. 1). In addition, criticisms of traditional routes to teacher certification have
been made by influential groups such as the F ordham Foundation and the Milken
Family Foundation, as well as by the federal government (Rosenberg & Sindelar,
2003). These groups support alternatives as a means to recruit more talented and more

diverse individuals into the teaching profession.

15

Currently, the US. Department of Education’s highly touted Meeting the
Highly Qu_alified Teachers Clgllengg also supports alternative certification programs,
which the report terms “a model for the future” (U. S. Department of Education, 2002,
p. 15). The US. Department of Education (2002) argues that traditional teacher
education programs fail to recruit the best students, citing “high barriers, low
standards” (p. 12.) They discuss the fact that only 38% of teachers hold degrees in
non-education fields, and that under the current system, quality candidates who desire
to pursue a teaching career even after completing only two or three years of college
still face overwhelming obstacles to becoming certified. The authors of the report
claim that traditional teacher preparation has not succeeded in preparing teachers well,
citing data from the National Center for Education Statistics that measured new
teachers’ feelings of preparedness for implementing curriculum and performance
standards, using technology, and meeting the needs of diverse learners (e. g. fewer than
36 percent felt ‘very well prepared’ to implement curriculum and performance
standards). The report concludes that alternative certification programs hold great
promise for preparing a more diverse and better-qualified workforce in teaching, as
evidenced by the content area backgrounds and diversity of candidates that is often
found in alternative certification programs.

Similar factors have contributed to the growth of alternative certification
programs in the area of special education, from six states in 1991 to 24 states in 1995
(Buck et al., 1995). These factors include the extreme teacher shortages and serious
teacher attrition that reach nearly every part of the country. The annual attrition rate

for special education teachers has been estimated to be as high as 10%, with a

16

persistent annual shortage of about 29,000 fully certified teachers (Boe et al., 1998).
Another factor is the great need for multicultural personnel in an area in which 32% of
the students but only 14% of the teachers come from linguistically or ethnically
diverse backgrounds. Overrepresentation of minority students is a serious issue in the
field of special education, and efforts to rectify these problems over the last 20 years
have been largely unsuccessful (Artiles & Trent, 1994). Advocates of alternative
certification within special education claim that investing in and expanding programs
will help provide solutions to some of these persistent problems in the field (F inn Jr.,
Rotherham, & Hokanson Jr., 2001).

One of the major confounding factors in conducting research on alternative
certification is in the definition of the term itself (Buck et al., 1995; Chappelle &
Eubanks, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Geiger et al., 2003). “Alternative
certification” has been used to refer to everything from “crash courses” for emergency
certification to intensive, sustained programs for individuals with college degrees and
various life experiences (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003). Some researchers have
sidestepped this issue by declaring alternative certification to be whatever the states
define as such (Shen, 1997). Others have defined it simply as a post-baccalaureate
teacher education program designed for those who have degrees in non-education
fields (Adelman, 1986; Feistritzer & Chester, 2003).

Darling-Harnmond (1990) articulates some of the immense variations in
programs that account for some of the difficulty in defining alternative certification.
First, there are clear variations among routes in terms of amount of required

coursework, and in when candidates enter the teaching force (e. g. immediately afler a

17

six-week intensive course versus after two years of sustained course and fieldwork).
Second, great variation among the different states’ certification standards adds another
layer of complexity to defining alternative certification. Some states require master’s
degrees, while others require only 18 hours of education coursework at the
undergraduate level in order to become fully certified. These differences not only
affect alternative certification programs but create inconsistencies even for those who
follow traditional routes. Additionally, some states have GPA requirements, and some
give college credit for hours spent outside the university (e. g. in study groups). Third,
there are variations in who is certifying teachers (i.e., local versus state entities). In
her discussion of various alternatives to the four- or five-year undergraduate teacher
education program, Darling-Hammond makes a distinction between “alternative
certification”, programs that reduce standards, and “alternate routes,” which hold
candidates to the same standards as traditional college- and university-based programs.
Later, Zeichner and Schulte (2001) refer to both of these programs as “alternative
certification.”

F eistritzer and Chester (2003), who have written numerous yearly volumes
updating the status of alternative teacher certification by state, developed over ten
separate categories to describe the various paths to certification. In an attempt to
consolidate some of these categories, Chappelle and Eubanks (2001) distinguish
between alternative certification and what they term “other non-traditional routes to
teaching.” Their assessment is similar to Darling-Hammond’s, in that they view
alternative certification as a program that waives one or more state-mandated licensure

requirements, while non-traditional routes hold teachers to the same standards as

18

traditionally prepared teachers. They create five categories of routes to teaching:
traditional routes, emergency licensure, undergraduate non-traditional routes,
postgraduate non-traditional routes, and alternative certification. Their conception of
“alternative certification” is that it requires a non-education bachelor’s degree,
demonstrable competence in curriculum area(s), intensive summer training, and may
involve passing state licensure examinations in a subject area.

In the area of alternative certification in special education, Rosenberg and
Sindelar (2003) use three scales in order to evaluate the extent to which various routes
to teacher certification may be classified as “traditional” or “alternative.” The first
component is program length and structure, with alternative certification programs
being shorter than traditional programs and allowing candidates to begin teaching
immediately or shortly after beginning their programs of study. The second
component is delivery mode, with alternative certification programs being more
focused on field experience as opposed to traditional university classroom instruction.
The third component is candidate population. Usually, candidates in alternative
certification programs are older and have more diverse backgrounds than those in
traditional programs. They have college degrees, but often in non-education fields. In
the current study, the scales identified by Rosenberg and Sindelar (2003) were used in
order to identify traditional and alternative programs, as they were developed
specifically to describe alternative certification programs in the area of special
education, and were based on the available literature in the field. In addition, the
study draws on the pool of alternative certification programs identified by Rosenberg

and colleagues in a subsequent study (NCPSE, 2003a; Rosenberg & Boyer, 2003).

19

The current study utilized this pool, as it was the only national pool of alternative
programs in special education available at the time of the study.
What Is Known About Alternative Certification

General education. One area of alternative certification that has been studied
involves the population of teacher candidates themselves. Researchers have
investigated the demographics of this population and their academic ability as
compared to that of traditionally certified individuals, as well as the settings in which
they work and their retention rate. One area of general consensus is that alternative
certification programs do seem to be attracting more individuals of color than
traditional programs (Haberman, 1999; Hutton, Lutz, & Williamson, 1990; Lutz &
Hutton, 1989; Shen, 1997). However, Zeichner and Schulte (2001) state that this
finding may be due to the location of the programs, rather than to features of the
program itself. Many alternative certification programs are in urban areas and feed
into urban districts, where more individuals of color reside. In general, these
individuals are also more likely to have grown up and to have attended school in urban
areas than traditionally certified teachers (Natriello & Zumwalt, 1993; Stoddart, 1990).
In their review of the peer-reviewed literature on alternative certification, Zeichner
and Schulte (2001) found that most studies reported an older population, and some
showed that more men entered these programs. However, they assert that the latter
finding may be due more to the type of content-area certification offered by the
various programs rather than to any unique characteristic of alternative certification
(e. g. more men than women have degrees in science and mathematics; and therefore,

more men may apply to a program that offers alternative certification in those areas).

20

The settings in which these candidates are teaching is also a general area of
consensus in the literature. Candidates are more likely to teach in urban settings
and/or teach children of color (Houston, Marshall, & McDavid, 1993; Shen, 1997;
Wilson et al., 2001). Additionally, they are less likely to be teaching in an area in
which they are certified, even after they complete their programs (Wilson et al., 2001).
These findings are not surprising, given that one of the reasons for the popularity of
alternative certification is that it provides teachers to fill areas of greatest need, such as
in urban schools, which are also more likely to have teachers teaching out of field
(Ingersoll, 2001).

As for candidates’ ability level, several studies reported no differences between
the GPAs and/or content exam scores when comparing candidates from alternative and
traditional certification routes (Guyton, Fox, & Sisk, 1991; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001).
In their review of the data-based literature on alternative certification, Wilson et a1.
(2001) concluded that “alternate routes have a mixed record for attracting the ‘best and
brightest’” (p. 27), as comparisons of test scores and GPAs of teachers certified
through traditional and alternate routes appear to vary by program and even by study.

Data on teacher retention also present a mixed story. Some researchers
determined that a higher percentage of traditionally certified teachers intended to stay
until retirement (Shen, 1997), whereas others observed a lower attrition rate among
altematively certified teachers than what would be expected among traditionally
certified teachers (Stoddart, 1990). Shen’s data is based on results from teacher
questionnaires, whereas Stoddart’s is based on the percent of alternatively-certified

teachers who left the school district, and compares these percentages to national

21

averages. However, Natriello and Zumwalt (1993) explain that most of the
differences in retention observed between traditionally and alternatively certified
teachers are not due to their certification route, but rather to the grade level and subject
matter they teach. For example, special education teachers are much more likely to
leave the field than general education teachers, regardless of their route to
certification.

Another area of study is that of the alternative certification programs
themselves. In their review of the peer-reviewed literature on 14 different alternative
certification programs, Zeichner and Schulte (2001) summarized descriptions of
components of alternative certification programs. The studies were selected because
they described and examined one specific alternative certification program, rather than
grouping several diverse programs together. The authors found that all of the
programs required bachelor’s degrees, and many required secondary teachers to
possess a major in the subject area. Admission requirements varied; several had GPA
requirements, and some required passing various basic skills and/or subject area
exams. The amount of coursework and preparation required before candidates could
be hired as teachers ranged from none to ten weeks. Most of the coursework focused
on classroom management, curriculum, and methods; few included courses in learning
and development. All of the programs involved mentoring, and one half required
additional coursework or training during the school year. The characteristics of the
teaching faculty of these programs also varied considerably; some candidates were
taught solely by school employees, some by university faculty, and some by a

combination of both.

22

Candidate performance is also a crucial area for study. However, both
comparative evaluations and attempts to tie type of certification to student
performance have reported mixed results, and some researchers question whether
results have any utility due to differences in programs and populations studied
(Sindelar & Marks, 1993; Wilson et al., 2001). For example, one author observed that
principals rated traditionally certified teachers higher on instructional planning and
skills (Jelmberg, 1996). However, the researcher relied on results of principal
questionnaires, and the alternatively-certified teachers in this study were in the process
of completing a three year program of professional development supervised by the
school district. Another researcher found that alternatively certified teachers were
rated at least as high, if not higher, by mentors than traditionally certified teachers
(Lutz & Hutton, 1989). Finally, a third study determined marked differences at the
beginning of the school year on many of the 16 items included in classroom
observations, but all of these differences had disappeared by the end of the year. This
study also compared altematively- and traditionally-certified beginning teachers.
However, the alternatively-certified teachers were interns who had already completed
two years of paid field experience before entering their program. Their performance
was evaluated three times by independent, trained observers who completed the
Teacher Evaluation Scale (Sandlin, Young, & Karge, 1992). With different programs,
different instruments and methods, and different respondents, these studies are
difficult, if not impossible, to compare.

Several researchers have also investigated the relationship between teacher

certification status and student achievement. Again, the results have been mixed, and

23

fraught with methodological diffrculty (Sindelar & Marks, 1993). Some found no
difference in student performance based on certification status (Sandlin et al., 1992;
Stafford & Barrow, 1994). While the Sandlin article relied on classroom observations
made by trained observers, the Stafford and Barrow study was conducted by the
school district’s supervisory agency. The Stafford and Barrow study compared test
scores of students of traditionally- and alternatively-certified teachers. In their study,
the alternative certification program required a summer program, weekly meetings for
ten weeks, monthly observations, and candidates could complete certification at the
end of the first year of teaching; whereas the Sandlin study reported on interns who
had already completed two years of supervised, paid field experience.

Another study reported no difference in classroom observations, student
achievement, and self-reports of ability and preparedness in matched samples of
middle school teachers (Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). The altematively-
certified teachers in this study also completed summer training, and were observed
eight times each year in addition to coursework and mentoring. Two certified teachers
were trained as observers, and together, they observed all participants at a pre-
scheduled time. The researchers also interviewed all teacher participants and
compared their students’ standardized test scores. Neither measure differed by
teachers’ certification status. Most recently, a Mathematica study found no difference
in the reading scores of students of traditionally certification teachers and those trained
through Teach For America, seen by some as an alternative certification program. The
study also discovered that the students of Teach For America teachers showed

significantly higher scores on mathematics tests than traditionally certified new and

24

veteran teachers (Decker, Mayer, & Glazerman, 2004). However, it is important to
note the unusually high quality of Teach for America candidates: nearly all held
leadership positions while in college, and they have an average GPA. of 3.5 (Teach
for America, 1996).

In conclusion, some particularly problematic aspects of these studies severely
limit their usefulness. First, the newness of many of the alternative certification
programs and the fact that they are in constant change renders comparison of
graduates extremely difficult (Geiger et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2001). Second,
problems with definitions present difficulties for the comparison of programs that are
often enormously diverse (F eistritzer & Chester, 2003). All of the diversity in
program simply complicates the task of identifying comparable groups of teachers to
study. For example, some of the studies count teachers who have completed a two-
year paid internship and those who have completed a six-week summer course as
“alternatively certified.” They count as “first year teachers” both those who are
beginning their course of study (alternative) and those who have completed their
course of study (traditional).

Third, teachers themselves are often confused about their certification status.
Wilson et al. (2001) reported that 52% of teachers who said they were altematively
certified also held an undergraduate major in education, so their reports may confound
studies. Fourth, many of the studies on alternative certification are self-studies, and
many are not peer-reviewed. Some studies are overseen by independent agencies,
some by school districts, and some by university researchers, all of who may or may

not have connections with the agency responsible for implementing the alternative

25

certification program. This fact opens the possibility of researcher and/or participant
bias, as these individuals had a stake in the outcome of the research (Wilson et al.,
2001; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001).

Finally, many of the instruments used to measure teacher performance are of
limited value. For example, several used what Wilson et al. (2001) term “problematic
proxies for subject matter knowledge” (p. 30) in order to test candidates, which refers
to problems with instruments that researchers used to ascertain how much subject
matter knowledge is possessed by the candidate. Many studies relied solely on the
perceptions of teachers, mentors, and/or supervisors, rather than on repeated
observations and/or subject matter tests, thereby exacerbating the problem of
subjectivity (Wilson et al., 2001).

Those who have conducted studies and/or written syntheses about alternative
certification and about teacher preparation in general outline several paths for future
research. There is widespread consensus about the great need for high-quality
research in this area as well as the need to address the problems of previous research
that have seriously limited the meaningful interpretation of results (Rosenberg &
Sindelar, 2003; Wilson et al., 2001; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Authors emphasize
the importance of conducting research in each of three areas: program models,
program evaluation, and teacher evaluation, in order to aid in comparing quality of
alternative and traditional programs. Well-conducted evaluation of teachers from the
various routes is seen as crucial in order to determine the effectiveness of alternative
certification. To this end, Wilson et a1. (2001) assert the need for taking comparisons

of matched pairs of traditionally prepared and alternatively certified teachers.

26

Special education. Overall, about seven percent of current special education
teachers were certified through alternative routes, with newer teachers being more
likely to have been certified in this manner (10%). A full 12% of teachers of students
with emotional disturbance were certified through alternative certification programs.
All of these numbers are higher than those in general education, in which only about
4.5% of teachers were certified through alternative routes (SPeNSE, 2002).

However, research in alternative certification within special education remains
extremely limited. This problem is due at least partially to the fact that such programs
are newer and less common than alternative certification programs offered in general
education, despite the fact that they are certifying a larger percentage of practicing
teachers (Buck et al., 1995; SPeNSE, 2002). In 1995, Buck et al. reported that out of
the 39 states that offered alternative certification programs, only 24 included programs
to certify special education teachers. Geiger et a1. (2003) conducted a pilot study of
ten states, six of which offered alternative certification in special education. The states
were selected purposefully in order to ensure representativeness of population, amount
of involvement in alternative certification, categorical versus non-categorical
licensure, rural versus urban, and relative severity of special education teacher
shortages. In general, the authors found that these programs were based on the same
standards as traditional programs in their respective states, and that candidates were
required to pass the same tests. Supervision was generally provided by mentor
teachers, rather than by university faculty.

