Faculty Perceptions of Expertise for Inclusive Education for Students With Significant Disabilities

Abstract

Teacher preparation for inclusive education of students with significant disabilities requires an understanding of the requisite skills and dispositions to be taught during the teacher preparation period. Given the relative scarcity of inclusive placements for this population, as well as limited research-based teacher preparation practices to promote inclusive education, a Delphi study was completed to query expert faculty on the priority skills and activities used in teacher preparation. Consensus emerged through the Delphi study over three rounds of surveys to faculty, centering on essential skills of special education teachers, practices used by faculty to teach and evaluate these skills, and conditions that support and constrain teacher development of these essential skills. Although faculty largely supported research-based practices, new areas emerged, including teacher leadership skills. Implications for research and practice are included.

Keywords

low-incidence disabilities teacher learning inclusion teacher preparation practices and outcomes

The education of students with significant disabilities historically has been based on low expectations for learning (e.g., Kleinert et al., 2014); however, years of research demonstrates students with significant disabilities, defined as the 1% of students eligible to take their state’s alternate assessment and have support needs across domains (Taub et al., 2017) who often have educational disability labels of intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, and autism, can learn academic content, including content aligned to the general education curriculum (e.g., Browder et al., 2009; Hudson et al., 2018; A. Lee et al., 2016; Spooner & Browder, 2014). When this research is coupled with policy mandates (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004) and recent court decisions (e.g., Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017), there are compelling reasons to hold students with significant disabilities to high academic expectations. In addition, research findings demonstrate that general education (inclusive) classrooms provide the best context for learning (Jackson et al., 2008). This study defines inclusive education as both placement in general education classrooms with nondisabled peers and access to general curriculum, peers, and discourse (Ruppar et al., 2017a).

Even with increasing knowledge of what, how, and where to teach students with significant disabilities, wide variation exists in what is actually happening in schools for students with significant disabilities. For example, most students with significant disabilities are taught in separate special education settings (Morningstar et al., 2017). These settings provide restricted access to general education peers or activities and limited individualized instruction (Kurth et al., 2016), with inadequate pacing and opportunities for active student engagement (Pennington & Courtade, 2015). Those students with significant disabilities who are taught in general education settings have far greater access to the core curriculum and social opportunities with same-aged peers (e.g., Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2012; S. H. Lee et al., 2010). With increased expectations for education combined with variation in schools, there are multiple and, at times, conflicting demands placed on teachers and, consequently, on teacher educators (i.e., faculty members at institutes of higher education [IHEs] who prepare pre-service teacher candidates or in-service teachers).

Role of Teacher Educators in Teacher Preparation

Delano and colleagues (2008) recommended teacher preparation programs shape teacher candidates’ philosophies, dispositions, practices, and skills with a focus on access to the general curriculum in inclusive contexts. Access is defined as both involvement with and progress in the general education curriculum (Wehmeyer, 2006). Olson and Roberts (2018) explored practices teacher educators utilized to prepare special education teachers to provide students with significant disabilities access to the general curriculum. Teacher educators provided concrete examples of how to provide access by aligning standards and adapting curriculum and instruction for individual students. They used research, their own experiences, stories, and resources as additional supports. Beyond teaching how to provide access, teacher educators provided application opportunities for teacher candidates such as practice creating adaptations, lesson planning, and engaging in case studies.

Critically, teacher educators described having to shape teacher candidates’ dispositions and philosophies. This included increasing expectations for access and building inclusive philosophies. They worked to prepare teacher candidates who were ready to question current practices in schools and be critical and innovative thinkers ready to advocate for best practices for access. Although teacher educators were not questioned about barriers they faced, multiple teacher educators described barriers such as a misalignment between what they were teaching and what teacher candidates were seeing in schools, due to a widespread lack of inclusive placement options in the United States (Kurth et al., 2014).

A number of research-based strategies have emerged that enable teachers to provide special education services in general education settings. For example, Zagona and colleagues (2017) identified eight instructional strategies (e.g., individualizing instruction, providing accommodations, progress monitoring) and seven collaborative strategies (e.g., collaboration, communication, co-teaching) to facilitate access to general education curriculum and settings for students with significant disabilities. Others have identified additional strategies, such as peer support strategies (e.g., Carter, 2017) and multi-tiered systems of support and universally designed instruction (e.g., Sailor, 2015) as strategies to facilitate inclusive education.

Preparing teacher candidates and in-service teachers to utilize these strategies is essential to the implementation of inclusive education. Yet, many general and special education teachers report feeling unprepared to teach in an inclusive manner (e.g., Forlin & Chambers, 2011; McHatton & Parker, 2013); however, when teachers do gain the problem-solving skills to create student-environment systems that support students and meet their learning needs in inclusive settings, the capacity to improve access to general education settings and curriculum likely will expand (Thompson et al., 2018). Thus, developing systems to provide teachers with the skills needed for inclusive instruction is necessary, as is a system for evaluating their inclusive instruction strategies (Johnson & Semmelroth, 2014), particularly in light of the many barriers to inclusive teacher preparation.

In multiple studies, teacher educators described barriers in preparing teacher candidates to teach students with significant disabilities. This included barriers within teacher preparation programs, barriers in K–12 schools, and barriers at the state and national level (Delano et al. 2008; Olson & Roberts, 2018, 2020). Barriers in teacher preparation included variability across preparation programs, a lack of focus on general education teaching methods, and minimal opportunities for teacher candidates to collaborate with general education teacher candidates and related service personnel (Delano et al., 2008). Olson and Roberts (2020) explored ways teacher educators worked to navigate barriers related to the lack of inclusive placements, misalignment between what teacher educators are teaching about and what teacher candidates are seeing in schools, and K–12 teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs and knowledge. At the teacher preparation level, teacher educators had to contest teacher preparation programs that are siloed, insufficient coursework for general education teachers and administrators, and colleagues’ and teacher candidates’ knowledge and beliefs. To navigate these barriers, teacher educators worked to build relationships, increase the knowledge of others, and take on the role as advocate often concurrently across multiple settings such as K–12 schools, their own teacher preparation programs, and at the state and national level. Teacher educators acknowledged barriers pushed them to be creative and driven to work to problem solve to create change (Kurth & Foley, 2014).

