Abstract
Students with disabilities are served by both special and general educators, yet teachers often feel unprepared to meet the needs of these students in their classrooms. Using data from a nationally representative survey, we examined the sufficiency of teachers’ access to supports available for meeting the needs of students with high-incidence disabilities, their access to development opportunities, and the sources teachers used to access interventions. We explored differences in teachers’ experiences by grade band, service delivery model, and teacher preparation model. We found teachers of students with disabilities rated the sufficiency of access to supports between somewhat insufficient and somewhat sufficient, with the lowest ratings for planning/release time and training and information. Teachers reported greater rates of access to collaboration than professional development. Colleagues were sources for resources related to academic interventions and administrators were sources for nonacademic intervention resources. There were few significant differences in these results by teacher characteristics.
Keywords
Students with disabilities (SWD) are served in both special and general education contexts. As a result, both special education teachers (SETs) and general education teachers (GETs) are responsible for the SWDs’ success in school. Meeting the needs of SWD requires proper training and access to resources and supports, given that SWD often have intensive and persistent academic needs compared with their peers without disabilities (Gilmour et al., 2019; Schulte & Stevens, 2015; Schulte et al., 2016). In addition, SWD often have unique profiles of strengths and needs that create heterogeneity across and within disability categories in both academics (Gilmour et al., 2019; Schulte & Stevens, 2015; Schulte et al., 2016) and behavior (e.g., Sabornie et al., 2006). The complexity of supporting the academic and behavioral needs of SWD requires teachers who are skilled in meeting these needs.
Although SETs and GETs need to have the skills and resources to meet the needs of SWD, studies have found that teachers face challenges in this regard. Researchers have found that GETs often feel largely underprepared to meet the needs of SWDs in their classroom and are less prepared than their SET colleagues (Jenkins & Ornelles, 2009; W. Jung et al., 2011). GET candidates also tend to report significantly fewer practicum experiences working with SWD than candidates in special education and dual endorsement programs (Brownell et al., 2005; Gehrke & Cocchiarella, 2013; Kim, 2011; Shippen et al., 2005), and poorer understanding of the needs of SWD (Gehrke & Cocchiarella, 2013). At the same time, cohorts of SWDs have increasingly intensive needs relative to the historical SWD population (Dewey et al., 2017). Although there have been declines in the number of SWD overall, there has been a sharper decrease in the number of SETs in schools such that SETs serve larger caseloads of SWD (Dewey et al., 2017). If these SWD also have more intensive needs, there is a redoubling of the pressure on SETs’ time and expertise. These intersecting trends have implications for teachers’ confidence and preparedness to meet the needs of SWD.
Increasing Teacher Preparedness and Support
Although teachers become more efficacious over the course of their careers (Kini & Podolsky, 2016), the need to address the poor outcomes of SWD requires a greater sense of urgency than what is afforded by experiential learning over time. In-service professional development (PD) and supports may lead to increases in teaching quality and confidence in addressing the needs of SWD for both GETs and SETs.
There is evidence that in-service PD can positively impact student outcomes. For example, Feng and Sass (2013) found that prior PD related to special education (e.g., 2 or 3 years in the past) for GETs who teach reading was positively associated with gains in the achievement data for SWD. In addition, the authors found that prior and current PD in special education for GETs was associated with improved academic outcomes even for students outside of special education. In a meta-analysis of PD centered on data-based decision-making (DBDM), Gesel et al. (2021) found that PD positively impacted teacher outcomes, a finding that complements the work of others who found that DBDM positively impacts student outcomes (Didion et al., 2020; Filderman et al., 2018; P. G. Jung et al., 2018). Although DBDM represents only one aspect of meeting the needs of SWD, these results highlight the role PD may play in increasing GETs’ and SETs’ preparedness to meet the needs of those students.
Teachers’ ongoing access to support may be just as important as in-service PD for increasing teaching quality and confidence and boosting student outcomes. Unfortunately, there is evidence suggesting that teachers do not feel that they have sufficient access to support. For example, Ornelles et al. (2007) found that teachers reported hurdles in meeting the needs of SWD in their classroom (i.e., co-teaching compatibility, scheduling co-planning time, modifying instruction for SWD). These teachers reported a strong desire to know more about SWD, the legal requirements for special education, and best instructional practices for SWD. Without such knowledge, the participants described an overreliance on SET collaborators for instructional adaptations. Similarly, less than 45% of the GET and SET respondents in another study reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that they (a) actively sought out information and research related to meeting the needs of SWD and (b) knew how to access resources related to special education (Jenkins & Ornelles, 2009). These results are concerning because knowing how to access resources and actively seeking such information are precursors to making sure that the needs of SWD are being met.