Another important consideration that should distinguish special education from

general education alternative certification programs is that many alternative

27

certification programs in general education are predicated on the content model; that
is, that individuals need to know only the subject area and be able to communicate
well in order to be an effective teacher (Sindelar & Marks, 1993). This philosophy is
problematic in the area of special education, which does not have a “content” per se
(Sindelar & Marks, 1993). Those entering alternative certification programs in special
education may or may not have a background working with individuals with
disabilities, or have a background in general education. Further, traditional preservice
programs in special education are longer than those in general education. Yet, on
average, Sindelar and Marks (1993) report that alternative certification reduces the
credit hours required in a typical secondary program by 36%, a typical elementary
program by 63%, and a typical special education program by 74%.

A few articles have described the content of various alternative certification
programs in special education. These self-studies reported greater candidate diversity
than traditional programs, and participants showed high satisfaction with the programs
on self-report instruments (Burstein & Sears, 1998; Edelen-Smith & Sileo, 1996;
Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993). However, several researchers observed high
attrition among candidates (Banks & Necco, 1987; Edelen-Smith & Sileo, 1996;
Gaynor & Little, 1997). A few studies have attempted to compare special education
teachers who were certified through different types of programs. For example,
Shepherd and Brown (2003) asserted that traditional candidates are better qualified
because they received higher scores on the Texas state teachers’ examination.
Nougaret (2003) found that traditionally-certified special education teachers greatly

surpassed teachers with emergency licensure (those with no preparation) on

28

observational measures of preparation, classroom environment, and instruction.
However, due to all the problems with this research, which parallel those found in the
general education literature, Rosenberg and Sindelar (2003) concluded that, “at this
point, we find the evidence on effectiveness of [alternative certification programs] to
be either unconvincing, missing, or suspect” (p. 14).

Based on the literature that does exist in the area of alternative certification in
special education, Rosenberg and Sindelar (2003) outline three areas that they term
“indicators of effective [alternative certification] programs.” First, they found that
meaningful IHE/LEA collaboration was crucial to candidates’ success. They stress
the importance of investing the time and effort necessary to sustain such a partnership.
Second, the authors recommend “adequate program length with a variety of learning
activities.” They emphasize a strong connection between course- and fieldwork, and
experimenting with alternative formats such as block scheduling and distance
education, due to the life circumstances of many of the participants. Finally, “IHE
supervision and building-based mentor support” was also deemed important to
candidate learning. The authors suggest careful mentor selection and extensive
supervision and feedback on the part of both mentor and faculty. However, these
elements are also included in most of the reviews of the literature on common features
in traditional special education teacher preparation programs (Brownell, Ross, Colon,
& McCallum, 2002). Rosenberg and Sindelar (2003) conclude their report by
presenting three areas of “extreme concern” for alternative certification. These

include a need for an adequate definition of alternative certification, a shortage of

29

high-quality research, and a lack of focus on professional standards in alternative
certification programs.

Compounding these problems is the fact that many special education
alternative certification programs have not even been located (Buck & Robb, 1995).
Recently, however, a comprehensive search for these programs was completed. This
project was conducted jointly between the National Clearinghouse for Professions in
Special Education (NCPSE) and the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education
(COPSSE) (NCPSE, 2003a; Rosenberg & Boyer, 2003). This project located 79
alternative certification programs in special education around the country and
collected basic facts about these programs, including length of program and
requirements for entry. Its purpose was to create a searchable, online database for use
by prospective special education teachers.

Conclusion

The current standards-based reform movement in education has made the three
areas of content and achievement standards, assessment, and access to the general
education curriculum crucial knowledge for special education teachers (Thurlow &
Thompson, 2003). Practices in special education are changing, but it is unknown if
and how much teacher preparation is responding to these changes (Thompson et al.,
2003). However, it is known that the way in which special education teachers are
being certified is changing dramatically (Geiger et al., 2003). Very little about these
programs or their quality has been documented (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2003).

This study’s purpose was to assess the perceptions, knowledge and reasoning

of special education teacher candidates with respect to two laws affecting special

30

education practice, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of
1997 (IDEA ’97) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The study assessed
teacher candidates in the three areas identified by Thurlow and Thompson (2003) as
the areas of intersection of the two laws: content and achievement standards,
assessment, and access to the general education curriculum. It also compared
candidates from alternative and traditional certification programs. Research has not
addressed the effects of these new laws on teacher preparation in special education,
either in traditional or in alternative programs. It has not compared candidates at the
same point in their training; rather, it has compared them at the same point in their
teaching. This study extends previous research by investigating the changes that new
reform efforts in education have made in teacher preparation. It asks three research
questions:

0 What are special education teacher candidates’ perceptions of their
preparation, both generally and related to IDEA ’97 and NCLB?

o What is the breadth and depth of special education teacher candidates’
knowledge and reasoning needed for the implementation of IDEA ’97 and
NCLB?

o What differences exist between new traditionally- and alternatively-certified
special education teachers in their perceptions, knowledge, and reasoning

surrounding the implementation of IDEA ’97 and NCLB?

31

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to assess and compare the perceptions, knowledge
and reasoning of new traditionally- and alternatively-certified special education
teachers with respect to new laws affecting special education practice. The study used
a web-based survey methodology in order to investigate the preparedness of special
education teacher candidates in general, as well as the differences between
traditionally- and alternatively-certified teacher candidates. This section states the
research setting, participants, the instrument, data collection, and methods of data
analysis.
Research Setting
The target population for this study was special education teacher candidates in
the state of Texas who were certified at the end of the 2003-2004 school year. One
state was selected in order to minimize the confounding variable of a wide variety in
standards and licensure requirements across states (Geiger et al., 2003). The state of
Texas was chosen (1) because it had the greatest number of alternative certification
programs in special education, as reported by the National Clearinghouse in
Professions on Special Education (NCPSE, 2003a), and (2) because of its deeply-
rooted and long-standing accountability system (Alford, 2001). These traits helped
bypass some of the difficulties involved in conducting research in alternative
certification, including new and unstable programs and having a small population of

alternatively-certified teachers from which to draw.

32

Texas accountability systems. Texas first established a state exit exam and
reported district-level performance data on all statewide exams in 1984. The state’s
recent assessment, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) was established
in 1990, but was replaced by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (T AKS)
in 2003-2004. In 1996, the state mandated that students with disabilities who were
exempted from the TAAS participate in alternative assessment, and in 1999, the scores
of special education students were included in district-level data (Alford, 2001).

Currently, each special education student’s ARD Committee (Admission,
Review and Dismissal) decides in which state assessments the student will participate.
The student may participate in either the TAKS, the State-Developed Alternative
Assessment (SDAA), designed for students in special education for whom the TAKS
is not appropriate, or a Locally Development/Determined Alternate Assessment
(LDAA) for students with more severe disabilities for whom neither of the other
assessments is appropriate (U. S. Department of Education, 2003). Seven to eight
percent of all students are taking the SDAA (about 55% of all special education
students), and about one percent is taking the LDAA (eight to nine percent of all
special education students) (Neeley, 2004). Texas submitted a proposal for evaluation
of these test results for AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress, as defined by NCLB),
requesting exemption to the 1% cap on usage of alternate assessment scores when
calculating AYP (Neeley, 2004). However, this plan was rejected. Texas now must
reduce the percentage of students taking alternate assessments dramatically in order to
comply with the plan outlined by the federal government in NCLB. If districts exceed

the 1% cap on percentage of students taking alternate assessments, those scores will

33

count as “not proficient,” regardless of the actual score (Summary of TEA proposal for
2004 A YP with USDE responses, 2004).

Alternative certification in Texas. In 1984, the Texas legislature created an
alternate certification route in order to address its serious teacher shortages (Dill,
1994). These programs have been expanding yearly due to increasing demand. In
2004, the percent of first-year teachers from alternative programs exceeded the percent
of first-year teachers from traditional programs for the first time (Teacher Quality
Bulletin, 2004).

According to the National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education
there were 20 traditional and 14 alternative programs in special education in Texas as
of the year 2003 (NCPSE, 2003a, 2003b). The alternative programs vary greatly. The
seven that reported a certification range all certify teachers to teach early childhood
through secondary. Two are NCATE or CEC approved, four are not, and three did not
know their approval status. Although none of the programs uses teacher candidates as
paraprofessionals, all but one require full-time teaching during the course of training.
They all offer a mentor, and only one does not require a bachelor’s degree for entry.
Program lengths range from one to four years, with an average of just under two years
(NCPSE, 2003a).

Participants

The National Clearinghouse of Professions in Special Education (NCPSE)
identified 20 traditional and 14 alternative special education teacher preparation
programs in the state of Texas (NCPSE, 2003a, 2003b). Supervisors in these 34 _

programs were contacted via mail and e-mail and asked to provide the number of

34

individuals in their program who would complete their certification at the end of the
2003-2004 school year. Selecting teachers who were certified at the same time
circumvented one of the most confounding variables in research involving comparison
of traditionally- and alternatively-certified teachers; the problem of unequal .
populations. For example, altematively- and traditionally-certified individuals who
are in their first year of teaching are difficult to compare because the majority of
alternatively-certified teachers can be seen as being in the midst of, rather than having
already finished, their preparation program (Wilson et al., 2001; Zeichner & Schulte,
2001). The 34 supervisors indicated a total of 633 teacher candidates: 485 from
alternative programs and 148 from traditional programs.

Based on Rosenberg and Boyer’s (2003) description of alternative certification
programs in special education, the majority of Texas alternative programs last between
13 and 24 months (64%), and 83% require full-time teaching during that time period.
Most offer university credits (81%) and include a mentorship (90%). Eighty-three
percent require a Bachelor’s degree for entry into the program, and 59% are CEC
and/or NCATE approved.

Instrument

The instrument used to assess the perceptions, knowledge and reasoning of
new traditionally- and alternatively-certified special education teachers was a Web-
based survey (see Appendix A). The survey was subdivided into five sections:
demographic information, open-ended assessment of teacher knowledge, teacher
perceptions of preparation, case-based assessment of teacher reasoning, and test of

teacher knowledge. The last four sections all assessed the same three areas: content

35

and achievement standards, assessment, and access to the general education
curriculum. However, the multiple methodologies (participant perception as measured
on a Likert scale, assessment of knowledge as measured by a standard test-like format,
assessment of reasoning through completion of open-ended responses to vignettes)
helped strengthen the design through triangulation (Patton, 1990).

The first section, demographic information, asked participants to provide the
level of school in which they are employed or student teaching, their age and gender,
and the primary disabilities of the students they serve. The second section was an
open-ended assessment of teacher knowledge about IDEA ’97 and NCLB. It asked
participants to generate three provisions contained in IDEA ’97 and NCLB. The
IDEA ’97 question specifically referred to “NEW provisions,” in order to elicit new
provisions surrounding standards, assessment, and/or access to the general education
curriculum, rather than the basics of the original law (e. g. IEPs and Free and
Appropriate Public Education).

The third section, teacher perception of preparation, asked participants to rate
the quality of their preparation, both in general and related to the three areas identified
by Thurlow and Thompson (2003) as the intersection of IDEA ’97 and NCLB.
Respondents’ answers were recorded on a six-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The survey used the following three questions
to assess teacher perceptions in the three areas:

0 content and achievement standards: “My program taught me to know and be

able to use the state academic standards with my students”

36

0 assessment: “My program taught me about the options for the state
standardized test (e. g. the different tests and accommodations), and how to
implement these options”

0 access: “My program taught me how to make modifications, accommodations,
and adaptations for my students in general education settings”

The fourth section of the survey, case-based assessment of teacher reasoning,
involved participants in responding to a short vignette (see Appendix A). This section
consisted of five short-answer questions, all related to a vignette about “Sara,” a
hypothetical middle-school student with a learning disability who exhibited poor
literacy skills and received poor grades (“D’s”) in her general education classes.
Participants were asked to answer five questions that tapped teachers’ reasoning skills
related to the three categories of standards, assessment, and access. The five
questions were:

1. What additional information about Sara's program would you want to ask the
teachers before making recommendations to the team?
2. What are the THREE most important issues in Sara’s education that you think

should be addressed in her IEP, and why?

3. How would you support Sara’s reading and writing in the general education
classroom?
4. What factors would you consider when making decisions about participation in

state standardized testing (e. g. whether she should take the regular or an alternate

exam, what accommodations, if any, she should have)? and

37

5. Do you think that Sara should be held to the same academic standards as non-
disabled students? Why or why not?

The use of case methods as a pedagogy in teacher education is not new.
However, since the push for increased standards in both public schools and in teacher
education institutions in the 19805, interest in and use of case-based instruction has
increased dramatically (Merseth, 1996). “Case knowledge” is seen as “knowledge of
specific, well-docurnented, and richly described events” (L. S. Shulman, 1986, p. 11),
and its purpose is to assist teachers in “practicing the basic professional processes of
analysis, problem solving, and decision making” (Doyle, 1990, p. 10). One type of
case that is widely used involves teacher candidates in explaining and describing
practices that are considered crucial for all teachers to know and to be able to apply in
the classroom (Merseth, 1996).

Shulman (2000) asserts that “during the last decade, several educators have
viewed case-based pedagogy as one of the most promising reforms in teacher
education and professional development” (p. 2). She describes the benefits of using
such pedagogy, which includes bridging theory and practice in teacher education, and
guiding teachers’ decision-making in the classroom by helping them identify
problems, multiple perspectives, and determine possibilities for action. The use of
case-based instruction in special education preservice programs is relatively new, but
is seen as equally promising for reasons similar to those mentioned by researchers in
the area of general education (Elksnin, 2001). In 1998, Elksnin (1998) found that 78%
of participants in a survey of the membership of the Council for Exceptional

Children’s Teacher Education Division used case methods with their preservice

38

students. McNaughton, Hall, and Maccini (2001) conclude that case-based instruction
is widespread among special education teacher educators as well as among their
general education counterparts.

Despite the common use of case-based methods as instructional pedagogy in
teacher education programs, the use of cases as a method of teacher assessment is not
as prevalent. Two papers published in the late 1980s view case methods as a
promising direction for assessing teacher performance. First, Dwyer (1989) predicted
the use of case-like assessments as alternatives to the traditional pencil-and-paper
assessments used to license teachers. Second, Barnes (1987) touts case method
evaluation as a way to assess teaching in its complexity, by measuring teachers’ ability
to “use classroom events as occasions for restructuring their goals in order to achieve
multiple intensions for learners” (p. 2), skills that are not measured by traditional
teacher assessments. She sees case method evaluation as a tool to access the richness
of the problem-solving frameworks teachers possess in different areas. National
organizations such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) also include case-based assessment as part of their teacher assessments. For
example, special education teachers who wish to become nationally certified through
NBPTS must pass a six-part formal assessment. Four of these sections include case-
based methods that involve candidates in analyzing student profiles (NBPTS, 2003a).

Barnes (1987) outlines three guidelines for producing cases for use as teacher
assessment. In order to obtain validity, she states that cases must (1) approximate the
realities of classroom teaching; (2) be manageable in their level of complexity; and (3)

allow teachers to create their own meanings from the information provided (p. 13).

39

The case selected for the purposes of this instrument follows these guidelines in that it
is short, presents real problems of practice, and allows teachers to interpret the
situation rather than selecting from forced-choice responses.

The fifth section of the survey, a test of teacher knowledge of IDEA ’97 and
NCLB, was also based on the three points of intersection of HDEA ’97 and NCLB
identified by Thurlow and Thompson (2003). This section consisted of 12 multiple
choice questions, with four questions in each of the three areas referred to above. The
individual questions were based in part on a test bank developed by Braden and Elliott
(2003) in order to assess teacher knowledge surrounding assessment and
accountability.

The instrument was field tested with 61 teacher candidates at a large
Midwestern university. A reliability of .97 was calculated among the six teacher
perception questions. Using Winsteps, an item reliability of .80 was found on the test
of teacher knowledge. Based upon participants’ responses to the pilot, distracters in
the test of teacher knowledge that were not evenly distributed were modified. At the
conclusion of the survey, participants were asked to provide comments about the
clarity of qualitative questions, which were also modified accordingly.