Recently, Ruppar and colleagues queried what makes an expert teacher of students with significant disabilities (see Roberts et al., 2018; Ruppar et al., 2018a, 2018b). They sought to understand the perceptions of various educational stakeholders including teacher educators, administrators, and expert special education teachers. Teacher educators articulated that expert teachers are driven by a specific identity, implement systematic instruction, and have a focus on the individual student (Ruppar et al., 2017b). Expert teachers’ identity includes a presence in the school and classroom that embodies advocacy, collaboration, and lifelong learning. Systematic instruction includes curriculum that is individualized and age appropriate, implementing evidence-based practices, and utilizing data to make decisions. A focus on the individual embodies getting to know students, forming relationships with them, and using information from their own experiences and other collaborators to plan and implement an individualized education. All of these characteristics are strengths-based with a focus on implementing an education that includes high academic expectations and improving inclusion for students with significant disabilities. It should be noted as stakeholder groups were compared, there were administrators in noninclusive schools who took on deficit perspectives and were not able to articulate specific skills and dispositions that made an expert teacher (Roberts et al., 2018). This resulted in contrasting visions of instruction grounded in a strengths-based, compared with a deficit-based, view of educating students with significant disabilities (Ruppar et al., 2018a).

Ruppar and colleagues (2018b) identified five core practices of expert teachers of students with significant disabilities and mapped out the progression of these practices from novice to expert teacher. Core practices included advocacy, systematic instruction, a strengths-based approach, collaboration, and individualized instruction. These core practices were coupled with flexible thinking, a long-term vision for students, and being a lifelong learner. Recommendations were made for how teacher educators can support expertise development and provide learning opportunities for teacher candidates to progress through stages of expertise development. For example, teacher educators should teach candidates about person first language and holding high expectations, how to recognize when educators are operating from a deficit perspective and how to confront and disrupt this point of view. Teacher educators lay the foundation for expertise development; however, once in the field, teachers must continue their expertise development regardless of contextual challenges. Hence, the dispositions and orientations of flexible thinking, a long-term vision for students, and being a lifelong learner can drive teachers as they progress through the stages to expert teacher.

Purpose

The purpose of this research was two-fold: This study sought to (a) extend Ruppar, Olson, and Robert’s collective work around developing teacher expertise in working with students with significant disabilities in inclusive contexts and (b) understand how faculty focusing in special education for students with significant disabilities prepared teachers to provide special education services in inclusive settings. This study addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What skills do faculty believe teachers need to provide inclusive special education services?

Research Question 2: How do faculty prepare teachers to develop and demonstrate skills?

Research Question 3: How do faculty evaluate teacher skills?

Research Question 4: What impact do teaching conditions have on teacher development of inclusive skills?

Method

This study employed a Delphi study to gather data from experts in special education teacher education for inclusive education of students with significant disabilities. Delphi studies use several rounds of surveys with the purpose of building consensus across iterations of surveys (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). In this study, expert faculty participated in four rounds of surveys.

Participants

Study participants were identified as faculty with expertise in preparing teachers to work with students with significant disabilities in inclusive (i.e., general education) settings (described subsequently) from IHEs in the United States. As is typical of a Delphi study, experts are purposively selected based on predefined qualification criteria (Hasson & Keeney, 2011; Rowe et al., 2015). Criteria for our expert panel were as follows: (a) experts must engage in inclusive teacher preparation for students with significant disabilities; and (b) experts must complete research related to inclusive teacher preparation for students with significant disabilities. To identify potential experts and create a panel, this study used three methods. First, this study examined authors publishing research in leading peer-reviewed journals focused on students with significant disabilities; specifically, this study examined authors in Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, The Journal of Special Education, Remedial and Special Education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, and Inclusion. Second, this study reviewed conference proceedings for professional organizations to identify researchers providing sessions related to inclusive education for students with significant disabilities, including the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and TASH. Third, this study reviewed the editorial boards of the following top journals in the field of significant disabilities: Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, The Journal of Special Education, Remedial and Special Education, and International Journal of Inclusive Education.

Delphi studies generally include panels of 10 to 100 expert participants, with sample size varying based on the nature of the field being studied (Akins et al., 2005). Excluding the authors, 62 expert faculty were identified with these three strategies. As such, our panel is well within recommended sample size and is thought to include many faculty in the United States with expertise in significant disabilities. Although this study reports response rate, sample size is prioritized in Delphi studies (e.g., Bolger & Wright, 2011). Thirty-six faculty responded to the first survey (58%); all 62 faculty were resent the survey in its second distribution (with 22 respondents, 35%). The survey was once again sent to all 62 faculty, with 21 responding (34%) for its third distribution.

Demographic data were obtained from expert faculty panelists in the first survey distribution (n = 36). Faculty panelists were predominately women (76%), White (95%), and identified as non-Hispanic (95%). The panelists ranged in age from 30 to 71 years (M = 54.4). Faculty respondents had a mean of 23.05 years of experience working in teacher preparation for inclusive education of students with severe disabilities (SD = 11.67, range = 5–42 years). This study asked faculty to report type of teacher preparation program in which they worked. Most were master’s-level programs in low-incidence/severe disabilities (29.6%), followed by cross-categorical master’s programs (22.2%). Undergraduate low-incidence/severe disabilities programs (19.8%) and undergraduate cross-categorical programs (18.5%) were also common. The remaining 9.9% of faculty reported to work in “other” programs. The average length of the teacher preparation program was 5.75 semesters (range = 4.4 – 7.3), and the number of pre-service teachers in a program averaged 62 (range = 15–350). When asked to describe fieldwork settings, none were fully inclusive (as defined in the survey; see section “Procedure and Instrument”). Most had some fieldwork placements that were inclusive (60%), and 40% indicated no inclusive fieldwork settings existed in the local area for program students. Nonetheless, all faculty panelists engaged in inclusive education teacher preparation coursework.