Insufficient Support and Teacher Turnover
The risks of inadequate supports for teachers of SWD may extend into broader issues for the field, given the association between such supports and teacher job satisfaction/turnover (see Bettini, Cumming, et al., 2020; Bettini, Gilmour, et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Billingsley et al., 2020; Boe & Cook, 2006; Gilmour & Wehby, 2020; Kelly et al., 2019; Olsen & Huang, 2019; Renbarger & Davis, 2019; Robinson et al., 2019; Rose & Sughrue, 2020). When principals struggle to hire and retain qualified teachers of SWD, students’ academic and behavioral needs too often go unmet. Furthermore, teachers overall have higher likelihoods of turnover associated with prevalence of SWD in their classroom, but the association is stronger for teachers without special education certification (Gilmour & Wehby, 2020).
Well-established predictors of SET job satisfaction include administrator support, collaborative school culture, access to training/materials, teacher context, and initial teacher preparation (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Although these factors focus on SET satisfaction, evidence suggests there are similar factors for GETs (e.g., collaborative school culture, mentoring; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). In addition, some of these factors appear to be more strongly associated with intent to continue teaching for GETs than SETs (e.g., collegial support; Bettini, Gilmour, et al., 2020). These factors indicate a starting point for further investigation of the types of supports that could benefit teachers of SWD, teachers’ access to those supports, and the sufficiency of that access. We will briefly describe each factor next.
Administrator support
One source of support for teachers as they attempt to meet the needs of SWD may be found through school leadership. Administrators play multifaceted roles in supporting teachers (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Effective leadership is critical to establishing a positive school climate, a key predictor of teachers’ intent to stay in a position (Bettini, Gilmour, et al., 2020; Billingsley, 2004). SETs have cited an inclusive culture that promotes shared responsibility for student achievement by all staff members as an important factor in their job satisfaction, and a lack of inclusive culture as a factor in leaving their positions (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Teachers indicated improved job satisfaction when administrators paired inclusive culture with recognition for accomplishments (Bettini, Cumming, et al., 2020; Billingsley et al., 2020; Olsen & Huang, 2019). Bettini, Cumming, et al. (2020) found that administrator support also predicted the perceived manageability of teachers’ workloads, which mediated the association between support and stress, emotional exhaustion, and intent to stay in the field. Teachers’ roles are complex, requiring collaboration with colleagues and stakeholders across the school (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Shepherd et al., 2016). When administrators account for these needs by providing planning or release time, teachers are more likely to be happy and successful (Bettini, Cumming, et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Billingsley et al., 2020).
Collaborative school culture
Administrator support for collaboration underpins the development of a second source of support for teachers of SWD related to a strong collaborative culture between teachers. This type of peer support is particularly important to SETs because of the complexity of their roles and the interrelation of their work with that of colleagues (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Shepherd et al., 2016). Teachers who are closer to their colleagues tend to be more satisfied in their jobs, reporting lower levels of stress and burnout than teachers who are more isolated (Bettini, Gilmour, et al., 2020; Bottiani et al., 2019). Access to quality mentorship has also been linked to stronger job satisfaction (Renbarger & Davis, 2019). In addition, collaborative culture is important because evidence suggests that teachers are a primary source of information and development for one another, sharing knowledge, experience, materials, and resources to meet students’ needs (Berry, 2011; Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). In the absence of targeted PD, teachers may be the best resource for not only one another’s wellness, but also for access to the materials and knowledge to meet students’ needs.
Access to training, materials, or staff with specific expertise
A third source of support for meeting the needs of SWD may relate to their access to training, materials, and colleagues’ expertise. Regular access to PD is related to intent to stay in the field for SETs (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). This association was stronger when researchers looked at access to instructional materials and differentiated curricula to meet student needs (Bettini, Gilmour, et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Regular access to PD and high-quality resources tends to be related to teacher job satisfaction and effectiveness, particularly for early career teachers (Billingsley et al., 2020; Coldwell, 2017; Renbarger & Davis, 2019). Renbarger and Davis (2019) found that teachers reporting significant barriers to PD (e.g., lack of support for training, unaffordability) were more likely to report lower levels of job satisfaction.
Of course, teachers need to access academic and behavior intervention materials outside of PD contexts as well. Access to intervention materials for SWD may differ for academic versus behavioral domains due to differences in the availability of tools, materials, or expertise. For example, there have historically been fewer validated behavioral assessment tools, shorter history of behavioral initiatives in schools, and less reported expertise in meeting behavioral needs, compared with the tools, intervention history, and expertise related to academic needs (Berry Kuchle et al., 2015). Therefore, it is possible that teachers may turn to different sources depending on the need to address academics or behavior for their SWD.
Variability of Access to Supports by Teacher Contexts
Given the complexity of teachers of SWD’s roles, there is variation in SETs’ and GETs’ access to each type of support. In this section, we describe factors that may contribute to this variability, including setting/service delivery context, grade band, and preparation type.
Teacher setting and service delivery context
SETs’ and GETs’ access to supports for SWD may differ by teacher setting and service delivery context. Different teacher settings require different skills, levels of collaboration with colleagues, and adaptation of materials (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Brownell et al., 2010). Each service delivery context has differing demands that affect teaching and planning time (Bettini, Gilmour, et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). For both SETs and GETs, there is evidence that intent to stay in the field and job satisfaction may be differentiated by teacher setting.