Data Collection

Supervisors of teacher candidates of all 34 institutions were contacted to obtain
the number of students in their programs, and to solicit their students’ participation in
the study. F ollow-up telephone calls were made to supervisors who did not respond to
the solicitations. Consenting supervisors were given a list of ID numbers to assign to

their students for purposes of anonymity. The ID numbers indicated the program of

40

 

the teacher candidate. The supervisors were then asked to e-mail all students who
would be certified at the end of the 2003-2004 school year, requesting that they
participate in the study.

Participants’ responses were collected online. Although the use of Web
surveys is relatively new, particularly in the field of education, it is considered a very
promising method for collecting large amounts of data quickly, effrciently, and in a
manner that maximizes cost-effectiveness and response rates (Carbonaro, Bainbridge,
& Wolodko, 2002; Merseth, 1996; Schillewaert, Langerak, & Duhamel, 1998).

As the characteristics of early survey respondents often differ considerably
from late respondents, and because e-mail reminders can contribute up to one-third of
the final sample size, appropriate follow-up was crucial. Such follow-up should be
less than the traditional two-week reminder due to the immediacy of e-mail and Web-
based responses (V ehovar, Batagelj, Manfreda, & Zaletel, 2002). Therefore, follow-
ups were made weekly for three weeks following the first contact to the supervisors of
non-responders, either via e-mail or via telephone. Supervisors were encouraged to
forward messages to their students asking them to respond to the survey.

Data Analysis

The qualitative and quantitative data from each section of the survey were
analyzed separately, and the results from each section compared. First, qualitative
data were coded, and responses from the open-ended assessment of teacher knowledge
scored. Second, demographics and quantitative data (teacher perception ratings and
the test of teacher knowledge) were summarized. Finally, participants’ responses were

compared across section.

41

 

 

Coding procedures. Responses to both the open-ended assessment of teacher
knowledge and the case-based assessment of teacher reasoning were coded by using
inductive analysis (see tables 1 and 2 for a sample; a complete list of sample codes for
all questions can be found in Appendix B) (Janesick, 2000). Selective coding was
used to generate smaller categories encompassing each response. This type of coding
is used to sort large amounts of data, and the codes generated by the process account
for most of the individuals’ responses. As the coding progressed, codes were
compared to subsequent responses and revised in order to continue to encompass
individual responses. Broader categories were then created from the codes in order to
develop a more manageable list (Charmaz, 2000).

More specifically, lists were generated by reading the complete responses. Next,
the list was shortened into general categories that still encompassed individual
responses. All responses were coded using these categories, and the categories revised
during the coding process in order to reflect all of the individual responses. This
coding procedure resulted in 12 or 13 categories for each question. Finally, these
categories were collapsed into four or five for purposes of quantitativqanalysis. The
size of each of the final categories was set so as to capture at least four but less than 45
percent of the responses.

In the case-based assessment of teacher reasoning, questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 often
generated more than one response per individual. These responses were separated and
treated separately. For example, “allow her to have extra one on one instruction. Give
her extra time to complete assignments and allow her to take the writing and reading

lessons home with her” was coded as three responses in the following categories: one-

42

on-one in-class instruction, modify assignments, and work with family /take home
assignments.
Table 1

Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Knowledge (IDEA ’9 7)

 

Response Code Category

all students must have access to F APE (free appropriate Basic Rights

an education public education)

increased concentration on parent parental involvement Basic Rights

participation

least restrictive environment LRE Basic Rights

regular education teachers are gened teacher at IEP IEP and Service

included in ARD (annual) Provisions

meetings

TBI added change in categories IEP and Service

served Provisions

ADHD as a specific condition change in categories IEP and Service

under OHI served Provisions

higher accountability for schools school accountability Increased
Accountability

who will take the state wide tests standardized testing Increased
Accountability

changed the assessments made standardized testing Increased

them stronger to ensure proper Accountability

grth

 

43

Table 2

Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning (Question 1)

 

Response

Sara’s weaknesses in the general

education subjects

I would like to know Sara’s

learning styles

what are her IEP goals currently
and how are the (sic) being met

in both settings?

Does she fail primarily due to
low test scores? Or is she not

turning in assignments?
What do her spocial (sic)
interactions look like?

Does she have any vision or

hearing problems?

what were her scores (on
standardized tests)?

have any modifications been
made to the state exams to reflect
Sara’s levels of achievement?

when taking the state

standardized test did she have

alternative testing?

Code

academic
strengths/weaknesses
learning style/response
to instruction

current goals and
process

reason for failing grades

socio-emotional issues

medical history / issues

breakdown of test scores

standardized testing
issues

standardized testing
issues

Category

current academic
progress

current academic
progress

current academic
progress

personal
/background
issues

personal
/background
issues

personal
/background
issues

response to testing

response to testing

response to testing

 

Scoring procedures. Responses to the open-ended test of teacher knowledge (the

provisions of IDEA ’97 and NCLB) were scored on a scale fi'om zero to two (see

Table 3). A score of zero was assigned to responses in which participants expressed

that they did not know an answer, or responses that were uncodable in that they did

not provide sufficient information for evaluation (e.g. “graduation” or “services must

be provided”) A score of one was assigned to partially correct provisions of IDEA

’97 or NCLB. Responses receiving this score included those in which participant

mentioned a provision of another education law, indicated a topical area with

44

insufficient explanation (e.g. “assistive technology” instead of “assistive technology
must now be considered by the IEP team” for IDEA ’97 or “increased accountability”
instead of “schools are held accountable for student outcomes” for NCLB), or gave a
response that was partially correct (e. g. “reading and writing assessments” for NCLB,
when writing is not included explicitly in the law). Many IDEA ’97 responses
assigned a score of one referred to provisions of the original IDEA law (e. g. “free and
appropriate public education,” or “manifestation determination.” A score of two was
assigned to correct provisions of IDEA ’97 and NCLB. These responses included
both a correct topical area as well as a brief explanation (e. g. “participation in
statewide testing” instead of “assessments,” or “transition plans starting at age 14”
instead of “transition plan”). Inter-rater reliability was conducted by presenting and
explaining the scoring guidelines and template to the rater and asking the rater to score
15% of the data independently. An inter-rater reliability of 85% was found on the

scoring of this portion of the survey.

45

Table 3

Sample Scoring for Open-Ended Test of Teacher Knowledge (IDEA ‘9 7)

 

Response

state and district wide
testing of children with
disabilities

every student with a
disability needs an IEP
technology

general education teachers
in IEP meeting

free and appropriate public
education

add categories

access to general education
curriculum (sp) for sp. ed.
students

gives parents more role

autism

Score
2

NO

NO

Explanation
a major tenet of IDEA ’97 is that all
students will be included in testing

central concept of IDEA, but not a new
provision of IDEA ‘97

not enough information to score

IDEA ’97 does require general education
teachers to attend IEP meetings

again, a central concept of IDEA, but not
a new provision of IDEA ‘97

not enough information to score

another major change in IDEA

IDEA ’97 does provide more parental
safeguards, but the response does not
explain how parents are given more of a
role

not enough information to score

 

46

Table 4

Sample Scoring for Open-Ended Test of Teacher Knowledge WCLB)

 

Response

special ed is not exempt
from state testing
perform work at or above
grade level

no student will fail
identifying schools that
need improvement

revamp accountability

benchmarks

report cards must be sent to
parents to show school
progress

empower parents

corrective actions

Score
2

1

NO

NO

Explanation

one of the major tenets of NCLB involves
student participation in state testing

a major goal of NCLB is for students to
improve performance, but the response
does not explain or state how this is to be
achieved

not enough information to score

another major goal is to identify and
provide for schools that need
improvement

accountability is central to NCLB, but the
response does not explain or state how
this is to be achieved

not enough information to score

NCLB does require this action on the part
of schools

parental empowerment is a goal, but the
response does not explain or state how
this is to be achieved

not enough information to score

 

Quantitative data analysis. Five major questions were addressed in the quantitative

analysis: (1) Were individuals’ responses to one section related to their responses to

other sections? (2) Were responses to any section related to certification type? (3) Did

participants know more about IDEA ’97 or about NCLB? (4) In what area(s) did they

feel better prepared, IDEA ’97 or NCLB? Standards, access, or assessment? and (5) Is

the number of times participants mentioned the three areas in open-ended responses

related to their perception of their preparation or their scores on other sections?

For the first question, correlations were computed among participants’ responses

to the overall perception question, their total scores on the open-ended assessment of

47

teacher knowledge, and their total scores on the test of teacher knowledge. Second,
independent sample t-tests were run to determine whether any of the three scores used
above differed by certification type. Third, a matched-sample t-test was used to
determine participants’ differences in mean scores on the two questions (IDEA ’97
and NCLB) of the open-ended assessment of teacher knowledge. Fourth, an ANOVA
was used to determine whether differences existed among participants’ responses to
the five specific perception questions (IDEA ’97, NCLB, standards, access, and
assessment). Then t-tests were used to determine which means differed from the
others, by grouping IDEA ’97 with NCLB, and by grouping standards, access, and
assessment together.

Finally, the last question was addressed by creating a variable, which represented
the number of times participants mentioned the three areas of standards, assessment,
and access in their responses to the case-based assessment of teacher reasoning. It was
derived by counting: (1) answers included under the categories of “response to
testing” for question 1, (2) “issues with state assessment” for question 2, and (3) a
response of “yes” to question 5, indicating that the participant believed the student
should be held to the same standards as her non-disabled peers. Correlations were
used to determine whether this variable was related to perception of preparation or
participants’ scores on the open-ended assessment of teacher knowledge or the test of

teacher knowledge.

48

 

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Demographic Data
Of the 34 special education teacher preparation programs listed on the National
Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education (NCPSE) database (NCPSE,
2003a, 2003b), 11 alternative and 16 traditional special teacher preparation programs
in the State of Texas claimed to have certified at least one teacher at the end of the
2003-2004 school year. Among these teacher preparation programs, six (55%)
alternative and nine (57%) traditional programs participated in the survey. In sum,
surveys were returned by 194 of the 633 special education teacher candidates,
comprising a 31% return rate overall, and a 43% return rate from responding
programs. As depicted in Table 4, 126 teacher candidates from alternative programs
returned the survey, as did 65 teacher candidates from traditional programs.
Table 5

Participants’ Certification Type

 

Frequency Percent of responders
Traditional 65 34.0
Alternative 126 66.0
Missing Data 3 -

Total 194 1 00.0

 

The majority of teacher candidates (52%) were currently student teaching

(traditional) or teaching (alternative) in elementary schools. Twenty three percent

49

were placed in high schools and 38% in middle schools (see Table 5). School type
was unrelated to certification type.

Table 6

Participants’ School Type

 

Frequency Percent of responders

Elementary School 101 53.3
Middle School 38 20.0
High School 45 23.7
Other 6 3.2
Missing Data 4 -
Total 194 100.0

 

Gender and age of teacher candidates were both related to certification type.
Overall, 86% of the sample was female and 14% male. The sample is representative
of the overall gender distribution of the beginning special education teacher workforce
(Billingsley, 2002). Alternative candidates were more likely to be male than
traditional candidates, (X2 (1, N = 189) = 12.793, p<0.01). As shown in Table 6, 21%
of alternative candidates responded that they were male, whereas less than 2% of

traditional teacher candidates were male.

50

Table 7

Participants’ Gender by Certification Type

 

Percent Male Percent Female Total
Traditional 1.6 98.4 14.3
Alternative 20.8 79.2 85.7
Total 14.3 85.7 100.0

 

Age of teacher candidates also differed greatly by certification type. Overall,
the majority of the sample (57%) fell within the 20-29 age range, 23% in the 30-39
age range, and the remainder 40 and over (see Table 7). Among traditional teacher
candidates, 83% were 20-29 years old, as would be expected among college graduates.
However, less than half of alternative teacher candidates (43%) fell in the 20-29 age
range. Thirty percent were 30-39 years old, 14% 40-49, and 12% were 50 or older.
This difference was also statistically significant, (t (185) = 4.720, p<0.01), and can be
predicted based on other studies comparing candidates from traditional and alternative
certification programs (Wilson et al., 2001; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001).
Table 8

Participants ’ Age by C ertification Type

 

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Total
Traditional 83.1 7.7 7.7 1.5 - 100.0
Alternative 43.4 30.3 13.9 11.5 0.8 100.0

Total 57.2 22.5 11.8 8.0 0.5 100.0

 

51

Participants were asked to indicate up to three classifications of student
disabilities that they taught most often. Out of the ten disabilities categories, most
reported teaching students with learning disabilities (73%), emotional disturbance
(50%), and mental retardation (44%). All but eight of the participants (96.4%)
reported teaching students in at least one of the “high incidence” disability categories.
Participants were least likely to report teaching students with severe and profound

disabilities (10%), hearing impairment (7%), and visual impairment (6%) (see Table

 

8). The majority of respondents (70.6%) selected three categories, and there were no
differences in the number of categories marked by alternative and traditional
candidates.

Table 9

Disability Categories of Students Taught By Participants

 

Yes No
Learning Disabilities 142 52
Emotional Disturbance 96 98
Mental Retardation 84 110
Autism 68 126
Other Health Impairment 61 133
Speech-Language Impairment 58 136
Physical Disabilities 3 1 163
Severe and Profound Disabilities 20 174
Hearing Impairment 17 177
Visual Impairment 12 182

 

52

Teacher Perceptions

Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions of their teacher preparation
programs in six related questions (see Appendix A). These questions included (1)
overall preparation for their current teaching or student teaching positions, (2)
preparation in knowledge of policies and procedures mandated by both IDEA ’97 and
NCLB, and (3) preparation in knowledge and practices related to each of the three
areas of standards, assessment, and access to the general education curriculum. In
general, respondents indicated positive perceptions of their preparation, regardless of
certification type, age, school, or disability type served. Both the means and modal
scores for all six questions were on the positive side of the Likert scale, as shown in
Table 12. However, significant differences were found for gender, in that males
displayed poorer perceptions of their preparation than did females, with means of 2.0
and 3.5 out of 6, respectively (F (1, 188) = 11.962, p = .001).

Responses to all six questions were highly correlated with one another, with
correlations ranging from .811 to .916, p<.001. However, there were statistically
significant differences in mean responses to some of the questions, F (4.049) = 9.872,
p < .001, 112 = .049 (see Table 9). Specifically, means for questions regarding
preparation for NCLB and for assessment were significantly lower than the other four
questions. These means were about 3.8 on the six-point scale. Questions receiving
the highest scores were those inquiring about knowledge of IDEA ’97 and access to

the general education curriculum (about 4.2 for both).

53

Table 10

Participants ’ Perceptions of Their Preparation

 

Meana Standard

Deviation
Overall 4.21 1 .43
IDEA ‘97 4.25 1.26
NCLB 3.78 l .30
Standards 4.1 8 l .42
Assessment 3 .79 1 .44
Access 4.29 1.56

 

aMean was calculated on a six-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly
agree

Description of Data

Open-ended assessment. of teacher knowledge. In general, participants
demonstrated wider and more accurate knowledge about NCLB than they did about
IDEA ’97. Nearly half of the responses about IDEA ’97 were simply statements about
the basic rights of students and parents, as outlined in the original law (PL. 94-142),
in 1975 (e.g. Free and Appropriate Public Education (F APE), Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE)) (see Table 10). The remainder of the responses, many of which
referred to a previous reauthorization of IDEA rather than IDEA ’97, alluded to very
specific provisions, such as an addition of a disability category or a change in IEP
provisions (e.g. consideration of a student’s need for assistive technology). Only 7%

of participants mentioned increased accountability as a provision of this law.

54

Table 1 1

Provisions of IDEA ’97 Named By Participants

 

Frequency Percent of responders

Basic rights 106 49.1
IEP and service provisions 69 31.9
Don’t know 25 11.6
Increased accountability 16 7.4
Missing Data 47 -
Total 263 100.0

 

Aside fi'om the basic rights of students and parents, the only category that
captured greater than ten percent of the IDEA ’97 responses was “don’t know /
unsure.” For NCLB, three categories captured more than ten percent of participants’
responses: accountability and school improvement (15%), highly qualified teachers
(20%), and assessment/ standards (23%) (see Table 11). About six percent of
respondents alluded to the background philosophy of NCLB such as helping
disadvantaged students or ensuring success, and only 5% mentioned a change in
parental rights. NCLB responses indicated some knowledge of how the law affects
special education teachers and students explicitly, with 20% of responses about highly
qualified teachers (includes paraprofessionals), and 7% about specific provisions for
special education students and teachers (e. g. special education students must

participate in standardized testing).