Procedure and Instrument

This study conducted a Delphi study (Hall et al., 2018; Hsu & Sandford, 2007) to gather information from expert faculty. Through repeated rounds of polling and feedback, experts converge on truth using the Delphi method (Bolger & Wright, 2011). Using the Delphi method, rounds of survey are conducted until consensus is reached (Boulkedid et al., 2011). Traditional survey methods were used to maximize response rates (e.g., follow-up reminders). Overall response rate across rounds was calculated as total number of respondents by total number of possible respondents across all rounds of survey (cf., Rowe et al., 2015). Overall response rate was 42.5%, ranging from 34% to 58%. Experts in inclusive education for students with significant disabilities participated in each round.

After obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, this study completed four iterative rounds of surveys over one calendar year (2018–2019) using an online survey distributed with Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com; 2019). To recruit expert faculty members, this study distributed a link to the anonymous survey by email. All email addresses were publicly available on university websites. Respondents were asked their willingness to complete up to three rounds of surveys (i.e., a Delphi study), with the first survey focused on obtaining broad information about teacher skill needs. Respondents had the option to participate in as many rounds as they chose.

The first round was the development of survey content to establish content validity. Each author engaged in survey development, and all are higher education faculty engaged in research and teacher preparation related to inclusive education for students with significant disabilities. Initial items in this first round of development were based on reviews of the extant literature regarding teacher preparation for inclusive education (Zagona et al., 2017), strategies for implementing inclusive education (Olson & Roberts, 2018), best practices in teaching students with significant disabilities (Ruppar et al., 2017b), and barriers and facilitators to implementing inclusive education (Olson & Ruppar, 2017). To establish concurrent validity of the survey, this study conducted an expert review by sending a draft of the survey to two faculty members known to the research team for feedback. Based on expert reviewer feedback, some items were reworded, whereas others were deleted or added (e.g., presuming competence was reworded to holds high expectations of students).

In developing the survey, this study included two key definitions to ground responses. These included definitions of “students with significant disabilities” and “inclusive education.” This study defined students with significant disabilities in the survey as the 1% of students who are eligible to take their state’s alternate assessment. These students have support needs across domains, including supports for communication, adaptive behavior, and learning. Students with significant disabilities include the subset of students with intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and multiple disabilities who have the most support needs within these categories. Inclusive education was defined as (a) placement in general education with non-disabled peers and (b)

Access to general curriculum content including the skills necessary to participate in natural activities within age-appropriate spaces, which can include general education academic content and other personally relevant skills (i.e., skills needed to function in inclusive communities in adulthood) and foundational skills (i.e., skills needed across contexts and activities, such as communication and mobility) as appropriate to the general education context (Ruppar et al., 2017a, pp. 53–54)

The second round of the survey consisted of 25 items across the following six domains: participant demographics, skills and qualities needed of expert special education teachers in inclusive settings, opportunities provided by faculty for teacher candidates to develop skills, strategies used by faculty to promote knowledge and skill acquisition related to inclusive instruction, evaluations of teacher candidates’ inclusive skills, and factors that support or hinder development of teacher expertise for inclusive education. To complete this survey, respondents indicated their level of agreement with the importance of each item on a 1 to 10 scale, where 1 (strongly disagree) and 10 (strongly agree). As is typical in a Delphi study, expert respondents can create new items; these new items were folded into existing items or were used to create new items in the next iteration of the survey (e.g., Landeta et al., 2011).

Following the second round of surveys, all respondents (including those who declined Round 2) were sent a third-round survey and asked to agree to participate or decline participation on the first page of the survey. This additional round of survey was aimed at narrowing the list of skills and achieving consensus on necessary skills. For the third round of the online survey, items from Round 2 were analyzed to determine which items were rated as most important by the panelists. Any new items generated by respondents in Round 2 were also incorporated into an existing survey item or a new item was created (see section “Data Analysis”). Concurrent validity was established by incorporating the highest rated items from the previous round of survey and including input from experts. The same domains were included in Round 3. A total of 18 items were included in the Round 3 survey, with respondents ranking each item within every domain as most and least important.

During the fourth round of surveys, all respondents (including those who declined rounds two or three) were sent the final survey and asked to agree to participate or decline participation on the first page of the survey. The purpose of this final survey was to further narrow the list of skills needed of teachers and achieve consensus. Items from Round 3 were analyzed to determine which items were most rated as most important, and additional items were included from open-ended responses (see section “Data Analysis”), further supporting concurrent validity. The final survey instrument consisted of 13 items across the same six domains. In this final round, respondents ranked each item within each domain from 1 (most important) to 10 (least important). Respondents were forced to rank each item and were unable to give any item the same rank as another. The purpose of forcing a rank order choice was to clearly establish consensus on the most important or critical skills and dispositions needed of special education teachers of students with significant disabilities.

Validity is of primary concern in a Delphi study aimed at generating consensus (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). This was addressed in each round of survey development, including content validity by expert creation of Round 1, concurrent validity via external review in Round 1, and incorporating highest rated items and input from experts in Rounds 2 through 4. Finally, by requiring respondents to rank order survey items, a convergence of consensus was determined.