SETs may work in a variety of service delivery contexts that greatly influence their needs. For example, SETs of students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD) in self-contained settings face challenges when meeting students’ academic and behavioral needs, particularly in accessing materials and training to support their effectiveness (Bettini, Cumming, et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). In addition, SETs must often be specialists in content areas for which they have little preparation (e.g., inclusive settings; Brownell et al., 2010); those co-teaching spend significant time collaborating with and adapting materials from colleagues, rather than developing independent lesson plans and specialized instruction for students (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Shepherd et al., 2016). GETs also experience different service delivery models such as co-teaching or push-in/pull-out supports for individual students in their classrooms. However, less is known about how GETs’ experiences of service deliveries influence their job satisfaction. In a qualitative study of GETs’ perspectives, teachers cited a lack of coursework and practical experience in special education during their preservice preparation for their limited skill set in inclusive settings (Berry, 2011). Teachers reported the need for ongoing PD and access to planning time with colleagues to be successful, requests that mirror those of their SET counterparts (Berry, 2011).
Grade band
The experiences of teachers of SWD may also vary by grade band, particularly in comparing the experiences of elementary and middle school teachers with those in high school settings. For example, SETs in high school settings have different responsibilities related to special education services (e.g., transition planning; Morningstar & Benitez, 2013) than their elementary and middle school counterparts. In addition, high school teachers feel less well-prepared and greater frustration related to response-to-intervention (RTI; Regan et al., 2015). There is evidence that support varies by grade band as well; for instance, more elementary teachers than middle or secondary teachers report participation in PD related to topics such as content knowledge, reading instruction, and behavioral supports (Rotermund et al., 2017). Although there is little evidence of differences in satisfaction or retention by grade level (Ferguson et al., 2012), these differences in teachers’ experiences indicate that there may be differential access to supports and training by grade band.
Preparation type or training
The type of teacher preparation a teacher received may also influence the form and frequency of access to supports for SWD. Recently, there has been a significant growth of alternative certification preparation programs (ACPPs) in response to teacher shortages (Rose & Sughrue, 2020; Van Overschelde & Wiggins, 2020). These programs are often marked by a fast pace, less extensive training, and less practicum experience (Rose & Sughrue, 2020). Many teachers in ACPPs work as full-time teachers while earning their certification and thus initially enter the classroom less prepared (Rose & Sughrue, 2020). Perhaps for these reasons, in conjunction with the limited time commitment required by some popular programs (i.e., Teach for America’s 2-year term), teachers who attend ACPPs have higher rates of attrition than traditionally trained peers (Boyd et al., 2006; Van Overschelde & Wiggins, 2020; Zhang & Zeller, 2016). It is possible that teachers in ACPPs may require differentiated PD from administrators, more substantial mentoring and observation from veteran teachers, and guidance about how and where to focus development efforts (Rose & Sughrue, 2020). Given these different needs, preparation type may influence teachers’ experiences, including the sufficiency of the access to supports for meeting the needs of SWD.
Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypotheses
Overall, the literature delineates the complex and diverse needs of SWD served by both SETs and GETs (e.g., Gilmour et al., 2019; Schulte & Stevens, 2015; Schulte et al., 2016), and relatively low levels of teaching quality and preparedness to teach SWD (e.g., Ornelles et al., 2007). These contexts have inspired research centered on teacher preparation and supports as factors related to teacher satisfaction/turnover (e.g., Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). There is, however, a need to understand teacher access to supports for teaching SWD, particularly students with high-incidence disabilities who are most likely to be served in a general education context (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Understanding teacher access to supports is an important first step to ensuring that SETs and GETs meet the needs of SWD, as both are responsible for the success of SWD.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a secondary data analysis of a nationally representative sample of teachers of students with high-incidence disabilities to explore teacher-reported supports. We examined following research questions (RQs):
Method
Data and Sample
To address our RQs, we used data from the RAND American Teacher Panel (ATP; May 2018 Measurement Learning and Improvement Survey; https://aepdata.org). The ATP is a survey of a nationally representative sample of teachers. Researchers first sampled schools and then sampled two teachers per school with oversampling of certain teacher populations and school types. Then, they applied sampling weights to ensure that school types (e.g., size, urbanicity) and teacher characteristics were not overrepresented. More details about the sampling scheme are available from Robbins and Grant (2020). We limited the sample to teachers who indicated that they taught or supported students with high-incidence disabilities, resulting in a sample of 11,176 teachers. With survey weights provided by RAND, these teachers represented a nationally representative sample of 2,173,902 teachers. Final sample sizes for each analysis varied due to missing data; we reported analytic sample sizes in the results’ tables. Data from this survey are available upon registering for access with RAND (initial access: June 2020).