55

Table 12

Provisions ofNCLB Named By Participants

 

Frequency Percent of responders

Assessment / standards 53 22.6
Highly qualified teachers 48 20.4
Accountability / school improvement 35 14.9
Basic philosophy / don’t know 33 14.0
Other specific provisions 66 28.1
Missing Data 28 -
Total 263 100.0

 

Although incorrect answers (those receiving a score of zero) were no more
common for IDEA ’97 than they were for NCLB, entirely correct responses (those
receiving a score of two) were much more common for NCLB. The most common
response to receive a score of zero were “don’t know / unsure” and uncodable
responses: only 16 responses for NCLB and six responses for IDEA ’97 were neither
“don’t know / unsure” or uncodable. Incorrect answers occurring more than once
involved inclusion mandates for IDEA ’97 and mandates about graduation, promotion,
or retention and individualized curriculum / instruction for NCLB.

More than twice as many NCLB responses (98) received the maximum score
of two than IDEA ’97 responses (40) (see Figure 1). This discrepancy is due mainly
to the fact that a score of one was assigned to responses that referred to other laws

(e. g. a response of “LRE” under IDEA ’97). Participants could earn a maximum

56

possible score of six when scores for both questions were combined (two points
possible for each of three responses). Whereas a slightly higher number of
participants received scores of four to six on NCLB (44) than received scores of one to
three (38), nearly 3 1/2 times the number of participants received scores of one to three
on IDEA ’97 (66) than received scores of four to six (19) (see Figure 2). Responses
were measured by number (how many provisions each participant named out of a total

of three) and score (on a scale from 0 to 2), and coded by type (what provisions were

named).

 

160 -
140 -
120 -

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Participants ’ IDEA ’97 and NCLB scores

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$35
31

21:: 7K

0

320 13X yin. +IDEA

c... 16

33:: / . v13 \12 \ H...

g5 / \5\;.9—

Z 0 5 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

Score

 

 

 

Figure 2. Participants’ total IDEA ’97 and NCLB scores

Multiple-choice test. As can be seen in Figure 3 and Table 12, participants’
scores on this test followed a normal distribution, with a mean of 5.6 of a possible 12
(46.7%), and standard deviation of 1.9. The test was comprised of three subtests in the
areas of standards, assessment, and access, with each allowing a potential score of

four.

58

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Participants’ total test scores
Table 13

Participants’ Test Scores

 

Overall Assessment Standards Access

scorea subtestb subtest subtest
Mean 5.64 2.24 1.39 2.07
Median 6.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
Mode 5.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
Standard deviation 1.92 0.92 0.83 1.01
N 96 92 92 95

 

' Overall score has 12 possible points
b Each subtest has 4 possible points
Assessment of teacher reasoning. Two major themes emerged from

participants’ responses across all five questions that give insight into their reasoning in

59

their teaching practices: (1) using accommodations and/or modifications to bypass a
student’s disability, and (2) using current levels of performance to determine the
curriculum and placement for a student. Responses related to accommodations and/or
modifications were common responses to each of the four questions addressing the
student’s IEP and current programming, accounting for 20 to 36 percent of the total
responses in each question. Participants wanted to know what accommodations and/or
modifications Sara was receiving and how they had been implemented, and to what
effect. They suggested the need for reviewing and possibly changing her current
accommodations and/or modifications. The most common reaction of participants to
question 4, which asked what factors they would consider when making decisions
about participation in state testing, was to suggest specific accommodations and/or
modifications for the testing, such as extended time or having questions read to her.
Less than half (45%) of responses recommended actual factors, such as current level
of performance or grades (see Table 13).

Participants tied Sara’s current performance to the curriculum she should
receive, her placement (i.e. self-contained / special education classes versus general
education classes), and the level of state test they recommended for her. Over half
(54%) of participants believed that Sara should not be held to the same academic
standards as non-disabled students. The most common reason for this response was
because of her disability and/or low achievement level. Of those who responded
“maybe” Sara should be held to the same standards (20%), most supported their
response by stating that Sara needs significant modification in order to be successful.

Either reviewing current placement and/or recommending more restrictive placement

60

was a major response category for all three questions asking about Sara’s program and
IEP. Even though question 3 asked participants how they would support the student in
the general education classroom, 8% of responses mentioned the need for a separate
reading program, and 6% recommended pull-out support. Again, when participants
were asked what factors they would consider in making decisions about state testing,
over one-fourth (27%) of responses were simply to recommend an alternate exam for

the student. Those who gave reasons cited her low ability and/or performance level.

61

Table 14

Responses to Open-Ended Questions

 

Additional Information Requested (Question 1) Three Important Issues for the IEP (Question 2)

 

Frequency Percent

Frequency Percent

 

 

Accommodations / Current Functioning 79 30.2
88 35.7
modifications Literacy Skills 69 26.3
Current academic Accommodations /
80 33.2 61 23.3
progress modifications
Personal / Review placement 27 10.3
57 23.7
background issues Issues with state
26 9.9
Response to Testing 18 7.5 assessment
Total 241 100.0 Total 262 100.0
Methods to Support Reading and Writing Factors for Making Decisions About Testing
(Question 3) (Question 4)

 

Frequency Percent

Accommodate / Current performance
96 43.6
modify and abilities
Read to her / write Suggested Specific
49 22.3
for her modifications /
Teach skills / accommodations
33 15.0
strategies Alternate exam
One-on-one Previous testing
33 15.0
instruction Modifications used in
Collaborate 9 4.1 classroom
Total 220 100.0 Total

 

Frequency Percent

52 29.7
48 27.4
47 26.9
19 10.9
9 5.1
175 100.0

 

62

 

Participants were fairly consistent in how they addressed the three areas of
standards, assessment, and access. As for standards, they did not appear to view them
as being one set of grade-level expectations for everyone in that grade, but as multiple
sets of benchmarks, to be tied to a student’s achievement/ ability level. One
responded, “I beleive (sic) that Sara should be held accountable for goals and
objectives as stated in the IEP’s because that is the academic standard proposed,” and
another, “I think she should be held to the same academic standards as her skill level
to hold her accountable for the academic standards that go with her age would be a
little harsh.” Only one or two participants alluded to standards in each of the other
four questions, which did not explicitly address them.

Many participants discussed assessment (in terms of standardized testing) in
their responses, 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 Sara’s performance level in the classroom, and
implementing appropriate accommodations and/or modifications on state tests. They
did not discuss tying testing to instruction, curricula and/or standards (either special or
general education).

As for access to the general education curriculum, most participants addressed
this issue in terms of accommodations and/or modifications made for Sara in the
general education classroom. Respondents asked which accommodations and/or
modifications had been targeted for Sara, her response to them, and/or how they were
implemented. Again, responses indicated that participants believed in questioning

and/or changing Sara’s placement, most often to a more restrictive placement, due to

63

her perceived academic limitations. Only four discussed the importance of access to
the general education curriculum, or tied this access to assessment and/or state
standards. Those participants who did mention these issues recommended that Sara be
tested at the level of curriculum that she is receiving, rather than testing her knowledge
of the general education curriculum.

Results of Statistical Tests

First, correlations were taken to determine if any relationship existed between
survey sections. Perceptions of preparation was unrelated to scores fiom either of the
assessments (r = .007 for test score, I = .075 for IDEA /NCLB score). However,
participants’ scores in the two assessments (open-ended assessment of teacher
knowledge, and the multiple-choice test) were moderately correlated (r=.37 8, p =
.007). Second, an independent samples t-test was conducted to determine if responses
to any section was related to certification type. Although neither score was related to
certification type, overall perception of preparation was, with traditional candidates
rating their preparation significantly higher than alternative candidates (t(147) = 2.096,
p = .04).

Third, scores on the two questions of the open-ended assessment of teacher
knowledge were compared through a matched samples t-test. Sixty-eight individuals
responded to both sections. Scores on both sections were moderately correlated (r =
.336, p = .005). In addition, scores on the NCLB question were significantly higher
than scores on the IDEA ’97 question (t(68) = -3.189, p = .002). Fourth, a repeated-
measures ANOVA was used to determine differences among the five specific

perception questions (perceptions of preparation for IDEA ’97 versus NCLB, and

64

perceptions of preparation for standards, access, and assessment). Overall differences
were found between means of some of the perception questions (F (3.953) = 9.586, p =
.000). Specifically, comparisons of the IDEA ’97 and NCLB perception questions
showed that participants rated their preparation for IDEA ’97 significantly higher than
their preparation for NCLB (mean difference = .476, p = .000). Comparisons of the
three area perception questions (standards, assessment, and access) showed that
participants rated their preparation for assessment lower than the other two (mean
differences of -.372 and -.483, p = .000).

The last question asked whether the number of times participants mentioned
the three areas in their open-ended responses was related to their perceptions of their
preparation or to their scores on either assessment. Although neither score was related
to this variable (r = -.035 for test score, r = -.055 for IDEA/NCLB score), the variable
was moderately correlated with overall perception of preparation (r = .323, p = .002).
Those who mentioned assessment, access, and/or standards more during their
discussion of a student’s situation rated their preparation higher than those who
mentioned the three areas less in their response.

Summary of Findings

The study had an overall return rate of 31%. About 2/3 of the participants
were alternative candidates, and 1/3 traditional candidates. Alternatively certified
individuals were more likely to be male and older than traditional candidates. The
majority of participants taught in elementary schools, and most taught students with

mild disabilities.

65

In general, participants had positive perceptions of their preparation, although
they were less positive about their preparation for NCLB than IDEA ’97, and less
positive about their preparation for assessment than for the other two areas of
standards and access. Differences were found by certification type; traditional
candidates rated their preparation higher than alternative candidates. As for the open-
ended assessment of teacher knowledge, participants showed more accurate
knowledge about the provisions of NCLB than the provisions of IDEA ’97. The
majority of responses to the IDEA ’97 questions were either basic rights or “don’t
know / unsure.” Participants’ scores on the multi-choice test of teacher knowledge
showed more knowledge about assessment than the other two areas. The average score
on this test was less than 50%.

With respect to the open-ended assessment of teacher reasoning, participants
showed consistency in response across all five questions. When planning for a
hypothetical student, their responses most often involved using accommodations
and/or modifications in order to bypass the student’s disability, and using current
functioning to determine the student’s curriculum and placement. Most believed that
the student should not be held to the same standards as her peers in general education.
Although participants did indicate concerns involving statewide assessment
throughout the five questions, the great majority did not tie standards or the general
education curriculum with assessment. The more times participants mentioned
standards, assessment, or access to the general education curriculum in their responses

to the five questions, the higher they rated their teacher preparation.

66

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction

Overall, teacher candidates appeared to be fairly satisfied with their
preparation. Participants did feel well prepared to implement these new laws, but their
knowledge and reasoning surrounding IDEA ’97 and NCLB did not cover the three
areas assessed in this study. Although they did have basic knowledge of the tenets of
IDEA ’97 and NCLB and how the laws would affect them and their students, their
knowledge when planning for a hypothetical student did not include making
connections between the three areas assessed. They advocated for individual
instruction for students, although this instruction did not include teaching skills or
strategies to facilitate students’ access to the general education curriculum. Finally,
few differences were found between altematively- and traditionally-certified
candidates, a significant finding in an age in which great debate exists over
certification type, and in an area that experiences chronic teacher shortages. However,
one finding that should be considered was that traditional candidates rated the quality
of their preparation significantly higher than alternative candidates.

The results of this study illustrate several issues in the field of education. First,
despite the trend in schools toward increased focus on the three areas of standards,
assessment, and access to the general curriculum, the results of this study indicate that
teacher preparation in these areas may not be keeping pace with the field, regardless of
certification type. However, new teachers still report feeling well prepared for special

education practice. Second, a clear gap exists between current policy and current

67

practice about the educational needs of students with disabilities. Third, the findings
indicate a tension between the need to prepare teachers to be informed about and act as
critical participants in the policy debate, and the need to prepare teachers to adapt to a
changing school system as it follows the policy climate.
The Policy- to- Practice Gap

This study found a significant gap between changes in special education policy
and practice and the way in which new special education teachers are being prepared.
In the case-based assessment of teacher reasoning, participants repeatedly mentioned
the use of modifications and/or accommodations when thinking about students’ IEPs
and discussing potential interventions. However, only a few participants commented
on the use of modifications and/or accommodations in the context of standards,
curriculum, or content across the five questions. Those who did mention standards,
curriculum, or content did so in one of two ways: (1) they suggested that
accommodations and/or modifications needed to be made to the curriculum or to
standards (e. g. “the curriculum would have to be modified . .. according to her needs,”
“because I would be forced to lower standards for her I would [use these
modifications]”, or (2) they believed accommodations and/or modifications needed to
be made to ensure access to the general education curriculum (6. g. “I would ask for
[specific modifications] that way Sara can be exposed to the same curriculm (sic) that
her nondisabled peers are exposed to,” and “I would ask Sara to [use specific
modifications] so that she can be included in many more of the general education

studies.”

68

Despite the nationwide push toward inclusion in general education classes and
holding all students to a set of uniform standards, many participants still commented
on the need to review the student’s placement and/or proposed a separate placement
and separate academic programming. When participants gave a reason for making this
recommendation, it was the students’ low literacy and/or academic performance level.
For example, they explained, “her instruction in the gen ed classes is obviously at the
frustration level and needs to be at the instructional level,” and “I don’t think at the
levels that Sara is reading and writing that she should be in the general education
classroom.”

Even though participants placed a heavy emphasis on individualized
instruction in their discussion, few mentioned teaching specific skills or strategies,
either inside or outside the general education classroom. Their responses neglect
several key instructional elements necessary for helping low-achieving readers to
succeed, both in terms of increasing literacy and in mastering general education
content. For example, the integration of reading and writing skills with learning
strategies is critical in improving reading and writing outcomes (Vaughn, Gersten, &
Chard, 2000). Learning strategies help students approach academic tasks in a
systematic manner, giving them the tools necessary to meet the demands they face in
their general education classes (Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker, & Clark, 1991).
Additionally, combining strategy instruction with content area learning is fundamental
when including students in general education content courses (Ellis, 1993), thereby
assisting access to the general education curriculum. Strategies for facilitating

inclusion were addressed directly in question 3 in the case-based assessment of teacher

69

reasoning, and the great majority of participants suggested various modifications or
accommodations, rather than teaching such specific skills or strategies.

Only two of the participants in this study agreed with the need to give the
student access and hold her accountable to the general education standards because
these are the standards upon which she would (or should) be assessed. Most believed
that the student should be held to different standards and given an alternate state
assessment. When discussing standards, eight participants mentioned explicitly the
need to hold her accountable for learning the goals stated in her IEP, or those her team
had set for her, rather than the general education academic standards: “I beleive (sic)
that Sara should be held accountable for her goals and objectives as stated in the IEP’s
because that is the academic standard proposed.” This dichotomy should not exist in
special education practice, as teachers are now expected to work with colleagues to
align IEP goals with state standards and ensure that students do have access to the
general education curriculum (Thompson et al., 2003).

The remainder of the participants who stated that the student should not be
held to the same standards as her non-disabled peers cited her low ability and/or
performance level. Several appeared quite emphatic about the necessity of holding the
student to different standards: “it is unfair to expect the students (with learning
disabilities) to perform at that level,” “she could begin to shut down and stop caring
and working so hard. Now we have a discipline problem as well as a learning
disability,” “That’s like asking a cat to bark,” “why should she be expected to do

something that she clearly cannot do? Education is suppose (sic) to be about being

70

individualized so that all children can succeed,” “expecting her to perform to the same
standards is unreasonable and perhaps unconstitutional as well.”

These findings align closely with that of the Belden Russonello and Stewart
(2003) study, which also found that a majority of both special and general education
teacher believed that most special education students should be held to an alternate set
of academic standards and be given alternate assessment. Currently, the state of Texas
allows a student’s ARD (Admission, Review, and Dismissal) Committee (the IEP
team) to decide what assessment a student is to take. Their guidelines indicate that
committees are to select the assessment “that most closely aligns to the instruction the
student is receiving in the [general education curriculum]” (Scott, 2003, p. 1).