Data Analysis

To address the research questions of this Delphi study, descriptive analyses (ranges, mean values, and standard deviations) were calculated for all ranking responses to the fourth and final survey. Ratings were provided on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being most important to 10 being least important. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 80% of the expert panelists rated an item as “5” or higher.

Results

Skills of Teachers of Students With Significant Disabilities

Respondents ranked a set of 10 skills of teachers with significant disabilities, with many items previously identified in earlier iterations as important, as seen in Table 1. Given that the purpose of a Delphi study is to achieve consensus (cf., Rowe et al., 2015), our finding that expert panelists agreed items were important suggests consensus was reached. Teacher ability to individualize supports was deemed most important (M = 2.95), whereas teacher candidate understanding of district policy was rated least important (M = 9.48). Five items were rated as important (i.e., had mean scores less than 5.0), including use of research-based practices, collaboration skills, advocating for access to typical settings and supports, and embedding of systematic instruction within ongoing classroom routines. All items in this domain had relatively low variability.

Table 1.

Most Important Skills of Expert Teachers of Students With Significant Disabilities.

Rank	Item	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
1	Individualizes supports (including adaptations, age-appropriate instruction, building strong peer relationships, focusing on student independence, and self-determination)	1	7	2.95	1.69
2	Uses effective, research-driven instructional practices, including systematic instruction and prompting strategies, and engages in ongoing assessment and data collection	1	7	3.14	1.77
3	Collaborates with school members (including co-planning with general educators, working with paraprofessionals/related service providers, and communicating with administrators) and family members	1	8	3.81	2.73
4	Advocates for access to typical settings and supports	1	9	4.05	2.36
5	Embeds systematic/explicit instruction within ongoing classroom routines	1	10	4.38	2.22
6	Teaches a range of academic content instructional domains	1	8	5.81	1.91
7	Navigates cultural and language differences between home and school settings	1	9	6.24	2.79
8	Teaches a range of non-academic content instructional domains (e.g., life skills, communication, behavior, self-determination, and skills for independence)	3	10	7.05	1.60
9	Evaluates ready-made curriculum and modifications	3	10	8.10	1.76
10	Understands district policy	1	10	9.48	1.44

Note. 1 = most important, 10 = least important.

Qualities of Teachers of Students With Significant Disabilities

Items in this domain centered on the dispositional and attitudinal qualities of teachers of students with significant disabilities (see Table 2). Respondents identified four items as important (i.e., mean rankings of less than 5.0), with holding high expectations of students as most important (M = 2.05). Demonstrating an inclusive philosophy, supporting advocacy, and having problem-solving skills were also ranked as important. The least important quality in this domain was demonstrating resilience (M = 7.62).

Table 2.

Most Important Qualities of Expert Teachers of Students With Significant Disabilities.

Rank	Item	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
1	Holds high expectations for students	1	6	2.05	1.50
2	Demonstrates an inclusive philosophy	1	9	3.71	2.70
3	Has a positive disposition toward advocacy for students with significant disabilities	2	9	4.48	2.23
4	Is a creative problem solver	1	9	4.57	2.52
5	Develops strong relationships across various teams including IEP, school, and district teams	2	8	5.19	1.66
6	Values use of grade-aligned curriculum	2	10	6.57	2.94
7	Takes on leadership roles and leads by example	3	10	6.71	2.19
8	Demonstrates perseverance	3	10	6.90	2.39
9	Demonstrates cultural competence	1	10	7.19	2.64
10	Demonstrates resiliency	2	10	7.62	2.52

Note. 1 = most important, 10 = least important. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Opportunities Faculty Should Provide Teacher Candidates of Students With Significant Disabilities to Develop Inclusive Education Skills

Items in the next domain shifted focus toward teacher preparation, with respondents indicating what opportunities teacher education faculty should provide teacher candidates to develop and demonstrate inclusive education skills for students with significant disabilities (see Table 3). Four items were ranked as important (i.e., mean ranking of less than 5.0), with opportunities to deliver research-driven instructional practices (e.g., systematic instruction) in general education settings as most important (M = 2.60). Opportunities to deliver research-driven instructional supports (e.g., peer supports) were also highly ranked, as were opportunities to develop collaboration and consulting skills and opportunities to adapt/differentiate grade-level general education curriculum. The least important opportunity identified was the opportunity to develop Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals aligned with grade-level standards (M = 7.95).

Table 3.

Most Important Opportunities Faculty Should Provide Teacher Candidates of Students With Significant Disabilities to Develop and Demonstrate Inclusive Education Skills.

Rank	Item	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
1	Opportunities to deliver research-driven instructional practices (e.g., systematic instruction) in general education settings	1	9	2.60	2.30
2	Opportunities to deliver research-driven instructional supports (e.g., peer supports) in general education settings	2	8	3.65	2.03
3	Opportunities to consult with/engage in collaborative teaming with team members about student-specific support needs	1	9	3.85	2.23
4	Opportunities for curriculum adaptation/differentiation of grade-level general education content	1	9	4.50	2.42
5	Opportunities for progress monitoring (including progress in the general education curriculum) and data-based decision-making to identify and plan for meeting academic and behavioral support needs of students	2	10	5.25	2.38
6	Opportunities to develop individualized supports through tiered planning	2	10	6.50	2.28
7	Opportunities to collaborate with school site teams to problem solve issues of access to general education settings	1	9	6.55	2.11
8	Opportunities to support culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families	1	10	6.95	2.48
9	Opportunities for co-teaching with general education teachers	1	10	7.20	3.21
10	Opportunities for development of standards aligned IEP goals	4	10	7.95	2.14

Note. 1 = most important, 10 = least important. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Strategies Faculty Can Use to Promote Knowledge and Skills Acquisition in the Higher Education Classroom

Teacher preparation was further queried when respondents were asked to identify effective strategies for promoting knowledge and skills related to inclusive education for students with significant disabilities within higher education classroom settings (see Table 4). Items within this domain had relatively lower ratings overall, with application work tied to students the teacher candidate is serving and systematic guided observation of a master teacher co-ranked as the most important strategies (M = 3.43). Two other items were also ranked as important (i.e., mean ranking less than 5.0), including group discussions, and linking course assignments to practicum/clinical field-based requirements. The two least important instructional strategies identified were (a) providing resources (e.g., manuals, equipment, or software) and (b) learning from self-advocates who had experience with the special education system as a student (M =7.71).