In our sample of teachers who taught or supported students with high-incidence disabilities, 76.5% were female (21.3% male; 2.2% not reported). The majority of teachers reported they were White (81.5%; 5.5% Black; 11.02% other race/ethnicity; 2% not reported). Most teachers were experienced (10.9% reported teaching for >4 years; 47.5% reported 4–14 years; 39.8% reported 15+ years; 1.8% not reported). Forty-two percent of teachers had a bachelor’s degree (55.9% master’s degree or higher; 1.7% not reported). These teachers worked in diverse schools; 44.2% reported a non-White majority of students in their school and 51.3% reporting that the majority of students at their school qualified for free or reduced lunch. The majority of teachers taught in suburban schools (38.8%; 31.9% towns/rural areas; 28.9% cities).
Measures
Sufficiency of access to supports
We measured teacher-reported sufficiency of access to support using an item that asked teachers to rate the sufficiency of their access to: (a) leadership support, (b) supportive school culture promoting shared responsibility and high expectations for all learners, (c) planning/release time, (d) materials and tools, (e) access to staff with specific expertise within or outside their school, and (f) training and information. For each of these supports, teachers rated the sufficiency of their access on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = did not receive the support; 5 = access to the support completely sufficient).
Frequency of access to development opportunities
Teachers rated on a 5-point scale how often, over the past 12 months, they participated in PD focused on (a) implementation of their main instructional materials and (b) adaptation of their main instructional materials. The response options were never (1), about 1 to 2 times per year (2), once every few weeks (3), about 1 to 3 times a month (4), or once a week or more (5). We also addressed collaboration as a development opportunity because prior research suggests that teachers learn from one another (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). On the same scale, teachers rated how often in the past 12 months they collaborated with other teachers about (a) implementation of their main instructional materials and (b) adaptation of their main instructional materials.
Identifying interventions
Our final RQ focused on where teachers reported they found interventions to support students. Teachers were asked to report the first place they would go to find an intervention to support students struggling in a particular academic area. They selected one choice from seven options: a specific digital or print source, internet information search, online social network inquiry or search, ask another teacher, ask a school leader or other support staff at their school and/or district, develop a resource themselves or ask other teachers/staff to develop a resource, or other. Teachers were asked this same question about the first place they would go to find an intervention to support students struggling with a nonacademic area. We created dummy variables indicating whether a teacher had selected the source as their preferred resource for each item.
Independent variables
We examined whether teachers’ ratings of the sufficiency of access to supports for students with high-incidence disabilities, teachers’ access to development opportunities, and teachers’ sources for interventions varied by the grade bands they taught, their service delivery model, and how they were prepared. Teachers indicated whether they taught elementary, middle, or high school grades. We created dummy variables for each of these grade bands. We addressed service delivery models with an item that asked which services their students with high-incidence disabilities received during the current school year. The response options included general education setting with pull-out and/or push-in services from an SET or specialist (i.e., pull-out/push-in), general education setting with co-teaching (i.e., co-teaching), resource room or self-contained class (i.e., resource/self-contained), residential/day placement, no services, or other. The ATP database, however, only included responses related to pull-out/push-in, co-teaching, and resource/self-contained. These categories were not mutually exclusive. We created four dummy variables to indicate whether a teacher selected pull-out/push-in only, co-teaching only, resource/self-contained only, or a combination of settings. We excluded teachers who did not select any of these service delivery models. Our final independent variable was a dummy variable related to teacher training. Teachers reported whether they completed an ACPP.
Data Analysis
We used descriptive statistics, t tests, and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to address our RQs. In all of our analyses, we eliminated teachers with missing data on the relevant variables. The sampling design and provided weights precluded the need to use methods that addressed clustering. We conducted our analyses in Stata 15 using the sampling weights provided by RAND and jackknife standard errors with 80 replications, except in cases when the weights and jackknife standard errors were incompatible with the estimation command. We noted when we did not use survey weights below; the results from analyses without survey weights are not nationally representative. In all of our analyses we used a = .05 as our cutoff for statistical significance. Before running our analyses, we examined correlations among the support variables (RQ1) and correlations among the development opportunities variables (RQ2). This helped us to evaluate whether items were addressing similar constructs. The correlations did not include sampling weights.
To address RQ1, we first reported descriptive statistics to describe teachers’ average reported sufficiency of access to supports available to them for meeting students’ needs. We included t tests to determine whether differences between mean rating for each support were statistically significant. The sampling weights and jackknife standard errors recommended by RAND were not compatible with these t tests; the results from these t tests are not nationally representative, but are still helpful for aiding in comparing means. To examine whether the sufficiency of access to supports varied by teacher grade band, service delivery model, or training type, we used OLS regression. We fit models with each support as the dependent variable and binary variables for grade band, service delivery model, or training type as the independent variables. In the initial models, elementary acted as the grade band comparison for the grade band models, combination service delivery model acted as the comparison for the service delivery models, and traditional teacher preparation acted as the comparison for the training type models. We refit the models for grade band and service delivery changing the comparison category to determine whether differences between all categories were statistically significant.