However, at the time of the study, the state department of education had just
received notification that they would be required to reduce the percentage of students
taking alternate assessments from seven or eight percent to one percent, if they want
the scores to count toward AYP (Summary of TEA proposal for 2004 AYP with USDE
responses, 2004). This new rule may be difficult to implement, especially in light of
the finding of this study that over one-fourth of the sample recommended an alternate
exam for a hypothetical student with a learning disability and low reading level.
Additionally, teachers may not be prepared to implement some crucial inclusive
practices, such as skill or strategy instruction. Decisions at the federal and state levels
will have marked impact on decisions made by special education teachers at the local
level, which new teachers may not embrace.

The current state of limbo of Texas law may account for some of the patterns

in participants’ responses. For example, Texas still places many students in restrictive

71

settings. While 46% of US. students with disabilities spend 80% of their day in
general education classes, only 26% of students in Texas fall into this category (Ward
et al., 2003). The state does allow decision-making regarding testing to be tied to the
curriculum the student is receiving. It allows separate standards and separate tests for
students with disabilities, to be determined on an individual basis. However, these
rules and procedures are changing annually in a reflection of the evolving policy
climate (Scott, 2003). These changes will result in many fewer students being allowed
to participate in alternate assessments, and in alternate assessments being more closely
aligned with the general education standards and curricula (Neeley, 2004). Based on
the results of this study, it may be difficult for the state to succeed in these efforts.
Research has shown that teachers must play an active, strong role in any successfirl
educational policy initiative (F ullan, 1991; Sarason, 1990). Consensus amount
teachers is crucial (Fullan, 1991). Further, Sarason (1990) comments on the necessity
of considering history when implementing policy. The history of special education as
a distinct system with separate funding, placements, structure, rules and accountability
cannot be taken lightly when planning for systemic reform.

Overall, responses to the perception questions showed that participants felt
positive about their preparation for their current positions, as well as in each sub-
category. This general response pattern is predictable, as it has been observed in
several other studies measuring special education teacher perceptions of their
preparation (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003; Lyon, Vaassen, & Toomey, 1989;
O'Shea et al., 2000). Participants’ responses to open-ended questions asking them to

provide provisions of IDEA and NCLB, as well as their responses to the vignette

72

about a middle school student with learning disabilities, show that they may be better
prepared for special education practices not assessed in this study, such as making
individualized decisions about placement, assessment, and instruction, or making
modifications and accommodations in the general education classroom. Research has
not yet shown which set of practices best support student outcomes, or whether or how
these can work together successfully (Stodden, Galloway, & Stodden, 2003).
However, it is important to note that the number of times participants in this study
mentioned the three areas of standards, assessment, and access to the general
education curriculum in the case-based assessment of teacher knowledge, was related
positively to their perceptions of their preparation. This finding raises questions about
whether those candidates who have more in-depth knowledge and awareness of the
three areas may be better prepared for teaching than those who do not.

In particular, participants appeared to possess the most knowledge of
assessment. They mentioned issues involving state assessment when answering
questions in the case-based assessment of teacher knowledge that were related to other
issues, such as the IEP. Their scores on the assessment subtest of the test of teacher
knowledge were significantly higher than scores on the access and standards subtests.
Issues with state testing were major categories for both question 1, asking what
additional information participants would want to ask about the student, as well as for
question 2, asking participants to list three important issues for the student’s IEP. It is
important to note, though, that less than ten percent of the responses to both questions
fell under this category. For question 1, most wanted to know (1) if the student had

taken, qualified for, or considered the alternate assessment, and/or (2) what

73

accommodations and/or modifications she had been given in the past. For example,
“Has an [alternate assessment] been suggested?” “Have any modifications been made
to the state exams to reflect Sara’s level of achievement?”

Interestingly, participants felt least prepared to deal with assessment than with
the other two areas of standards and access. This discrepancy may be due to the
prominence of assessment in public policy and in the stakes that are often tied to
results of assessments. Because of the possibility that assessment might affect them
directly, teacher candidates may feel less confident about their preparation in this area.

Teacher candidates seemed concerned with the decision-making surrounding
both type of testing and selecting accommodations and/or modifications. For
example, they explained, “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,” “Why has
her [state testing] not been modified to her current educational levels?” “[consider]
what test she will take and how much (sic) modifications or accommodations will be
required.” The fact that assessment was a major category in two questions may be due
to the fact that, of the three areas, assessment is most visible. Special education
teachers everywhere are now involved in decision-making and/or implementation of
state testing policies, and addressing these processes in the IEP was mandated by
IDEA ’97.

It is important to note that the State of Texas does have well-developed
accountability systems and has taken initiative in aligning standards for teacher
preparation and certification with standards for students (Thompson et al., 2003). The

new state certification examinations for special education teachers, part of the Texas

74

Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) went into effect in Fall 2003. The
standards for special educators include requirements that new special education
teachers (1) have knowledge of major legislation affecting students with disabilities,
(2) be able to work collaboratively to design IEP goals and objectives that are aligned
with state standards, (3) be able to use information from a variety of sources to suggest
and implement appropriate accommodations and/or modifications, and 94) understand
the significance of state testing in planning for students (Thompson et al., 2003).
Clearly, Texas has taken these three areas into account when designing programs and
planning for the education of new special education teachers.

Although preservice programs may be emphasizing other competencies for
special education teachers (e. g. making adaptations / accommodations, individualizing
curriculum and instruction), teachers do appear to be considering assessment-related
factors in their planning for students. This finding may indicate a shift toward
consideration of these policy changes in teacher education. Additionally, it may reflect
the documented trend in implementation of education policy whereby schools and
teachers incorporate only the most superficial aspects of the policy, and the school
system remains impervious to the remainder of the policy changes, particularly the
deep, systemic changes (Cuban, 1993).

Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes

Another critical issue in the research-to-practice gap involves teacher attitudes
and beliefs surrounding these three areas. Beliefs among special education teachers
and other professionals regarding these laws may be contributing to participants’

beliefs that the special education student in the vignette should not be held to the same

75

standards and should not participate in the same state testing or receive the same
curriculum as her general education peers. Some participants expressed the opinion
that she should be educated in separate settings. In this study, as in others, concern
can be seen most clearly in responses regarding regular state testing, particularly
among participants who recommended an alternate assessment rather than suggesting
factors for consideration for making decisions about state testing (26.5%). Comments
included, “the child is obviously functioning at a low level,” “because she is at a lower
educational level mentally and always will be the alternate test is the only one she
would ever be able to pass,” “first of all what would giving her a test that she
consistently has not passed do for her self esteem motivation and fi'ustration levels?”
and “no need to set her up for failer (sic) again.”

The fact that special and general education 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 feel that their students
should be held to different standards, and receive different curricula, from their
general education peers. They state a strong belief in individual curricula and
individualized instruction (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003; Crawford et al.,
2002). Belden et a1. (2003) state that the results of their survey of both general and
special education teachers indicated that, “public school teachers soundly reject
mandates for special education students outlined in NCLB. [They oppose] mandating

that special education students take the same standardized tests as their general

76

education counterparts. They also oppose mandating that special education instruction
be aligned with state academic content standards for students their age” (p. 2).

A Texas-based survey shows that these educators’ opinions do not differ from
those expressed nationally. In a survey of 286 general education and 91 special
education teachers, Ward et a1. (2003) found that teachers did not agree with the
practice of standardized testing for their students. In particular, they believed that the
testing did not improve student motivation, that it negatively affected inclusive
practices, and that it was not a good measure of student learning. Participants in the
current study already appear to agree with these opinions held by practicing special
education teachers. They recommended alternate assessments and modified standards,
and many mentioned a need to review the student’s placement. They believe in the
use of a student’s current level of performance to determine curriculum, testing, and
placement, rather than the use of a uniform set of standards for all students.

While these beliefs and attitudes can be seen as problematic, they can also be
viewed as symptomatic of problems inherent in standards-based reform, and can be
seen as a warning sign for educational professionals intent on implementing these
reform measures. Many professionals predict a loss of specialized curricula and
instruction tailored to students’ needs (Huefner, 2000; Schwartzbeck, 2003; "Special
education at a crossroads," 2004). Belden Russonello and Stewart (2003) concluded,
“public school teachers soundly reject mandates for special education students
outlined in [NCLB] [They] oppose mandating that special education instruction be

aligned with state academic content standards for students their age” (p. 2).

77

Many special education experts concur. They warn that uniform standards do
not allow for individual differences, and that uniform standards and assessment do not
give students the opportunity to demonstrate all that they have learned. They predict a
loss of the kind of flexibility that would allow professionals to match assessments to
students’ skill levels. These experts suspect increased dropout rates may be a
consequence of decreased individualization. Their concerns are validated by studies
conducted in states instituting high-stakes exams (i.e. promotion and/or graduation
exams), which linked increased dropout rates to the implementation of such policies
(B. Griffin & Heidorn, 1996; Reardon, 1996). They recommend increased flexibility
in setting standards and planning for assessment, while simultaneously keeping
students involved in assessment and accountability systems ("Special education at a
crossroads," 2004).

These concerns are so widespread that they are reflected in the Council for
Exceptional Children’s (CEC) Policy on Assessment and Accountability (Council for
Exceptional Children, 2003). In this document, the Council expresses the position that
the IEP team make assessment decisions based on individual needs and that all
assessment scores, whether from a standard assessment, a standard assessment with
accommodations, or an alternate assessment, be counted equally toward the district
assessment index. This last statement would negate NCLB’s current incentive for all
students to participate in one assessment.

As implementation of reform relies heavily on teacher consent and initiative,
such views may be difficult for reformers to overcome (Cohen, 1995; F ullan, 1991).

Cohen (1995) outlines several criteria for addressing probable success or failure of

78

reform efforts, including teacher awareness of initiatives, attitudes toward the reform,
teachers’ discourse surrounding the efforts, and finally, their incorporation of the
measures into their classrooms. The current study indicates some knowledge but little
buy-in on the part of teacher candidates.

Participants in the current study were already frustrated by a lack of
individualization for students, commenting on the need for alternative assessments and
special classes for those students with greater literacy needs. They focused on basic
rights of students and parents when asked about IDEA, and discussed a variety of
accommodations and modifications for used in both general and special education
settings. They felt generally well prepared to meet the needs of their students.
However, they did not recommend specific strategies to improve her achievement.
Therefore, the results of this study support those advocating for a continued focus on
individualized instruction for students with disabilities (Huefirer, 2000; Schwartzbeck,
2003; "Special education at a crossroads," 2004).

Potential Eflects of the Policy —to —Practice Gap

Special education professionals appear to agree that practices in special
education are changing rapidly as a result of the recent reform movement (Coleman,
2001; Pugach & Warger, 2001; Thurlow, 2002). However, many special educators
also believe that this movement is detrimental to their students (Belden Russonello &
Stewart, 2003). If these observations are true, the field of education potentially could
be confronted with increased teacher attrition, in addition to less-than—desirable

implementation of reform.

79

Teacher attrition is already a problem of large magnitude in Texas as well as
throughout the United States (Boe et al., 1998; Brownell, Smith, & McNellis, 1997;
Herbert, 2004). Higher attrition rates have also been well documented among
completers of alternative certification programs, a large majority in this sample
(Harris, Camp, & Adkinson, 2003; Herbert, 2004; Natriello & Zumwalt, 1993).
Special education teacher attrition has been linked to several factors that are salient to
this situation, including statewide testing mandates, inadequate teacher preparation,
and what Wisniewski and Gargiulo (1997) label “role conflict,” which occurs when
formal roles and responsibilities clash with the reality of a teacher’s work life
(Mastropieri, 2001; Sultana, 2002; Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997). For example, the
stated goals of holding all students to one standard and participating in one assessment
might be difficult to achieve with students who are performing several years below
grade level. Further, the need to provide individualized instruction and curricula
might conflict with the goals of holding all students to one set of standards.

The policy-to-practice gap is quite serious in an age of accountability, in which
both students and teachers are being required to adapt to a changing school climate.
Teacher attrition, already of great concern in the field, can also be impacted by
problems with these laws and by problems with teacher preparation. Consequently,
quality teacher education, in any form, is an imperative. Teacher candidates must be
informed about any new mandates and their projected impact on practice in the
schools. Additionally, they must have the attitudes, beliefs and tools necessary to
make the changes demanded by the field. These conclusions illustrate a tension

inherent in teacher preparation, the tension between teachers are autonomous

80

individuals with a mandate and the power to do what they feel is best for their
students, and teachers as part of the larger system that follows reform efforts in the
attempt to improve outcomes for all students.

Teachers are central to reform efforts (Cohen, 1995; Fullan, 1991). However,
reform efforts are often transient, and schools often make minimal efforts to comply,
resulting in little, if any, lasting change (Cuban, 1993). Clearly, teacher preparation
programs cannot place great emphasis on the latest reform, lest it be moot by the time
teacher candidates enter the world of practice, or only a few years hence. Programs’
slates are already full with mandates from states, professional organizations, and their
own institutions (Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2000). However, programs can and should
inform teachers about current trends and issues with the field and any likely resultant
changes. They can encourage teachers to become active in the policy debate and to
continue their own learning through ongoing growth. Such grth involves reflection
on classroom practice in order to improve teaching, a vital task for teachers that should
be encouraged at all levels (F eiman-Nemser, 2001). Teachers’ work is notoriously
autonomous (Cusick, 1992; Lortie, 1975). Therefore, it is crucial that they are given
the tools to advocate and to do what is best for students, and also to stay open to new
ideas and grow as a teacher.

As the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards emphasis in their
Exceptional Needs Standards, teachers must have knowledge of policies and “relate
special education legislation and litigation to current policy and practice” (NBPTS,

2001, p. 13), in addition to serving as advocates for students and helping shape policy

81

through that advocacy by connecting with the larger community of educational
professionals, community leaders, and families.
Implications

The results of this study show a gap between the changing policy environment
in special education and the education teacher candidates are receiving in their
preparation programs. These trends were consistent across certification type. As is
the case with their more experienced counterparts, teacher candidates involved in this
study believed that their students should not be held to the same standards as their
same-grade peers in general education. Many advocated alternate assessment for
students in special education.

Generally, they seemed knowledgeable about the basics of IDEA and NCLB.
Although candidates appeared concerned about making proper decisions surrounding
assessment, they felt least comfortable about dealing with this issue. Responses
focused on the importance of individualized instruction for students with disabilities.
Candidates’ concerns for students clashed with the goals of standards-based reform.
Tensions between the goals of reformers and the goals of teacher preparation
programs were apparent.

The findings of this study have implications for several different areas in the
field of special education. These areas include policy, teacher education, research, and
school administration. Based on the results of this study as well as previous research,
recommendations for closing this research-to-practice gap are presented.

Policy. One important conclusion of this study is that alternative and

traditional candidates’ responses were nearly indistinguishable from one another.

82

Although many education professionals have denounced alternative certification (Dill,
1996; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001), this study offers no conclusive evidence suggesting
that one certification type is better than another in preparing special education teacher
candidates for the changing policy environment in the schools. As noted previously,
there is conflicting opinion and evidence in the effectiveness of alternative versus
traditional certification. Brownell et a1. (2002) do believe that at least some alternative
programs are effective: “[some alternative programs] do bring into the field
individuals for whom traditional, campus-based programs seem inappropriate —
second career professionals and retired military personnel, for example —- and they can
help to diversify the teaching workforce” (p. 16). The different demographics of this
population can be seen in the results of this study. On the other hand, Nougaret’s
(2003) study showed large differences in scores on planning and classroom
environment as well as instruction between traditionally- certified special education
teachers and those with no training.

Alternative candidates show a comparable amount of knowledge about IDEA
’97 and NCLB, as per open-ended generative questions as well as a multiple-choice
test. Their reasoning surrounding decision-making for a hypothetical student with
learning disabilities is also similar. Although their perceptions of their preparation did
differ, in that traditional candidates rated their preparation higher than alternative
candidates, more research is needed before arriving at any conclusions about the
superiority of one type of program over another.