Table 4.

Most Important Strategies Faculty Can Use to Promote Knowledge and Skill Acquisition in the Higher Education Classroom.

Rank	Item	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
1	Application work tied to actual students the teacher candidate is serving	1	7	3.43	1.94
2	Systematic, guided observation of a master teacher working in an inclusive classroom that includes students with significant disabilities	1	10	3.43	2.64
3	Group discussions and reflective conversations with teacher candidates that involve problem-solving and idea sharing using real-life examples, including feedback on performance	1	7	4.24	1.76
4	Linking course assignments to practicum requirements	1	10	4.95	2.58
5	Providing visual examples including modeling, demonstration, videos, role playing, games/virtual simulators, and/or home visits	1	10	5.33	2.71
6	Application work including case studies, action planning, and/or reflection assignments and activities	1	10	5.33	2.71
7	Providing detailed, specific feedback on teacher candidate performance	2	10	5.57	2.82
8	Providing access to family members who have experience navigating the special education system, through readings, guest lectures, or co-instructed courses	3	10	7.62	2.06
9	Providing resources including written materials, worksheets, manuals, equipment and/or software	5	10	7.71	1.90
10	Providing teacher candidates opportunities to learn from self-advocates who have experienced the special education system as a student, through readings, guest lectures, or co-instructed courses	1	10	7.71	2.65

Note. 1 = most important, 10 = least important.

Strategies Faculty Can Use to Promote Knowledge and Skills Acquisition in Applied Settings

Respondents ranked opportunities for knowledge and skill development within applied settings (Table 5), with the most important being opportunities for teacher candidates to demonstrate instructional skills (M = 2.24) and the least important being opportunities to collaborate with families (M = 8.71). Three additional items were ranked as important (i.e., mean ranking of less than 5.0), including opportunities for ongoing coaching and feedback on performance, practicing inclusive instructional skills, and making adaptations to general education curriculum.

Table 5.

Most Important Strategies Faculty Can Use to Promote Knowledge and Skill Acquisition in Applied Settings.

Rank	Item	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
1	Opportunities for teacher candidates to demonstrate inclusive instructional skills in applied settings	1	7	2.24	1.51
2	Opportunities to provide ongoing feedback and coaching on teacher candidate’s performance with ongoing coaching/mentoring	1	8	3.43	2.06
3	Opportunities for teacher candidates to practice inclusive instructional skills in applied settings	1	10	4.19	2.34
4	Opportunities to make adaptations to general education curriculum in applied settings	1	10	4.52	1.91
5	Opportunities for teacher candidates to observe others demonstrating inclusive instructional skills, using video or live observation that is structured and mediated	1	10	4.90	2.91
6	Opportunities for teacher candidates to problem solve with team members in applied settings	1	8	5.95	1.77
7	Opportunities to co-teach in general education settings	2	10	6.90	2.41
8	Opportunities to work with students who represent cultural and linguistic diversity in applied settings	2	10	7.05	2.42
9	Opportunities to co-plan with general education colleagues and related services providers	1	10	7.10	2.84
10	Opportunities to collaborate with families in applied settings	5	10	8.71	1.55

Note. 1 = most important, 10 = least important.

Strategies Faculty Can Use to Evaluate Teacher Candidates’ Inclusive Skills

Strategies for evaluating the development of teacher candidates’ inclusive skills and skill applications were queried (see Table 6). Four items were ranked as important (i.e., mean ranking of less than 5.0): evaluating candidates’ ability to plan instruction to enhance inclusion (M = 3.20 was most important), evaluating candidates’ use of high-impact practices in inclusive classrooms via observations, evaluating candidates’ ability to analyze student-level data, and evaluating teacher candidates’ ability to write IEPs that enhance inclusion. The least important strategy was evaluating candidates’ co-teaching skills (M = 7.60).

Table 6.

Most Important Evaluative Strategies That Faculty Can Use to Evaluate Teacher Candidates’ Inclusive Skills and Skill Application.

Rank	Item	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
1	Evaluate teacher candidates’ ability to plan instructional strategies and supports that increase and enhance inclusion by evaluating lesson plans	1	10	3.20	2.40
2	Evaluate teacher candidates’ use of high impact practices (in the field of special education and significant disabilities) in inclusive classroom settings through live observation, bug in the ear observation, and digitally recorded teaching sessions	1	10	4.35	2.94
3	Evaluate teacher candidates’ ability to analyze student-level data to make instructional decisions	1	10	4.50	2.48
4	Evaluate teacher candidates’ ability to write IEPs that increase and enhance inclusion	1	9	4.85	2.37
5	Evaluate teacher candidates’ application of teaching or other professional skills and competencies in applied settings using established rubrics such as the CEC (Council for Exceptional Children) professional standards	1	10	5.35	3.79
6	Evaluate teacher candidates’ ability to engage in effective collaborative teaming	1	9	5.65	2.41
7	Evaluate teacher candidates’ ability to problem-solve	1	10	6.05	2.61
8	Evaluate teacher candidates’ ability to provide instruction and other supports that are sensitive to students’ diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.	1	10	6.80	2.84
9	Evaluate teacher candidates’ self-assessments/reflections of inclusive skills or dispositions	3	10	6.85	2.01
10	Evaluate teacher candidates’ co-teaching skills	3	10	7.60	2.23

Note. 1 = most important, 10 = least important. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Factors That Support Teacher Expertise Related to Inclusive Education of Students With Significant Disabilities

Finally, respondents ranked the factors that support development of teacher expertise for inclusive education (see Table 7). The most important factor identified was systems-level support for inclusive education (M = 3.24), whereas previous work or personal experiences with people with disabilities was ranked least important (M = 8.76). Only having robust opportunities to collaborate with others and opportunities for on-going professional development were also considered important (i.e., mean ranking of less than 5.0).