Our analyses to address RQ2 took the same approach that we used to address RQ1. We first reported descriptive statistics and t tests to describe teacher-reported access to development opportunities. Then, we used OLS regression to examine whether access to development opportunities varied by grade band, service delivery, or training type.
For RQ3, we first reported the proportion of teachers that reported each resource as the first place they would go to identify an intervention to address a student’s specific academic or nonacademic need. We then used t tests to aid with inferences about whether the proportions of teachers reporting each resource were different. Finally, we used OLS regression to determine whether the resources sought by teachers varied by grade band, service delivery, or training type. We conducted these analyses first for academic supports and then for nonacademic supports.
Deviations From Preregistration
In September 2020, we preregistered this study at Open Science Foundation (OSF; https://osf.io/req2j) and chose to develop the analytic plan before exploring the data. Our final methods deviated slightly from the preregistration plan in some notable ways. First, we proposed coding service delivery as three mutually exclusive dummy variables (pull-in/push-out, co-teaching, or resource/self-contained). These categories, however, were not mutually exclusive; thus, prior to analyses, we recoded the service delivery categories as described in the “Independent Variables” subsection. Second, we proposed the use of t tests and correlations with survey weights in our preregistered data analysis plan; these analyses, however, were incompatible with the use of survey weights and the jackknife standard errors suggested by RAND. Therefore, these results are based off of a nonweighted sample and are not nationally representative. Third, we had proposed the use of chi-square tests to examine differences across reported sources and grade bands, service delivery, and training (RQ3). Instead, we chose to use regressions to be consistent with our other analyses, avoid conducting a substantial number of post hoc tests, and use the survey weights and jackknife standard errors, which are elements unsupported for chi-square tests. Finally, we failed to include the variable related to nonacademic sources in the preregistration and chose to clarify the wording of our RQs for publication purposes.
Results
Sufficiency of Access to Supports
RQ1 addressed whether teachers of SWD reported sufficient access to supports required for meeting students’ needs. We focused on six support variables: leadership support, culture promoting shared responsibility, planning and/or release time, materials and tools, access to staff expertise, and training and information. These supports were moderately correlated, ranging from a correlation of .38 between access to staff expertise and planning and/or release time to a correlation of .60 between training and information and materials and tools. Overall, these correlations suggest that teachers reported the sufficiency of their access to supports differently across items, indicating that these supports were unique (see Table 1 for full correlation matrix).
Correlations Between Reported Supports and Between Reported Frequency of PD.
Note. Correlations do not include sampling weights. Standard errors are in parentheses. PD = professional development.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
In Table 2, we report the descriptive statistics for teachers’ ratings of supports. As a reminder, teachers rated the sufficiency of their access on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = did not receive the support; 5 = access to the support completely sufficient). Overall, teachers rated the sufficiency of supports between somewhat insufficient (a score of 3) and somewhat sufficient (a score of 4). Teachers gave the lowest ratings to planning and/or release time and training/information, with mean ratings of 3.10 and 3.11, respectively. Teachers gave the highest mean ratings to culture promoting shared responsibility (3.75) and access to staff expertise (3.73). The differences in ratings across supports were all statistically significant, with the exception of planning and/or release time and training/information, but did not differ greatly in magnitude.
Descriptive Statistics for Reported Access to Supports and Frequency of PD.
Note. PD = professional development.
Indicates a statistically significant difference from culture promoting shared responsibility. bIndicates a statistically significant difference from planning and/or release time. cIndicates a statistically significant difference from materials and tools. dIndicates a statistically significant difference from access to staff expertise. eIndicates a statistically significant difference from training and information. fIndicates statistically significant difference from leadership support. gIndicates a statistically significant difference from PD focused on adaptation of main instructional materials. hIndicates a statistically significant difference from collaboration focused on implementation of main instructional materials. iIndicates a statistically significant difference from collaboration focused on adaptation of main instructional materials t tests are based on unweighted samples. jIndicates statistically significant difference from PD focused on implementation of main instructional materials.
Table 3 reports the results of regressions examining whether reports of the sufficiency of supports varied by grade band, service delivery, or training type. There were few substantively meaningful or statistically significant differences by grade band. High school teachers reported slightly lower ratings of the sufficiency of their planning and/or release time compared with elementary school teachers (b = −0.14, p < .05) and middle school teachers (b = −0.16, p < .02). The differences in teachers’ ratings of sufficiency of supports between traditionally and alternatively prepared teachers were very small and not statistically significant.
Regression Results for Supports (RQ1).
Note. Jackknife standard errors from 80 replications are in parentheses. RQ1 = Research Question 1; GE = general education.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Teachers’ ratings of sufficiency of supports rarely varied by service delivery type; most differences were small and not statistically significant (Table 3). Teachers indicating pull-out/ push-in only reported statistically significantly lower ratings than (a) resource/self-contained ratings of sufficiency of access to materials (pull-out/push rated lower), (b) resource/ self-contained ratings of sufficiency of access to training and information, and (c) mixed service delivery ratings of sufficiency of access to staff expertise and training and information.