Second, states should create or expand formal induction programs through

policy initiatives. At least some special education teachers may be exiting their

83

preparation programs without some skills that are emphasized by those who wish to
implement standards-based reform, such as the ability to align students’ IEP goals
with state standards, to align standards with curricula with instruction with assessment,
and to make appropriate assessment-related decisions. Teacher education programs,
especially alternative programs, are quite limited in their ability to teach all needed
skills, particularly in a job that is as diverse as that of a special education teacher. All
of the requirements placed on programs by states and overseeing agencies also limit
the programs’ capacity to expand course- and fieldwork. Additionally, they have no
reason to tailor their programmatic focus to current policy trends, as policies are
constantly changing (Cuban, 1993).

Therefore, if policymakers wish to produce teachers who have skills in these
areas, quality induction and professional development opportunities for teachers
would be of paramount importance. Continued professional development has also
been shown to ameliorate attrition and improve teacher quality (Carlson et al., 2002).
Through formal policy initiatives such as mentoring, induction programs, quality
professional development, required coursework, and release time for observation and
study, teachers can obtain the knowledge that is missing from their preparation
programs (C. C. Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilbom, & Kilgore, 2002).

Third, another important conclusion of this study was in the alignment of
teacher candidates’ beliefs about the importance of individualized instruction,
curricula and assessment with those reported by researchers across the country
(Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2003; "Special education at a crossroads," 2004; Ward

et al., 2003). Many special education professionals are concerned about the possible

84

loss of the original focus of special education law, which was on IEPs and the
procedural safeguards necessary to ensure the implementation of these specialized
plans for students with exceptional needs ("Special education at a crossroads," 2004).
Some predict resistance to these new policies, led by concerned teachers and
administrators (Huefner, 2000).

Such resistance and/or incomplete implementation would not be surprising,
given the lack of buy-in to the new policies by teachers (Cohen, 1995; Cuban, 1993).
Policymakers may need to rethink the strong emphasis placed on uniform standards,
curricula, and assessment mandated by IDEA ’97 and by NCLB. While all students
should be held to high standards and assessed to determine progress, they also have
unique needs that are often outside narrowly defined state mandated curricula. These
needs include basic literacy for students at all levels: vocational, social and life skills
goals, and behavioral goals (Huefner, 2000; Kauffman, 1999).

Teacher education. This study has several implications for the preparation of
special education teachers. First and foremost, the findings of this study indicate a
need for teacher education to: (1) instruct teacher candidates in the basics of standards-
based reform and how to teach students under this paradigm; (2) be aware of the
potential risks of this movement and instruct candidates in other effective teaching
practices; and (3) prepare candidates for future changes in special education practice.
Presently and in the near future, special education teachers are expected to hold most
students to one standard and know how to guide them in accessing the general
education curriculum (Thompson, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2003). Teaching research-

based practices such as presenting learning strategies in the context of general

85

education content can help teacher candidates learn to give students access to the
general education curriculum while boosting students’ independence (Ellis, 1993; Ellis
etaL,l991)

However, these mandates can lead to poor teaching practices such as “teaching
to the test” (Barton, 1999). Teacher candidates need to know how to avoid “teaching
to the test” by preparing students for state testing through quality teaching.
Additionally, risks of standards-based reform include overlooking essentials for many
students in special education, such as basic literacy, vocational training and career
goals, and study and social skills (Huefner, 2000; Kauffman, 1999). Teacher
candidates need to know effective techniques for teaching reading, behavioral
intervention, and transition planning on an individual level. Teacher preparation
programs should consider that the policy climate in education is always changing
(Cuban, 1993). Teachers need to have the tools to adapt to new environments and new
policies as they emerge, as a part of their own growth and development as teachers
and learners.

Further, the accountability movement has put pressure on institutions of higher
education to step up accountability in teacher education, including increased attention
to assessment (Conderman, Katsiyannis, & Franks, 2001; Lin, 2002; Wolf & Dietz,
1998). Institutions of higher education are now facing the challenges of balancing
state certification requirements, the licensure requirements of professional
organization, and accreditation standards, and are expected to document successful
implementation of all (Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2000). In addition, the government is

calling for direct ties between teacher education and student performance (President's

86

Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; U. S. Department of
Education, 2002).

Traditionally, teacher candidates were given pencil-and-paper tests in order to
evaluate their suitability for the classroom. Such is still the case for teacher
certification in Texas, and in many other states as well. However, these practices have
fallen out of favor due to problems with authenticity and criticisms that they do not
relate to the real world of teaching or its complexity (Conderman et al., 2001; Lin,
2002; Wolf & Dietz, 1998). Shulman (1988) mentioned problems with a variety of
methods for assessing teachers, and proposed a “turion of insufficiencies,” or a mix-
and-match approach to assessment in order to compensate for the strengths and
weaknesses of the various methods.

The results of this study also point to a need for more in-depth assessment of
teacher candidates as they appeared to have knowledge of IDEA ’97 and NCLB and
the three areas covered by those laws, but did not use this knowledge when discussing
their planning processes for a hypothetical student. The instrument used in the current
study did not measure whether candidates did not have knowledge of the three areas of
whether they felt that other areas were more important to consider when planning for
students. Perhaps states and institutions of higher education should consider using
case-based assessments such as the one used in this study, and/or performance
assessments, in addition to their traditional assessments in order to test and certify
teacher candidates. All assessments need to be aligned precisely with the standards

proposed, as well as the knowledge, dispositions and skills needed for the kind of

87

practice desired. This kind of direct alignment is rare in current state certification
examinations (Thompson et al., 2003).

Another crucial issue that stems from the findings of this study is that of
beliefs and attitudes on the part of teacher candidates that do not support the goals of
the standards-based reform movement. Repeatedly, research has shown the difficulty
of changing preservice teachers’ prior beliefs and attitudes (National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning, 1992; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). The
teacher candidates involved in this study already believed that students with
disabilities should not be accountable to the same standards as their peers in general
education. Either candidates already held these beliefs and attitudes before they
entered their teacher preparation programs, or they acquired them during their courses
of study. Given the lack of “apprenticeship of observation” of most special education
teachers (most did not spend 13+ years in special education classrooms, or have many
special education students as classmates) as noted by Pugach (1992), it is likely that
teacher candidates acquired these beliefs during their preparation programs. This
conclusion is reinforced by a study reviewing the syllabi of sixteen representative
education schools across the United States. The authors of this study reported that
many teacher educators appear to be teaching “resistance” to the standards-based
reform movement, which they postulate might render teachers unprepared for the
demands of teaching in contemporary schools (Steiner & Rozen, 2004, p. 142).

Regardless of their personal opinion about these policies, instructors and
teacher preparation programs as a whole need to examine their own beliefs and

attitudes in this area, and attempt to determine the source of preservice teachers’

88

dispositions. Teachers need to understand that grade-level academic standards
currently apply to every student, and how to work within that framework to bring
quality education to students with varying needs and abilities (Thompson et al., 2003).
However, they also need to understand the importance of other goals and objectives
for special education students, such as literacy and career preparation (Huefner, 2000;
Wigle & Wilcox, 2003).

The National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (1992) recommends
“extended, ongoing assistance that is grounded in classroom practice” (p. 4). Programs
need to be designed in a manner that encourages to allow teacher candidates to
question their beliefs, engage in discussion, and experiment with practice while in
supportive environments (F eiman-Nemser, 2001; National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning, 1992). Programs need to use the principles they endorse in every
course at every level, in every field experience, and to discuss them with every
supervising teacher. They should weave them into classroom assignments and
assessments, and encourage candidates to question them with every assignment and
field experience. The use of these methods could include grappling with issues such
as:

o How do teachers provide both remedial (i.e. basic skills) instruction and
instruction in grade-level academic content?

0 What is the best way to ensure access to the general education curriculum?

0 How does a teacher help align instruction, curriculum, and assessment for

students with varying ability and performance levels?

89

o How does a teacher comply with state testing requirements without “teaching
to the test”?

0 How can academic, vocational and life skill needs be balanced, given the
student’s requirement of participation in grade-level academic standards and
assessment?

Research. The outcomes of this study suggest many directions for future research.
First, some of the elements of effective programming in teacher education are still
speculative, whether in traditional or alternative programs (Brownell, Bishop,
McLeskey, & Sindelar, 2003). The existence of data reinforcing the effectiveness
even some of these elements in producing quality teachers would make a great
contribution to teacher education and assist in the creation of model programs.
Instruments are needed that can relate teacher practices to student outcomes. Such
instruments would aid in teacher preparation, evaluation, and professional
development. Potential research questions in this area include:

o What effect do standards used in preparation programs have on teacher

candidates?

0 How can preparation programs prepare teachers for practice within the current
reform movement as well as for practice under future reforms?

o How can preparation programs prepare teachers to be lifelong learners, and to
balance the needs of their students with the need to comply with current
legislation?

Second, heated debate still continues over the effectiveness of one model of

teacher education over another (i.e. traditional certification versus alternative

90

certification). This study yielded few conclusions with respect to this debate. Some

questions that could be used to investigate further include:

Do traditional candidates in fact feel better prepared for their positions than
alternative candidates? If so, why?

Do candidates from traditional (or alternative) programs have a more
positive impact on student outcomes?

Are alternative certification programs succeeding in ameliorating teacher
shortages in high-need areas?

Do candidates fi'om traditional (or alternative) programs possess greater
knowledge and skills in various crucial areas (e.g. transition, collaboration,
content-area knowledge, teaching basic skills)? If so, what programmatic
elements are responsible for the difference?

How do the practices of alternatively- and traditionally-certified special

education teachers compare?

Third, teacher education practices and standards vary widely across states and

even across institutions. Recently, teacher education has come to rely heavily on

standards, and is beginning to tie those standards with curriculum and instruction and

with the performance of teacher candidates (Conderman et al., 2001). However, the

results of this study suggest that some teacher candidates may not be using the content

addressed in the standards when planning for students. More research is needed to

address this problem, including consideration of questions such as:

o What effect do standards for teacher education have on candidates’

performance?

91

o What program elements contribute to candidates’ acquisition and application

of the standards in their teaching practice?

0 What are the effects of standards-based reform in teacher education on

candidates practice? their students’ performance?

School administration. Finally, if teacher candidates are not well prepared to meet
the goals of current reform movements, it would be in the best interest of school
administration to establish the supports needed to accomplish this goal. Additionally,
support from administration and colleagues has been linked to retention among special
educators (Gersten et al., 2001; Littrell, Billingsley, & Cross, 1994; Wisniewski &
Gargiulo, 1997). Research has shown that new teachers adapt to the environment in
the field, and that school personnel and the school environment have much more
influence over their beliefs and practices than do university instructors (Richardson,
1996). This phenomenon places school administrators in a powerful position with
respect to shaping the beliefs as well as the practices of new teachers.

When designing induction programs, school administrators should be guided
by research that outlines what dispositions and practices are needed from their new
special education teachers in order to meet new mandates, and what they believe will
improve outcomes for their special education students. In their review of the literature
on teacher induction in special education, Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, and Kilgore
(2002) state that effective induction programs have clear goals, a “culture of shared
responsibility and support,” offer a continuum of support, and provide formal and
informal opportunities for interaction with colleagues (p. 3). Results of this study

show a need for such induction programs, based on the standards-based movement,

92

that are focused any or all of the following: (1) aligning state standards, curriculum,
and instruction with each other and with assessment systems; (2) aligning IEP goals
with state standards and carrying out those goals; (3) supporting special education
students in general education settings and collaborating with general education
teachers; and (4) making appropriate assessment decisions for students with
disabilities. However, future reform movements may call for different emphases in
teacher induction.

As with teacher education programs, a clear vision, multiple supports, and
coherence in content presented across setting are crucial. School officials need to
decide what is required for new teachers to improve outcomes for students with
disabilities and develop induction prograrhs to support that vision, in collaboration
with practicing teachers. They are also in a strong position to influence new teachers’
attitudes and beliefs with respect to the goals of reform movements, as is necessary to
comply with new legislation.

Limitations

This study has five major limitations, including limited response rate and
incomplete responses, indirect measures, a limited sample, the grouping of diverse
programs under one category, and limited content measurements. These limitations
affect generalizability of the study, particularly to different states, different areas of
teacher knowledge and reasoning, and to performance in the field.

First and foremost, response rates were difficult to measure and should be seen
as limiting the study’s results. Nonresponse occurred at several levels. At the

program level, potential participants were omitted fi'om the pool by supervisors who

93

did not wish to participate or who neglected to pass along the e-mail invitation. This
problem could have been avoided with access to a list of candidates’ names and e-mail
addresses. At the individual level, nonresponse occurred by individuals within
participating programs and also within the survey itself. Again, follow-ups could only
be made through the candidates’ supervisors, rather than through direct contact with
the individual. Direct contact with non-respondents is the most effective method for
increasing response rate.

Participation in surveys is contingent upon participants’ interest in the subject
matter presented as well as the difficultly of the task and the amount of effort required
by the participant (Beatty & Herrmann, 2002). This fact could account for the rapid
drop off in responses after the first set of demographic question (from N=194 to
N=101), and an increase in responses to the Likert-type perception questions (N=149),
which could be answered more rapidly than the open-ended questions. Few
conclusions can be reached about differences between responders and non-responders;
however, it can be postulated that responders may have had more interest in, or
stronger opinions about, the subject matter (IDEA ’97 and NCLB) or about their
teacher preparation in general, than non-responders. Teacher candidates from
traditional programs had a much higher response rate than those from alternative
programs. This finding could be due to the fact that the traditional programs were
smaller, allowing candidates to have more contact with their supervisors. On the other
hand, traditional candidates may have had more knowledge about or interest in the

subject matter than alternative candidates.

94

Additionally, in order to calculate population size and response rate, this study
relied upon the National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education (NCPSE)
database of teacher preparation programs (NCPSE, 2003a, 2003b) for the population
of special education teacher preparation programs. It also relied upon supervisors at
these programs (both responding and non-responding programs) to give an accurate
account of the number of special education teachers their programs would be
certifying that semester. Also of importance is the small number of respondents from
traditional programs. Despite the fact that these candidates are overrepresented in the
sample, the population includes a much larger percentage of alternative candidates
than traditional candidates. This small number of participants from traditional
programs (n=66) limited quantitative data analysis.

Nonresponse in Web surveys can stem from a variety of unique issues,
including potential participants who do not have Internet access or who have lower
comfort levels with the use of technology, incorrect e-mail addresses / misspellings,
and attitudes about unsolicited e-mail (V ehovar et al., 2002). This population received
the invitation from their supervisors, who were likely to have correct e-mail addresses
of their students. In addition, the recipients most likely had Internet access and had
received previous e-mails fi'om their supervisors. However, individuals’ attitudes
toward the use of technology and of Web—based surveys in general are still unknown
(V ehovar et al., 2002).

Second, the survey attempted to measure perceptions, knowledge, and
reasoning surrounding participants’ preparation related to IDEA ’97 and NCLB,

particularly in the three areas of standards, assessment, and access to the general

95

education curriculum. It did not measure teachers’ practices directly through use of an
observational component. Although the open-ended vignette questions attempted to
measure teachers’ reasoning about students, the gap between an individual’s reasoning
on paper and their reasoning in the context of special education practice could be
significant.

Third, the study included individuals from only one state. This decision was
made because of the diversity in standards and licensure requirements, as well as in
the programs and regulations in the public schools, across state. In addition, the one
state represented was chosen purposefully, because of its large population of
alternatively-certified teachers and because of its long-standing involvement in
accountability systems for both students and teachers. Despite this tradition, at the
time of the study, Texas still allowed large numbers of special education students to be
placed in separate settings and to take alternate assessments. These practices
undoubtedly affected participants’ responses when considering placement and
planning for services for a hypothetical student. All of these issues limit the study’s
generalizability to other states.

Fourth, this study groups alternative programs together in order to compare
teacher candidates from alternative and traditional programs. However, researchers
have remarked repeatedly on the great diversity across alternative programs. These
programs vary by type of supervising institution, length of program, amount of
coursework required, type of supervision and entrance requirements, among many

others (F eistritzer & Chester, 2003; Wilson et al., 2001). This study does not take that

96

diversity into account, other than to note no differences among the responses of
participants in alternative programs of different lengths.