Table 7.

Factors That Support Development of Teacher Expertise.

Rank	Item	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
1	Systems-level support for inclusive education (e.g., administrator support, smaller caseloads)	1	9	3.24	2.59
2	Robust opportunities to collaborate with administrators, general educators, related service providers, and families	2	8	3.62	1.66
3	Coaching from a master teacher/mentor with demonstrated expertise	1	9	5.00	2.66
4	Opportunities for ongoing pre- and in-service professional development through additional certifications, endorsements, use of outside consultants, mentor teacher, professional development	1	9	5.05	2.62
5	System-level structures that support inclusive education (e.g., not tracking students, students attend their home schools)	1	10	5.33	3.34
6	Coaching from a university instructor/supervisor with demonstrated expertise	1	10	5.38	2.52
7	Access to a system of support for problem-solving (e.g., a cohort of colleagues from teacher preparation program)	1	10	5.43	2.58
8	Access to trainings with practice-based coaching and feedback	1	10	6.24	2.93
9	Ready access to resources, such as curriculum and support staff (e.g., paraprofessionals)	3	10	6.95	2.18
10	Previous work (e.g., as a paraprofessional) or personal experiences with people with disabilities	6	10	8.76	1.48

Note. 1 = most important, 10 = least important.

Discussion

The purposes of the study were to gain consensus around the most important skills of teachers working with students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings, to understand how faculty prepare candidates to develop and evaluate these skills, and describe how faculty perceive teaching conditions that impact skill development. A Delphi study was completed by higher education faculty to address these research purposes by building consensus through the use of iterative surveys. The findings of this study demonstrate respondents ranked many of the skills as important, suggesting consensus was achieved. These findings extend previous research on teacher preparation in significant disabilities (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2017b, 2018a, 2018b) and inclusive education (e.g., Zagona et al., 2017) by identifying areas of consensus among an expert faculty panel on areas of importance for inclusive teacher preparation for students with significant disabilities. Furthermore, this information can be used by inclusive teacher preparation faculty to design inclusive fieldwork and coursework that ensures the agreed-upon content from experts in the field reflects a means of promoting further inclusion of students with significant disabilities in schools.

Skills Needed and Qualities of Teachers in Inclusive Settings

Respondents identified four instructional practices as highly important skills of inclusive special educators of students with significant disabilities: individualized supports (Kurth et al., 2015), use of research-based instructional practices (Browder et al., 2014), collaboration (McLeskey et al., 2018) and embedded systematic instruction (Jimenez & Kamei, 2015). These research-supported practices are widely cited in the extant research as effective inclusive practices, and therefore, the consensus reached about the importance of these skills is not surprising. Teacher advocacy for student access to typical settings and supports was also highly ranked by our respondents and suggests the importance of teacher leadership skills to promote and facilitate inclusive practices, a skill which is less researched and represents a new direction in teacher education. Although Ruppar et al. (2018a) identified advocacy skills as important, this was not grounded in advocacy for inclusive placement. Some research has explored teacher agency as a key component of promoting inclusive practices (e.g., Miller et al., 2020; Naraian, 2014, 2017), although most research on systems change focuses on broader policy levels (e.g., McCart et al., 2014). Given the importance of teacher advocacy identified by the respondents to this survey, further research into teacher education related to leadership, advocacy, and agency for promoting and advancing inclusive education is needed.

In addition to ranking skills, respondents identified the qualities of effective teachers supporting students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings. Respondents identified holding high expectations, enacting an inclusive philosophy, a positive disposition toward advocacy, and problem-solving qualities as most important. These qualities correspond well to those identified by Ruppar et al. (2017b) in their interview of faculty members who prepare teachers in significant disabilities in general. Specifically, holding high expectations and problem-solving/flexibility were identified in both. Ruppar and colleagues also identified positivity and continual improvement as important qualities. The differences in findings appear to center on the focus of inclusive education in this study—namely, advocating for inclusion and enacting inclusive dispositions. Given the similarities of findings across settings, despite the differences in research questions, lends further credibility to our findings. Further research is needed, however, to continue to explore teacher qualities needed for inclusive education and how, or if, such qualities can be taught and nurtured during the teacher preparation period.

Teacher Candidate Preparation and Evaluation Practices

Uncovering those activities deemed effective by faculty to teach and evaluate inclusive skills was a further purpose of this research. Respondents rated highly those instructional activities that enable candidates to develop research-based instructional skills and supports, while developing collaboration skills, as important. Demonstrating these skills in applied school settings was also valued, as was providing coaching and feedback. Together, these findings suggest the importance of providing many and varied opportunities for candidates to develop inclusive skills, with opportunities to practice these skills in applied settings as critical (McLeskey et al., 2018).

Higher education classroom activities to promote skill acquisition had little variability in ratings, with a range of only 3.43 (most important) to 7.71 (least important). This suggests the university classroom activities were highly rated overall, and respondents had some difficulty distinguishing more or less important activities. As with classroom activities, evaluation strategies also had little variability in ratings (range = 3.20–7.60), suggesting the overall importance of each evaluation strategy generated by higher education faculty and the research team. Given the importance of these classroom activities and evaluation strategies, teacher educators may consider each to be effective and important, and seek opportunities to integrate these activities in their classroom instruction. Further research is needed, however, to understand how teacher candidates value these activities and evaluative methods.