Frequency of Access to Development Opportunities
Next, we examined teachers’ reported access to development opportunities (see Table 1 for correlations between PD opportunities). As a reminder, teachers selected from the following frequency options: never (1), about 1 to 2 times per year (2), once every few weeks (3), about 1 to 3 times a month (4), or once a week or more (5). The frequency teachers reported they participated in PD and engaged in collaboration about the implementation of their main instructional materials was highly correlated with the frequency teachers reported they participated in PD and engaged in collaboration about adaptations of their main instructional materials (.80 and .88 for PD and collaboration, respectively). PD frequency on these topics was only moderately correlated with collaboration on these topics (.36–.41). Teachers reported that they engaged in collaboration more frequently than PD about implementation of their main instructional materials and adaptation of their main instructional materials (Table 2). Respectively, teacher ratings ranged from 3.42 to 3.48 (1–3 times/month to 1+ time/week) compared to 2.44 to 2.46 (1–2 times/year to once every few months) for collaboration related to implementation of their main instructional materials and adaptation of their main instructional materials compared to PD in those same areas.
We then examined whether the frequency of PD varied by grade band, service delivery, or teacher training (Table 4). There were not any statistically significant differences by grade band. Teachers who used co-teaching service delivery models reported more frequent PD and collaboration. Most differences were not statistically significant, with one exception; teachers indicating co-teaching reported statistically significantly higher frequencies of collaboration focused on implementation of main instructional materials than resource/self-contained teachers (b = 0.46, p = .05). Collaboration did not vary by teacher training; teachers who participated in ACPP reported slightly more frequent PD than teachers who did not (p > .05).
Regression Results for PD (RQ2).
Note. Jackknife standard errors from 80 replications are in parentheses. PD = professional development; RQ2 = Research Question 2; GE = general education.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Intervention Resources
Our final RQ addressed where teachers found resources related to academic and nonacademic interventions. We report the proportions of teachers selecting each source for academic and nonacademic interventions in Table 5. Teachers most frequently found academic resources through colleagues; 34.3% of teachers reported that they would ask another teacher for an intervention to support a student struggling in a specific academic area. The next most frequent source for information about academic interventions was a school leader or support staff (21.6%). Seventeen percent of teachers reported they would develop the resource themselves or ask someone else to develop it, and 14.4% of teachers reported that they would use an internet search. Teachers less often turned to a specific digital or print source (8.9%), online social network (1.4%) or a different source (2.1%) to identify academic interventions.
Reported Sources for Academic and Nonacademic Interventions.
Note. Results are reported as proportions. Jackknife standard errors are in parentheses.
Indicates a statistically significant difference from internet information source. bIndicates a statistically significant difference from online social network inquiry or search. cIndicates a statistically significant difference from ask another teacher. dIndicates a statistically significant difference from ask a school leader. eIndicates a statistically significant difference from develop a resource. fIndicates a statistically significant difference from other. T tests are based on unweighted samples. gIndicates statistically significant difference from a specific digital or print source.
In contrast, over half of teachers (56.3%) reported that they would ask a school leader or other support staff to identify nonacademic interventions. The next most frequent response was to ask another teacher (19.6%), followed by 11.8% of teachers reporting that they would develop a resource themselves or ask someone else to develop a resource. Less frequently, teachers reported that they would turn to an online social network inquiry or search (10%), an internet information source (5.8%), a specific digital or print source (1.9%), or rely on a different source from those listed as response options (3.7%) to identify a nonacademic intervention.
We did not identify any substantively or statistically significant differences in intervention source by service delivery or training type (Table 6). Most of the differences by grade band were small and not statistically significant. A few differences emerged between teachers in higher grade bands and elementary school teachers. Middle school teachers were, on average, 8.2 percentage points less likely to first ask a school leader or other support staff about an academic intervention than elementary school teachers (p < .001). High school teachers also less often reported that they would ask a school leader first than elementary school teachers (a decrease of 6.7 percentage points, p < .01). In contrast, middle school and high school teachers more frequently reported that they would develop a resource themselves than elementary school teachers, but this difference was only statistically significant for middle school teachers (p < .05).
Regression Results for Academic Sources (RQ3).
Note. Jackknife standard errors from 80 replications are in parentheses. RQ3 = Research Question 3.
Similar to sources for academic interventions, we did not identify differences by service delivery models or teacher training in the sources teachers reported accessing to identify nonacademic interventions (Table 7). We also did not identify variation in sources by grade band, with one exception; middle school and high school teachers, on average, reported that they would ask their school leader for information about nonacademic interventions more often than elementary school teachers (5.6 and 5.8 percentage points, respectively).
Regression Results for Nonacademic Sources (RQ3).