Finally, this study measures perceptions, knowledge and reasoning in only one
area (IDEA ’97 and NCLB). It does not measure candidates’ perceptions, knowledge
or reasoning in any other area. Other crucial areas for special education teacher
preparation include teaching reading, collaboration, transition, writing effective IEPs,
and behavior management (York & Reynolds, 1996). Effective special educators have
a variety of tools at their fingertips, and that these tools require a great diversity of
knowledge and skills (Stough & Palmer, 2003). It should not be assumed that poor or
insufficient preparation in one area automatically coincides with problems in other
areas, or that these teachers necessarily will be ineffective in the classroom.
Conclusion

Recent federal legislation promises to change practices in special education
from focusing on individualized instruction to including all students in general
education accountability systems and applying uniform standards (Thompson et al.,
2003). These changes require a simultaneous shift in practices in teacher education
(Whitten & Rodriguez-Campos, 2003). While demands on traditional teacher
education change and grow, alternative certification options have become popular and
have come to the forefront of debate in the field (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2003;
Sindelar & Marks, 1993). Researchers are questioning whether either traditional or
alternative certification programs can meet the challenges imposed on them by the
standards-based reform movement (Brownell, Sindelar et al., 2002; O'Shea et al.,

2000).

97

This study’s purpose was to assess the perceptions, knowledge and reasoning
of special education teacher candidates with respect to two laws affecting special
education practice, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of
1997 (IDEA ’97) and the No Child Left Behind Act (N CLB). The study compared
candidates from alternative and traditional certification programs. It assessed teacher
candidates in the three areas identified by Thurlow and Thompson (2003) as the areas
of intersection of the two laws: content and achievement standards, assessment, and
access to the general education curriculum.

The study assessed 194 individuals, representing approximately 30% of special
education teacher candidates in the state of Texas. About 2/3 of the participants were
from alternative certification programs, and 1/3 from traditional programs. Texas was
selected because of its large population of alternative certification programs and
because of its long history of involvement with accountability systems in education,
both in the public schools and in teacher education. The instrument was a Web-based
survey with five sections: demographic information, open-ended assessment of teacher
knowledge, teacher perceptions of preparation, case-based assessment of teacher
reasoning, and test of teacher knowledge. Each of the last four sections assessed
teacher candidates in the three areas of standards, assessment, and access to the
general education curriculum. Participants were recruited through their supervisors,
who were asked to forward solicitations to those students who would become certified
special education teachers at the end of the 2003-04 school year.

Although traditional candidates rated their preparation more highly than

alternative candidates, no differences were found in knowledge, or reasoning between

98

alternatively- and traditionally-certified teacher candidates with respect to the tenets
and implications of IDEA ’97 and NCLB for special education practice. The results of
this study yielded important findings for special education teacher preparation in any
form. Researchers point to the importance of knowledge and skills related to
standards, assessments, and access to the general education curriculum for all those
educating students with disabilities. They assert that special education teachers must
be able to connect grade-level academic standards with curriculum, instruction and
assessment for students with disabilities in order to create coherent programs and
improve historically poor student outcomes (Thompson etal., 2003).

However, the results of this study show a general lack of preparedness in all of
these areas on the part of special education teacher candidates, regardless of
certification type. These teachers did demonstrate knowledge of IDEA ’97 and NCLB
and the implications of these laws for schooling, especially in the area of assessment.
In their reasoning surrounding programming for a hypothetical student with learning
disabilities, the majority felt the student should not be held to the same standards as
her general education peers. Participants advocated the need for individual standards
and individualized curricula for students with disabilities, yet they did not demonstrate
a knowledge of what essential skills and strategies to teach or how to teach them.

This study leads to several implications for different groups. First,
policymakers and teacher educators should put results over method by participating in
the improvement of teacher education through the creation of coherent programs
rather than arguing over whether traditional routes to teaching are better than

alternative routes, or vice versa. Second, policymakers should consult with special

99

education teachers and other professionals about how best to serve students with
disabilities. When creating and revising policy, they need to ensure that the best
interests of all students are being considered. They also need to take into account the
beliefs of educators when planning for implementation. Third, teacher education
programs need to consider exposing teacher candidates to the study of policy and
change in order to ensure that they have both the knowledge and skills needed to
improve their practice and to student achievement under any reform movement.
Researchers should continue to study elements of effective and coherent programming
in teacher education and attempt to tie such programming to student outcomes.
Finally, school administrators need to build effective induction programs that
encourage and support teachers in their efforts to comply with new legislation, and to
extend the work of teacher education programs.

The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education concluded
that, “The current system of pre-service and in-service education is not sufficient to
produce personnel who can ensure students with disabilities achieve satisfactory
outcomes” (p. 57). Teacher educators and policymakers need to go beyond rhetoric-
filled debates about traditional versus alternative routes to teacher education.
Coherent teacher education programs that include course- and fieldwork focused on
preparing teachers to maintain high quality teaching under any reform movement need
to be created. Special education must continue to advocate for students to ensure that
they receive quality instruction by well-educated teachers, teachers who are prepared
to hold all students to high standards and to provide for their individual needs. A solid

system of preservice education and professional development is necessary to keep

100

teachers in the field and to ensure that they do have the knowledge and skills
necessary to extend their learning, to keep abreast of policy changes, and to improve

outcomes for every student.

101

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Thank you for participating in my dissertation! If you respond to EACH QUESTION,
you will be put into a random drawing for cash prizes of $100, $50, and $25. The
survey has 26 questions total.

-- Leah Wasburn-Moses, Doctoral Student, Michigan State University

Informed Consent Form

The purpose of this study, Are We Prepared for Reform? is to understand your
opinions of your preparation and your knowledge of new laws affecting special
education. By agreeing to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete this
Web-based survey. Completing this survey should take about 15-20 minutes. You
should also know that:

(1) Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The
researcher will not know your name or any identifying information, UNLESS YOU
SHOULD WIN ONE OF THE MONETARY REWARDS. In that case, the researcher
will contact your supervisor to determine your name and address. After mailing your
check, the researcher will destroy all documents with your name and address. No
identifying information will be used during conference presentations or in any
published work.

(2) Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may refuse to answer
any or all questions in the study at any time, without penalty. If you request them,
results of the study will be made available to you.

(3) If you have any questions about this study, please contact the researcher, Leah
Wasburn-Moses, wasburnm@msu.edu, or her advisor, Dr. Carol Sue Englert, 340
Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 355-1835,
carolsue@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact, anonymously if you wish, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRH-IS) by phone: (517) 35 5-
2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and submitting
this survey.

102

Basic Information

 

1. Please enter the ID number you have been given for this survey:

2. Type of school in which you are currently employed / student teaching:
elementary_middle___ high school __ other _

3. Your gender: male _ female _

4. Your age:
20-29 _ 30-39 _ 40-49 _ 50-59 __ 60+

5. My degree is/will be in:

 

6. The disability categories of the students I teach are (please mark NO MORE
THAN THREE):

_ learning disabilities

__ mental retardation '

_ emotional disturbance

__ physical disabilities

_ hearing impairment

_ visual impairment

_ speech-language impairment
_ other health impairment

_ autism

__ severe and profound disabilities

103

General Questions

7. What are three of the NEW provisions contained in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA '97)?

a.

 

b.

 

C.

 

8. What are three of the provisions contained in the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001?

a.

 

b.

 

 

104

9. Opinions of Teacher Preparation: Please answer the following questions about

your teacher preparation program by checking in the appropriate box.

 

 

strongly strongly
agree disagree
My program prepared me well
for my current teaching/student
teaching position.

 

My program gave me sufficient
knowledge of special education
policies and procedures as
mandated under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997 (IDEA
’97).

 

My program gave are sufficient
knowledge of special education
policies and procedures as
mandated under the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001.

 

My program taught me to know
and be able to use the state
academic standards with my
students.

 

My program taught me about the
options for the state standardized
test (e. g. the different tests and
accommodations), and how to
implement these options.

 

 

My program taught me how to
make modifications,
accommodations, and adaptations
for my students in general
education settings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

105

 

Teaching Scenario

Sara is a 13-year-old 7th grader with learning disabilities. Her reading is at the third
grade level, her writing at a second grade level, and math achievement at fourth grade.
As a result of her problems with literacy, she has difficulty reading and
comprehending material and producing written work in all of her content-area classes.
Currently, she is placed in special education language arts and math classes, and in
general education social studies, science, and electives. She consistently receives Ds in
her general education academic classes, although she does not exhibit poor behavior or
attendance. Although she has attempted to take the state standardized test in the past,
she has never received a passing score in any subject area.

You will be Sara’s 8th grade special education teacher, and as such you are part of her

annual IEP team meeting. The following five questions address how you would help
plan for Sara.

10. What additional information about Sara's program would you want to ask the
teachers before making recommendations to the team?

11. What are the THREE most important issues in Sara’s education that you think
should be addressed in her IEP, and why?

a.
b.
c.

12. How would you support Sara’s reading and writing in the general education
classroom?

13. What factors would you consider when making decisions about participation in
state standardized testing (e. g. whether she should take the regular or an alternate
exam, what accommodations, if any, she should have)?

I

14. Do you think that Sara should be held to the same academic standards as non-
disabled students? Why or why not?

106

Last Section!

Please read the statements below, and circle the correct answer. Remember that this
exercise is ANONYMOUS, and your individual responses will not be shared with
anyone. There are 12 multiple-choice questions.

15. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of
1997 (IDEA ’97), if the IEP team determines that a student cannot participate in
statewide testing, the IEP must include:

a. a statement as to why the test is inappropriate and how the student will be
alternately assessed

b. a statement as to why the test is inappropriate and how the student will be harmed
by participating in the test

0. a statement as to why the test is inappropriate and how the student’s goals and
objectives help address areas in which the student is lacking in basic skills

d. a statement as to why the test is inappropriate and how the student will work toward
participating in statewide testing

16. According to No Child Left Behind, who is responsible for setting the
academic standards for students with disabilities?

a. the federal government

b. the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
c. the state governments

d. the IEP team

17. According to No Child left Behind, the general education curriculum must be
aligned with:

a. state standards

b. the principles of IDEA

c. students’ individual needs

(1. goals established by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)

18. No Child Left Behind now (as of 2004) requires standards and assessments to
be in place in what areas?

a. reading and mathematics

b. reading and writing

c. each state decides

(1. reading, mathematics, science, and social studies

107

19. Under IDEA ’97, students’ IEPs must include a statement about:

a. how the child is involved in and progressing in learning reading and mathematics
b. how the child is involved in and progressing in the general education curriculum
c. how the child performs behaviorally and academically in general education classes
d. how the child performs during statewide testing situations

20. According to IDEA ’97, who must participate in statewide testing?

a. all students

b. all students who are included in general education classes
c. all students who are not classified as mentally retarded

d. all students who have basic academic skills

21. According to No Child Left Behind, what percent of all students can be held to
standards other than the regular state grade-level academic achievement standards?

a. 1%

b. 10%

e. no percentage specified in NCLB
(1. depends on the school

22. According to IDEA ’97, IEP goals must include accommodations and supports
necessary:

a. to comply with the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards
b. to meet requirements for high school completion

c. to meet NCLB guidelines

(1. to participate in the general education curriculum

23. According to No Child Left Behind, states must provide the following for
students with disabilities:

accommodations and alternate assessments

standards appropriate for a student’s cognitive level

a plan for increasing inclusion in each school district
adaptive criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

9'.“ 9'!”

24. What is the best definition of educational accountability?

responsibility for providing each child what he or she needs
responsibility for individualizing curriculum for all students
responsibility for producing student learning

responsibility for providing testing opportunities for all students

999‘!”

108

25. “Access to the general education curriculum” (IDEA ’97) means that:

a. students with disabilities should learn basic reading and writing skills before they
can be included in the general education curriculum

b. students with disabilities should be exposed to assistive technology to help them
succeed in the general education curriculum

c. students with disabilities should be provided with textbooks and instruction that is
on grade level

d. students with disabilities should learn the content and skills that define the general
education curriculum

26. According to No Child Left Behind, state academic standards must be linked to:

IEP guidelines
assessments

state goals and objectives
school performance

Pa“ 9‘!”

27. Thank you for completing my survey! If you wish to be considered for
inclusion in future projects based on the results of this study, please enter your e-mail
address here:

 

109

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE CODING

Table 15

Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Knowledge (NCLB)

 

Response Code Category
fair and equal education equal opportunity for basic philosophy
all
alerts parents to information about change in parental basic philosophy
their child’s school rights
expand scope and frequency of assessment / assessment /
student testing standards standards
adequate yearly progress accountability accountability /
school improvement
holding schools accountable for school improvement accountability /
student achievement school improvement
must pass TEKS in 3rd 5th & 8th to change in promotion other specific
proceed (Texas initiative) policies provisions
school funding is dependent upon funding changes other specific
TEKS performance provisions
language training for LEP students provisions for LEP other specific
students provisions

 

Table 16

Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning (Question 2)

 

Response

get her up to current grade level in reading
what stage is Sara at and what does she
need to progress?

how she learns best

developing math concepts to see if she
cannot make more than a years growth
definitely class schedule should be looked
at very carefirl (sic) so Sara can be
successful

does she qualify for alternative testing in
her state

Code

literacy skills
current level of
performance
strengths /
weaknesses
math skills

review placement

issues with state
assessment

Category
literacy skills
current
functioning
current
functioning
current
functioning
review
placement

issues with
state
assessment

 

110

Table 17

Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning (Question 3)

 

Response

assignments may need to be shorter for her

writing and she may need more time to
complete instruction
consider oral administration of tests

adapting materials to be sure that she can
comprehend (sic) what is taking place in

the classroom

working with the general education

teachers to make sure modification is being

done according to the ARD committee
working extensively with the family and
making as many modifications as needed

I would give her more phonics and reading
comprehension practice that she can do

on an individual basis

working on her reading skills in the special

education classroom to build those skills
if at all possible I would have a helping
teacher that would guide Sara’s reading

and writing

Code
modify
assignments

modify tests /
grading
modify texts /
materials

work with general
ed teacher

work with family

separate reading
program

pull-out support

one-on-one in-
class instruction

Category
modify / adapt
modify / adapt

modify / adapt

collaborate

collaborate

teach skills /
strategies

teach skills /
strategies
one-on-one
instruction

 

111

Table 18

Sample Coding for Open-Ended Assessment of Teacher Reasoning (Question 4)

 

Response

based on her grade levels Sara
should probably take the alternate
exam

oral administration for math testing
would be recommended

does she do better in small groups?

I would look at the grades and
benchmark’s (sic) taken on those
subject (sic)

I would consider whether she is
able to understand the questions by
herself on the state test or whether
she can read the grade level test
accomodations (sic) should match
those that have been provided in
classroom experiences

Code
recommended
alternate exam

suggested specific
modifications /
accommodations
learning style

grades / test scores
in classes

abilities and current
level of
performance

modifications used
in the classroom

Category
recommended
alternate exam

suggested specific
modifications /
accommodations
current
performance and
abilities

current
performance and
abilities

current
performance and
abilities

modifications used
in the classroom

 

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, N. (1986). An exploratory study of teacher and alternative certification and
retraining programs. Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.

Alford, B. J. (2001). The Texas accountability system past, present, and future through
one educator's lens: A continuing journey toward system improvement. In J. L.
Kincheloe (Ed.), American standards: Quality education in a complex world.
New York: Peter Lang.

Artiles, A. J ., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special

education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 410-
437.

Banks, S. R., & Necco, E. (1987). Alternative certification, educational training and
job longevity. Action in Teacher Education, 9(1), 67-73.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes
testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51,
384-397.

Barnes, H. L. (1987). Intentions, problems and dilemmas: Assessing teacher
knowledge through a case method system. East Lansing, MI: National Center
for Research on Teacher Education.

Barton, P. E. (1999). Tests, tests, tests. American Educator, 23(2), 18-23.

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. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Belden Russonello & Stewart. (2003). Expectations, achievements and challenges:
Teaching special education students. Washington, DC.

Billingsley, B. S. (2002). Beginning special educators: Characteristics, qualifications,
and experiences. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from www.spense.org.

Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., Bobbitt, S. A., & Terbanian, G. (1998). The shortage of fully
certified teachers in special and general education. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 21, 132-149.

Braden, J ., & Elliott, S. (2003). Teacher assessments. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina
State University.

Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A., McLeskey, J ., & Sindelar, P. T. (2003). Developing
quality special education teachers: Setting a research agenda in teacher

113

education. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children, Seattle,
WA.

Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2002). Critical
features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with
exemplary practices in general teacher education. Gainesville, FL: University
of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Bishop, A. G., Langley, L. K., & Seo, S. (2002).
Special education teacher supply and teacher quality: The problems, the
solutions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(2), 1-16.

Brownell, M. T., Smith, S. W., & McNellis, J. R. (1997). Reflections on "attrition in
special education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go".
Exceptionality, 7, 187-191.

Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., & Robb, S. M. (1995). Alternative certification
programs: A national survey. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18,
39-48.-

Burstein, N. D., & Sears, S. (1998). Preparing on-the-job teachers for urban schools:
Implication for teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21,
47-62.

Carbonaro, M., Bainbridge, J ., & Wolodko, B. (2002). Using Internet surveys to
gather research data from teachers: Trials and tribulations. Australian Journal
of Educational Technology, 18, 275-292.

Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Kalein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S. W. (2002). Study of
personnel needs in special education: Key findings: US. Department of
Education.

Chappelle, N., & Eubanks, S. (2001). Defining alternative certification and
nontraditional routes to teaching: Similarities, differences, and standards of
quality. Teaching and Change, 8, 307-316.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.,
pp. 509-336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systematic reform? Educational
Researcher, 24(9), 11-17.

Coleman, M. R. (2001). Conditions of teaching children with exceptional learning
needs: The bright futures report (N o. EDO-EC-Ol-8). Arlington, VA: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.

114

Conderman, G. J ., Katsiyannis, A., & Franks, D. (2001). Program assessment practices
in special education teacher preparation programs. Preventing School Failure,
45 (3), 182-186.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2002). CEC common core of knowledge and skills
essential for all beginning special education teachers. Retrieved August 31,
2003, from www.cec.sped.org/ps/ps-entry.html.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). Policy on assessment and accountability.
Retrieved October 21, 2004, from
www.cec.sped.org/pp/Assessment_Accountability_Policy.pdf.

Crawford, L., Almond, P., Tindal, G., & Hollenbeck, K. L. (2002). Teacher
perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities in high-stakes
assessments. Special Services in the Schools, 18(2), 95-118.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American
classrooms 1890-1980 (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Cusick, P. (1992). The educational system: Its nature and logic. New York: McGraw
Hill.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teaching and Knowledge: Policy Issues Posed by
Alternative Certification for Teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 6 7(3),
1 23-1 54.

Decker, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The eflects of Teach For
America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. Retrieved July 9,
2004, from http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/teach.pdf.

DeFur, S. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with

disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203-
21 1.

Dill, V. S. (1994). Teacher education in Texas: A new paradigm. The Educational
Forum, 58, 148-154.

Dill, V. S. (1996). Alternative teacher certification. In E. Guyton (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Library
Reference.

Doyle, W. (1990). Case methods in the education of teachers. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 17(1), 7-16.

115

Dwyer, C. A. (1989). A new generation of tests for licensing beginning teachers.
Paper presented at the ETS Invitational Conference, New York.

Edelen-Smith, P., & Sileo, T. W. (1996). The alternative basic certification program in
special education: In search of quantity and quality in special education.
Teacher Education and Special Education, I 9, 313-330.

Elksnin, L. K. (1998). Use of the case method of instruction in special education

teacher preparation programs: A preliminary investigation. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 21 , 95-108.

Elksnin, L. K. (2001). Implementing the case method of instruction in special
education teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 24, 95-107.

Ellis, E. S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A potential model for teaching
content area subjects to adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 26, 358-383.

Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An
instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 23(6), 1-24.

Epanchin, B. C., & Wooley-Brown, C. (1993). A university-school district
collaborative project for preparing paraprofessionals to become special
educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, I 6, 1 10-123.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.

Feistritzer, C. E., & Chester, D. (2003). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-
state analysis 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Information.

Fennick, E., & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative
teaching: co-teachers' perspectives. Teacher Education and Special Education,
24, 229-240.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1990). The Place of Alternative Certification in the Education
of Teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3), 155-185.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers
College Press.

116

Finn Jr., C. E., Rotherham, A. J., & Hokanson Jr., C. R. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking
special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.

Galluzzo, G. R., & Ritter, D. E. (1986). Identifying standards for evaluating alternate
route programs. Action in Teacher Education, 8(2), 59-65.

Gaynor, J. F ., & Little, M. E. (1997). The expanding role of LEAs in special education
teacher preparation: The view from a local school district. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 20, 281-300.

Geiger, W. L., Crutchfield, M. D., & Mainzer, R. (2003). The status of licensure of
special education teachers in the 21st century (No. COPSSE Document No.
RS-7E). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in
Special Education.

Griffin, B., & Heidom, M. (1996). An examination of the relationship between MCT
performance and dropping out of high school. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 18, 243-251.

Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilbom, A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2002). New teacher
induction in special education. Retrieved October 7, 2002, from
www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/index.htm.

Guyton, E., Fox, M. C., & Sisk, K. A. (1991). Comparison of teaching attitudes,
teacher efficacy, and teacher performance of first year teachers prepared by

alternative and traditional teacher education programs. Action in Teacher
Education, 13(2), 1-9.

Haberrnan, M. (1999). Increasing the number of high-quality Afiican-American
teachers in urban schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26, 208-212.

Harris, S. A., Camp, W. E., & Adkinson, J. (2003). New structures and approaches
for teacher preparation: Do they make a diflerence in teacher education?
Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, New Orleans, LA.

Herbert, K. S. (2004). Production and retention of beginning teachers from 1999 to
2003: A comparison of preparation routes. Austin, TX: State Board for
Educator Certification.

Hollenbeck, K. L., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teachers' knowledge of

accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. The Journal of
Special Education, 32, 175-183.

117

Houston, W. R., Marshall, F., & McDavid, T. (1993). Problems of Traditionally
Prepared and Alternatively Certified First-Year Teachers. Education and
Urban Society, 26, 78-89.

Huefner, D. S. (2000). The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under
IDEA '97. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 195-204.

Hutton, J. B., Lutz, F. W., & Williamson, J. L. (1990). Characteristics, attitudes, and
performance of alternative certification interns. Educational Research
Quarterly, I 4, 38-48.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). The realities of out-of-field teaching. Educational Leadership,
58(8), 42-45.

INTASC. (2001). Model standards for licensing general and special education
teachers of students with disabilities: a resource for state dialogue. Retrieved
November 13, 2003, 2001, from
http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/SpedStds.pdf.

J anesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets,
improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 379-400). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

J elmberg, J. (1996). College-based teacher education versus state-sponsored
alternative programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 4 7, 60-66.

Kauffinan, J. M. (1999). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioral
disorders. Exceptional Children, 65, 338-468.

Lin, Q. (2002). Beyond standardization: Testing and assessment in standards-based
reform. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4), 43-49.

Littrell, P. C., Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1994). The Effects of Principal
Support on Special and General Educators' Stress, Job Satisfaction, School
Commitment, Health, and Intent to Stay in Teaching. Remedial and Special
Education, 15, 297-310.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lutz, F. W., & Hutton, J. B. (1989). Alternative teacher certification: Its policy

implications for classroom and personnel practice. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, I I , 237-154.

118

Lyon, G. R., Vaassen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of their
undergraduate and graduate preparation. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 12, 164-169.

Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges
encountered by first-year special education teachers. The Journal of Special
Education, 35, 66-74.

McLaughlin, M., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educational accountability and students with
disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 1 7, 431-451.

McNaughton, D., Hall, T. E., & Maccini, P. (2001). Case-based instruction in special
education teacher preparation: Practices and concerns of teacher
educator/researchers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 84-94.

Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In E. Guyton
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed., pp. 722-744).
New York: MacMillan Library Reference.

Miller, J. W., McKenna, B. A., & McKenna, M. C. (1998). A comparison of
altematively and traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher
Education, 49, 165-176.

National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (1992). Findings on learning to
teach. East Lansing: Author.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America 's future. New York: Author.

Natriello, G., & Zumwalt, K. (1993). New teachers for urban schools? The
contribution of the provisional teacher program in New Jersey. Education and
Urban Society, 26, 49-62.

NBPTS. (2003a). Assessment center exercise descriptions. Retrieved October 30,
2003, from www.nbpts.org/candidates/scoringguides.cfrn.

NBPTS. (2003b). Exceptional needs standards. Retrieved November 10, 2003, from
http://www.nbpts.org/pdf/ex_needs.pdf.

NCPSE. (2003a). Alternative routes to certification in special education. Retrieved
October 10, 2003, from http://www.special-ed-
careers.org/career_choices/altcert.htrnl.

NCPSE. (2003b). Undergraduate programs in special education. Retrieved December

11, 2003, from http://www.special-ed-careers.org/career-
choices/preparation.html.

119

Neeley, S. (2004). Proposal to the US. Department of Education (USDE) for changes
to the 2004 calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress (A YP) for Texas.
Retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/.

Nougaret, A. (in press). The impact of licensure status on the pedagogical competence
of first year special education teachers. Exceptional Children.

O'Shea, L. J., Stoddard, K., & O'Shea, D. J. (2000). IDEA '97 and educator standards:
Special educators' perceptions of their skills and those of general educators.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 23 , 125-141.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era:

Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington,
DC.

Pugach, M. C. (1992). Uncharted territory: Research on the socialization of special
education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 133-147.

Pugach, M. C., & Warger, C. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: raising expectations for
students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 194-196.

Quality counts 2004: Special education in an era of standards. (2004, January 8, 2004).
Education Week.

Reardon, S. (1996). Eighth-grade minimum competency testing and early high school
dropout patterns. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In E.
Guyton (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed., pp. 102-
119). New York: MacMillan.

Rosenberg, M. S., & Boyer, K. L. (2003). Indexing and describing ARC programs for
the preparation of special educators: Center on Personnel Studies in Special
Education.

Rosenberg, M. S., & Sindelar, P. T. (2003). The proliferation of alternative routes to
certification in special education: A critical review of the literature (COPSSE
Document Number RS-l 0E). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on
Personnel Studies in Special Education.

120

Sandlin, R. A., Young, B. L., & Karge, B. D. (1992). Regularly and alternatively
credentials beginning teachers: Comparison and contrast of their development.
Action in Teacher Education, 14(4), 16-23.

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The Predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Schillewaert, N., Langerak, F ., & Duhamel, T. (1998). Non-probability sampling for
WWW surveys: A comparison of methods. Journal of the Market Research
Society, 40, 307-322.

Schlechty, P., & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, selection, and retention: The shape of
the teaching force. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 469-487.

Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2003). Targeting subgroups. School Administrator, 60(11), 16-
20.

Scott, R. (2003). Guidance to educators in making appropriate assessment decisions
for the 2003-04 school year under the new federal accountability requirements
in (NCLB). Retrieved June 15, 2004, from
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/taa/sortf.cgi.

Shen, J. (1997). Has the Alternative Certification Policy Materialized Its Promise? A
Comparison between Traditionally and Alternatively Certified Teachers in
Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 276-283.

Shepherd, T. L., & Brown, R. D. (2003). Analyzing certification options for special
education teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(6), 26-30.

Shulman, J. H. (2000). Case methods as a bridge between standards and classroom
practice. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Shulman, L. (1988). A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in a
period of reform. Educational Leadership, 46, 36-41.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Sindelar, P. T., & Marks, L. J. (1993). Alternative route training: Implications for

elementary and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education,
16, 146-154.

Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2000). Serving too many masters: The

proliferation of ill-conceived and contradictory policies and practices in
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 188-193.

121

Special education at a crossroads. (2004). CEC Today, 11, 1.

SPeNSE. (2002). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. Retrieved March 31,
2003, fiom www.spense.org.

Stafford, D., & Barrow, G. (1994). Houston's alternative certification program.
Educational Forum, 58, 193-200.

Steiner, D. M., & Rozen, S. D. (2004). Preparing tomorrow's teachers: An analysis of
syllabi from a sample of America's schools of education. In K. Walsh (Ed.), A
Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom? Appraising Old Answers and New
Ideas (pp. 119-148). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Stoddart, T. (1990). Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program: Recruiting
and preparing teachers for an urban context. Peabody Journal of Education,
67(3), 84-122.

Stodden, R. A., Galloway, L. M., & Stodden, N. J. (2003). Secondary school curricula
issues: Impact on postsecondary students with disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 70, 9-26.

Stough, L. M., & Palmer, D. J. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A
qualitative study of expert special educators. The Journal of Special Education,
36, 206-222.

Sultana, Q. (2002). A study to examine the problem of teacher shortage and solutions.
Paper presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Association,
Chattanooga, TN.

Summary of TEA proposal for 2004 AYP with USDE responses. (2004). Retrieved July
15, 2004, from www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2004/index.html.

Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the
21 st century. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.

Teach for America. (1996). Who we 're looking for. Retrieved September 4, 2004, from
http://www.teachforamerica.org/looking.html.

Teacher Quality Bulletin. (2004, June 25). Texans blaze an alternative trail. Teacher
Quality Bulletin, 5.

Thompson, S., Lazarus, S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). Preparing educators to teach
students with disabilities in an era of standards-based reform and
accountability. College Park, MD: The Institute for the Study of Exceptional
Children and Youth.

122

Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students: The promise of
standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 195-202.

Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with
disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 305-314.

Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S., Thompson, S., & Robey, J. (2001). 2001 state policies on
assessment participation and accommodations: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M. L., McLaughlin, M., & Elliott, J. (2003). Accountability and students
with disabilities: What do we know and what do we not know? College Park,
MD: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute, University of Maryland.

Thurlow, M. L., & Thompson, S. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Considerations for
the assessment of students with disabilities. Retrieved November 13, 2003,
from www.cducation.umn.edu/NCEO/Presentations.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). T inkering toward utopia: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers
challenge. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary Education.

U. S. Department of Education. (2003). Texas consolidated state application
accountability workbook. Washington, D. C.: Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education.

Vance, V. S., & Schlechty, P. (1982). The distribution of academic ability in the
teaching force: Policy implications. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 22.

Vaughn, 8., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD
intervention research: findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children,
6 7, 99-114.

Vehovar, V., Batagelj, Z., Manfreda, K. L., & Zaletel, M. (2002). Nonresponse in web
surveys. In R. J. A. Little (Ed.), Survey nonresponse. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.

Wagner, M. M., & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to work or
college: How special education students fare. Special Education for Students
with Disabilities, 6(1), 103-120.

Walsh, K. (June 25, 2004). Resisting the sirens of teacher induction. Teacher Quality
Bulletin, 5.

123

Ward, M. J ., Montague, N., & Linton, T. H. (2003). Including students with
disabilities and achieving accountability: Educators' emerging challenge.
Corpus Christi, TX.

Whitten, E., & Rodriguez-Campos. (2003). Trends in the special education teaching
force: Do they reflect legislative mandates and legal requirements?
Educational Horizons, 81(3), 138-145.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J ., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research
on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry.
Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Wigle, S. E., & Wilcox, D. J. (2003). Changing roles and responsibilities of special
educators: Implications for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education,
25(1), 27-37.

Wilson, 8. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation
research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (No. R-01-3). East
Lansing, MI: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy in collaboration with
Michigan State University.

Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational Stress and Burnout among
Special Educators: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Special Education,
31, 325-346.

Wolf, K., & Dietz, M. (1998). Teaching portfolios: Purposes and possibilities. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 25(1), 9-22.

York, J. L., & Reynolds, M. C. (1996). Special education and inclusion. In E. Guyton
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed., pp. 820-836).
New York: MacMillan. '

Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, J. R., Christenson, S., Johnson, D. R., Dennison, A.,
Triezenberg, H., et a1. (2004). What we know and need to know about the

consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 71, 74-95.

Zeichner, K. M., & Schulte, A. K. (2001). What we know and don't know from peer-

reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of
Teacher Education, 52, 266-282.

124

   

l1111111111111 ‘