Conditions Supporting Teacher Expertise Development

Survey respondents identified those factors that support development of special education teacher expertise for including students with significant disabilities in general education settings. There was not a great deal of variability in these responses (range = 3.24–8.76), suggesting the relative importance of each factor available; however, respondents ranked systems-level support and opportunities for collaboration as most important factors. Given the overall importance of systems-level support in promoting inclusion in the extant research (Sailor et al., 2018), this finding is not surprising. The importance of collaboration and co-planning has also been long associated with inclusive practices (e.g., Friend et al., 2010; McLeskey et al., 2018). This study found it somewhat surprising that respondents ranked previous work or personal experiences with people with disabilities as the least important factor; however, given the relative rarity of inclusive practices, one can assume teacher candidates would have little experience in inclusive education with people with significant disabilities, which may have impacted respondents’ choices. In consideration of the low variability in responses, it is likely respondents considered each factor to be somewhat equally important. Further research is needed, however, to further parse out how these factors support or constrain development of inclusive skills, knowledge, and dispositions.

Limitations

There are several limitations one must consider when interpreting the findings of this study. First, due the nature of the recruitment strategy employed, it is possible that some expert faculty members were not identified. Second, the response rate declined over the course of the study, likely due in part to response fatigue. Given the nature of the Delphi study, several rounds of survey were sent to expert faculty members. Our panel size was appropriate for the population of study, although the response rate was initially 58% and decreased to 34% in the final round. Decreasing response rates after each consecutive round is a common limitation among Delphi studies (Rowe et al., 2015). Nevertheless, this study obtained a high sample size and an overall response rate of 42.5% across rounds of the survey. Third, respondents reported concerns related to the difficulty of ranking items based on level of importance, even though the Delphi method (Hsu & Sandford, 2007) allows all items to be interpreted as important and achieving consensus around importance is the ultimate goal. As such, that some participants reported difficulty rating items indicates this study achieved high consensus in the importance of our final items; all items, then, can be considered important in teacher preparation for the inclusive education of students with significant disabilities. Finally, the views of the expert faculty in our study cannot be generalized to any other expert group or to practitioners.

Implications

Research has consistently demonstrated that students with significant disabilities have stronger outcomes when they are taught in inclusive classrooms and communities, yet these students have consistently remained in separate classrooms and schools at a higher rate than students with other disabilities (Kurth et al., 2014). The findings from this study identify specific skills and qualities that should be taught and fostered in teacher candidates as well as specific strategies that are recommended for promoting the knowledge and skills in both the higher education classroom and in more applied settings such as K–12 schools and the community. The top 10 skills are detailed in Table 2 and illustrate the need for teacher candidates develop skills such as how to individualize supports, use effective research-driven practices, collaborate, advocate, and embed systematic and explicit instruction into natural routines.

In preparing teacher candidates, the findings indicate programs should foster qualities such as having high expectations and an inclusive philosophy, having a positive disposition toward advocacy, is a creative problem solver, and is able to develop strong collaborative relationships. Building these skills and qualities in teacher candidates have promise for better preparing them to teach in and advocate for inclusive schools. To facilitate these skills and qualities, findings indicate that teacher preparation programs should provide opportunities for teacher candidates to deliver research-driven instructional practices and supports in general education contexts, collaboratively team, and other opportunities (detailed in Table 4) for teacher candidates to practice inclusive skills and strategies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jennifer A. Kurth

Virginia Walker

Author Biographies

Jennifer A. Kurth is an associate professor of special education at the University of Kansas. Her research centers on inclusive education for students with extensive and pervasive support needs.

Heather C. Allcock, PhD, is an assistant professor at Providence College where she works to prepare pre-service teacher candidates in a merged dual certification elementary and special education program. Areas of research include preparing teachers to include students with significant disabilities and identifying barriers that prohibit access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities.

Virginia L. Walker is an assistant professor of special education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research interests include positive behavioral interventions and supports, inclusive education, and personnel training related to students with extensive and pervasive support needs.

Amy Olson is an associate professor at Winona Sate University. Her research focuses on students with severe disabilities and teacher preparation, access to the general curriculum, and teacher expertise.

Deborah Taub is a technical assistance specialist with TIES national technical assistance center on inclusive practices. Her research focuses on equitable opportunities to learn for students with extensive and pervasive support needs.

References

Akins

R. B.

Tolson

Cole

B. R.

(2005). Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: Application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5, Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-37

Bolger

Wright

(2011). Improving the Delphi process: Lessons learned from social psychological research. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1500–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.007

Boulkedid

Abdoul

Loustau

Sibony

Alberti

(2011). Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 6(6), Article e20476.

Browder

D. M.

Gibbs

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Courtade

Mraz

Flowers

. (2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities: What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education, 30, 269–282.

Browder

D. M.

Wood

Thompson

Ribuffo

(2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities (CEEDAR Document NO. IC-3). CEEDAR Center. Retrieved on October 22, 2019

Carter

E. W.

(2017). The promise and practice of peer support arrangements for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 52, 141–174.

Delano

M. E.

Keefe

Perner

(2008). Personnel preparation: Recurring challenges and the need for action to ensure access to general education. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 34(1), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.232

Endrew v. Douglas County School District , 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

Forlin

Chambers

(2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850

10.

Friend

Cook

Hurley-Chamberlain

Shamberger

(2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9–27.

11.

Hall

D. A.

Smith

Heffernan

Fackrell

(2018). Recruiting and retaining participants in e-Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: Evaluating the COMiT’ID study. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0201378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201378

12.

Hasson

Keeney

(2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1695–1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005

13.

Hsu

C. C.

Sandford

B. A.

(2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5959/eimj.v8i3.421

14.