Note. Jackknife standard errors from 80 replications are in parentheses. RQ3 = Research Question 3; GE = general education.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
Through a secondary data analysis of a May 2018 RAND ATP survey, we examined the sufficiency of access to supports available for meeting the needs of students with high-incidence disabilities, as reported by the teacher respondents (RQ1). We also examined teachers’ reported frequency of access to PD- and collaboration-related supports (RQ2) and explored sources teachers used to obtain intervention resources (RQ3). For each question, we explored how responses varied by grade band, service delivery, and preparation type.
Overall, teachers reported marginal levels of support to meet the needs of their students with high-incidence disabilities. Teachers rated the sufficiency of supports between a score of 3 (somewhat insufficient) and 4 (somewhat sufficient) for each type of support. Although there were few differences by teacher characteristic, teachers at the high school level rated lower sufficiency of access to planning/release time. Teachers who used a pull-out/ push-in service delivery model rated sufficiency of access to materials/tools, staff expertise, and training information slightly lower than teachers in other service delivery models. Teachers who used a co-teaching service model reported higher frequency of collaboration than resource/self-contained teachers. Generally, teachers reported greater engagement in collaboration about instructional materials rather than PD related to those materials. Teachers also reported more access to PD related to the implementation of their main instructional materials than PD related to making adaptations to those main instructional materials. Finally, we found that teachers most frequently relied on colleagues as the primary source for academic intervention resources and school leaders for nonacademic intervention resources, a result that varied by grade band.
These results can be situated within the research related to teachers’ preparedness to teach SWD (e.g., Dewey et al., 2017) and factors associated with teacher quality (e.g., Gilmour & Henry, 2018) and job satisfaction (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Boe & Cook, 2006). Specifically, we considered teacher-reported responses related to common predictors of attrition by teachers of SWD identified by Billingsley and Bettini (2019). These predictors include areas such as administrator support, collaborative school culture, and access to PD and intervention materials. We believe these factors may provide a starting point for understanding the types of supports that could benefit SETs and GETs as they meet the complex needs of SWDs in their classrooms. Teacher-centered variables such as teacher setting, context, and initial teacher preparation are also known predictors of attrition by teachers of SWD (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Our secondary data analysis provided insight into the experiences of a nationally representative sample across each of these factors.
Our results align with prior research in a few key areas. First, evidence suggests that teachers turn to one another as sources of information and development to meet students’ needs, particularly in the absence of PD (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). Access to staff expertise was one of the most highly rated areas for teachers in our sample. Teachers also identified using colleagues as a primary source of information for academic interventions. These results indicate that collaboration is a primary source of information and support for these teachers, particularly in comparison with PD, which teachers reported accessing less frequently. Interestingly, teachers turn to different sources for resources related to academic interventions versus nonacademic interventions (another teacher vs. school leaders/other support staff, respectively). It is possible that teachers turn to different sources for academic versus nonacademic concerns because of teachers’ lack of preparedness in nonacademic areas, which may contribute to the need for a school leader to provide additional support (Bettini, Cumming, et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). For example, school leaders may have access to behavior-related supports (e.g., behavior specialists) or additional contextualizing information about a student that colleagues may not have when considering students’ nonacademic needs. In contrast, other teachers may have a greater level of relative expertise in the academic realm compared with school leaders.
Knowing the sources of information teachers turn to for academic and behavioral needs may inform future development of training or support that is aligned to teachers’ preferences and needs. Tailoring training and support in this way would allow teachers to most effectively access those supports and meet the complex needs of the SWD in their classroom. For example, providing academic-related PD to teachers using professional learning communities may leverage teachers’ preferences to turn to colleagues for academic intervention resources and increase teacher knowledge of academic supports for SWD. In contrast, enhancing behavioral training for school leaders/support staff members may increase their capacity to support teachers who approach them as sources of information for behavioral needs.
Previous research has also indicated that teachers of students with EBD in self-contained settings may experience challenges related to accessing adequate materials and training to meet their students’ needs (Bettini, Cumming, et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Our results indicate that teachers in self-contained classrooms reported less collaboration than their co-teaching colleagues, but that teachers using a pull-out/push-in service delivery model indicated a significant, slightly lower sufficiency of access to materials and training. This nuance may relate to the lack of teacher preparation for the responsibilities required by inclusion-based roles of teachers of SWD, and the increased stress or job dissatisfaction this lack of preparation may cause (Shepherd et al., 2016).
Finally, our results did not indicate many differences in teachers’ responses by grade band. These results support prior findings that there is little evidence of differences in satisfaction by grade level (Ferguson et al., 2012). The comparability of the percentage of highly qualified teachers of SWD in elementary (84.3% certification only; 60.5% degree and certification; Mason-Williams et al., 2017) versus secondary (87.5%–93.7% certification only; 62.5%–71.9% degree and certification; Mason-Williams & Gagnon, 2017) grades may provide a rationale for limited differences in responses by grade levels in the sufficiency and frequency of access to supports. It is, however, important to note that such summary data related to certification and degree do not take into account the variability of certification requirements between states, nor the alignment between teachers’ certification and their current job expectations (Sindelar et al., 2019).
Limitations
Our results should be interpreted with limitations in mind. First, we deviated from our preregistered data analytic plan, as described in the “Method” section. These choices were made blind to the results of the study, so we are confident that they did not bias the results. Second, there was a high level of correlation between the reported frequency of PD and collaboration related to implementation and adaptation of teachers’ main instructional materials. Teachers may not have understood how general implementation of main instructional materials differed from adaptation of those materials; therefore, these items may capture similar constructs. Third, because the results were based on teacher-reported survey items, there is no way to ascertain the accuracy of teacher responses about the supports available to them and their behaviors in seeking support. Fourth, our estimates provide information about how teachers are supported nationally, but not in specific locations. It is likely that the associations we identified would vary by location and school type. Finally, our sample included all teachers who indicated that they taught or supported students with high-incidence disabilities. It is possible that responses of GETs who support SWDs may be substantively different from responses of SETs. Because we could not analyze by role (i.e., SET vs. GET), there could be differences across roles that we were not able to examine. Therefore, we can only generalize the results to teachers who work with students with high-incidence disabilities broadly.
Implications for Future Research and Practice
The relatively low levels of teacher-reported sufficiency of access to supports related to meeting the needs for students with high-incidence disabilities, in conjunction with the mixed results related to differential experiences in sufficiency and frequency of access to resources by service delivery model, highlight areas for continued research. To increase the number of highly qualified SETs and GETs prepared to meet the needs of SWD, researchers may need to take a multipronged approach. Teacher preparation programs must prepare future GETs and SETs for the realities of the jobs they will have across instructional contexts, particularly related to meeting the needs of SWD in their classrooms (Brownell et al., 2010; Shepherd et al., 2016). Researchers must also investigate the nuances of the teaching experience across instructional settings and contexts for teachers with various backgrounds to inform the understanding of malleable factors related to the teachers’ access to supports to meet the needs of SWD and the sufficiency of that access. Understanding these factors may build the understanding of broader constructs such as teacher quality related to teaching SWD. More comprehensively and consistently providing teachers sufficient access to supports for their work with SWD may improve teachers’ confidence and preparedness to teach SWD, and, in turn, their job satisfaction.
At the same time, researchers need to continue to improve PD delivery models that increase the likelihood of the sustained use of evidence-based practices for SWD, particularly given the academic achievement gaps and differential behavioral needs for SWD who are served in both special and general education contexts. Teachers report accessing collaboration with colleagues more often than PD; therefore, there is a rationale for future research in collaborative-based approaches to PD, using supports such as coaching or professional learning communities (see Brownell et al., 2020). In addition, targeting collaborative PD approaches may create a scalable system to increase the frequency with which colleagues may provide evidence-based resources and increase the rigor of the resources shared. As is, the results of this study do not address those factors; future research should examine the rigor and evidence base for the materials and resources teachers access via their colleagues and their impact on student outcomes.
An unanticipated finding of this study relates to differences in the most frequently used sources for information for academic versus nonacademic interventions. Although we had not considered this contrast initially, the results indicated that teachers turn to colleagues to find academic interventions and school leaders to find nonacademic interventions. This contrast is more marked across grade bands; relative to elementary teachers, middle and high school teachers reported going to school leaders less often for academic interventions, but more often for nonacademic interventions.
This finding has implications for practice. Namely, if the goal is to increase the sustained use of evidence-based academic interventions as a way to address achievement gaps for SWD, it is important for researchers and administrators to enhance the access to such resources across networks of colleagues, perhaps leveraging grade or subject team leaders. Conversely, if the goal is to increase the sustained use of evidence-based nonacademic interventions as a way to better meet the behavioral needs of some SWD, it is important to enhance school leaders’ and support staff’s access to those resources. Teachers’ sense that they are sufficiently supported may relate to their confidence in their preparedness to meet the needs of SWD. Funneling information and materials to the individuals teachers report going to for those resources may improve teacher preparedness and confidence in serving SWD overall and, consequently, teachers’ sense of being adequately supported. Prioritizing evidence-based practices in these resources may serve to further reinforce this confidence by improving teachers’ quality.
Conclusion
Given the prevalence of SWD in special and general education classrooms (Gilmour & Wehby, 2020), researchers, teacher preparation program faculty, and school district administrators need to prepare teachers to support the needs of SWD in three important ways. First, teacher preparation programs must equip teachers for the realities of jobs they are going to hold. Second, the PD in-service teachers receive must be of high quality, applicable to their roles, considerate of teacher preparation training, and considerate of information-sharing networks within schools. Third, collaborative school cultures must be established to allow teachers the time to serve as supports for one another and to share resources and knowledge. Taking these steps may increase teachers’ preparedness to address the needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms, regardless of role. In turn, increasing GETs’ and SETs’ preparedness to teach SWD may positively impact teacher quality and job satisfaction, and improve academic and behavioral outcomes for SWD.
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.