Hudson

M. E.

Rivera

C. J.

Grady

M. M.

(2018). Research on mathematics instruction with students with significant cognitive disabilities: Has anything changed? Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 43, 38–53.

15.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, H.R. 1350, Pub. L. No. P.L. 108-446 (2004).

16.

Jackson

Ryndak

D. L.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2008). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 34(1), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.175

17.

Jimenez

B. A.

Kamei

(2015). Embedded instruction: An evaluation of evidence to inform inclusive practice. Inclusion, 3(3), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.132

18.

Johnson

Semmelroth

C. L.

(2014). Special education teacher evaluation: Why it matters, what makes it challenging, and how to address these challenges. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413513315

19.

Kleinert

J. O.

Harrison

Mills

K. R.

Dueppen

B. M.

Trailor

A. M.

(2014). Self-determined goal selection and planning by students with disabilities across grade bands and disability categories. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 464–477.

20.

Kurth

J. A.

Born

Love

(2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for students with severe cognitive disability. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41, 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916661492

21.

Kurth

J. A.

Foley

J. A.

(2014). Reframing teacher preparation: Preparing teachers for inclusive education. Inclusion, 2, 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-2.4.286

22.

Kurth

J. A.

Lyon

K. J.

Shogren

K. A.

(2015). Supporting students with severe disabilities in inclusive schools: A descriptive account from schools implementing inclusive practices. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915594160

23.

Kurth

J. A.

Mastergeorge

A. M.

(2012). Impact of setting and instructional context for adolescents with autism. Journal of Special Education, 46, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910366480

24.

Kurth

J. A.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kozleski

(2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914555580

25.

Landeta

Barrutia

Lertxundi

(2011). Hybrid Delphi: A methodology to facilitate contribution from experts in professional contexts. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1629–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.009

26.

Lee

Hawley

Browder

D. M.

Flowers

Wakeman

(2016). Teaching writing in response to text to students with developmental disabilities who participate in alternate assessments. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 238–251.

27.

Lee

S. H.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Soukup

J. H.

Palmer

S. B.

(2010). Impact of curriculum modifications on access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 213–233.

28.

McCart

A. B.

Sailor

W. S.

Bezdek

J. M.

Satter

A. L.

(2014). A framework for inclusive educational delivery systems. Inclusion, 2, 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-2.4.252

29.

McHatton

P. A.

Parker

(2013). Purposeful preparation: Longitudinally exploring inclusion attitudes of general and special education pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413491611

30.

McLeskey

Billingsley

Ziegler

(2018). Using high-leverage practices in teacher preparation to reduce the research-to-practice gap in inclusive settings. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.3

31.

McLeskey

Maheady

Billingsley

Brownell

Lewis

(2018). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms. Routledge.

32.

Miller

Wilt

C. L.

Allcock

Kurth

Morningstar

Ruppar

. (2020). Teacher agency for inclusive education: An international scoping review. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1789766

33.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kurth

J. A.

Johnson

P. J.

(2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 3–12.

34.

Naraian

(2014). Agency in real time? Situating teachers’ efforts towards inclusion in the context of local and enduring struggles. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1–38.

35.

Naraian

(2017). Teaching for inclusion: Eight principles for effective and equitable practice. Teachers College Press.

36.

Okoli

Pawlowski

S. D.

(2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15–29.

37.

Olson

A. J.

Roberts

C. A.

(2018). Teacher educators’ perspectives: Preparing preservice teachers to provide access to the general curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517738567

38.

Olson

A. J.

Roberts

C. A

. (2020). Navigating barriers as special education teacher educators. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 45, 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920914969

39.

Olson

A. J.

Ruppar

A. L.

(2017). Resolving barriers to access to the general curriculum: Lessons from an exemplary inclusive district. Inclusion, 5, 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-5.2.121

40.

Pennington

R. C.

Courtade

G. R.

(2015). An examination of teacher and student behaviors in classrooms for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2014.919141

41.

Roberts

Ruppar

A. L.

Olson

(2018). Perceptions matter: Administrators’ vision of instruction for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 43, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917743931

42.

Rowe

D. A.

Alverson

C. Y.

Unruh

D. K.

Fowler

C. H.

Kellems

Test

(2015). A Delphi study to operationalize evidence-based predictors in secondary transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414526429

43.

Ruppar

A. L.

Allcock

Gonsier-Gerdin

(2017a). Ecological factors affecting access to general education content and contexts for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516646856

44.

Ruppar

A. L.

Roberts

Olson

(2017b). Perceptions about expert teaching for students with severe disabilities among teachers identified as experts. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42, 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/I540796917697311

45.

Ruppar

A. L.

Roberts

C. A.

Olson

A. J.

(2018a). Developing expertise in teaching students with extensive support needs: A roadmap. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56, 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-56.6.412

46.

Ruppar

A. L.

Roberts

C. A.

Olson

A. J.

(2018b). Is it all about loving the kids? Perceptions about expertise in special education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.001

47.

Sailor

(2015). Advances in schoolwide inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514555021

48.

Sailor

McCart

A. B.

Choi

J. H.

(2018). Reconceptualizing inclusive education through multi-tiered system of support. Inclusion, 6, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-6.1.3

49.

Spooner

Browder

(2014). Raising the bar: Significant advances and future needs for promoting learning for students with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514555022

50.

Taub

D. A.

McCord

J. A.

Ryndak

(2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research supported practices for all in general education classes. Journal of Special Education, 51, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917696263

51.

Thompson

J. R.

Walker

V. L.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2018). Expanding inclusive educational opportunities for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities through personalized supports. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56, 396–411. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-56.6.396

52.

Wehmeyer

(2006). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100405

53.

Zagona

A. L.

Kurth

J. A.

MacFarland

S. Z. C.

(2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969