The Nature and Extent of Special Education Law in Teacher Preparation

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and extent that undergraduate special education programs teach special education law. Extant data from the state department of education websites and a sample of university department webpages (n = 67) were analyzed to identify educational requirements. In addition, a sample of faculty representatives (n = 26) were surveyed to triangulate extant data and provide their perceptions on special education law topics in their undergraduate programs. Results suggest universities are superseding legislative requirements, yet there is substantial variability in the decision-making that universities take to teach special education law. Faculty reported high priority for special education law topics but noted a moderate ability for preservice teachers to connect the importance of special education law to their success as educators. The authors discuss their findings and present implications for the field regarding special education law and the preparation of teachers.

Keywords

special education law teacher preparation undergraduate programs

The evolution of providing students with disabilities (SWD) access to public education has been a long and tumultuous progression. Prior to the legislative protections that are in place today, parent and educator advocates struggled for the inclusion of children with disabilities in public schools. In 1972, Two seminal U.S. Circuit Court cases, PARC v. Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education, were decided which established legal precedent deeming the exclusion of SWD from public education unconstitutional. Soon after, other court cases arose in terms of providing access to education for SWD; 46 additional lawsuits were filed in 28 states on behalf of children with disabilities excluded from public education (Zettel & Ballard, 1979).

The flood of analogous court rulings across states following the PARC and Mills decisions, however, led to the disparate implementation of access and complaints from school leaders that insufficient funding created inadequate facilities, unavailable instructional materials, and poorly trained teachers (Markelz & Bateman, 2021). Despite increases in the education of SWD in the 1970s, genuine progress fell short as 1.75 million children were still excluded from educational opportunities and 3 million students were receiving inappropriate education (Yell et al., 2004). Special interest groups, education stakeholders, and parent and educator advocates continued to demand attention be given to this civil rights issue often referencing equal protections afforded all citizen under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Finally, in 1975, Congress passed the most consequential piece of legislation for SWD called the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.

Special Education Law Today

The progression of special education and access to public education for SWD did not end in 1975. The Education of All Handicapped Children Act has been reauthorized by Congress several times and is today named the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Not only were legislative victories realized in the 1970s, but the Department of Education was formalized in 1979 when a Secretary of Education cabinet-level position was created within the Executive Branch of government, leading to the creation of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). Today, OSERS aims to support programs that serve individuals with disabilities at home, in school, and in the community including issuing guidance and regulatory laws around educating SWD. In addition, thousands of court cases have been decided at local, state, and federal levels establishing expansive case laws. Many of these cases involve debate around the provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for students identified as being eligible to receive special education services through one of the disability categories established in IDEA (2004).

Last reauthorized almost 20 years ago, IDEA continues to guarantee access to education for SWD as well as procedural safeguards for families, but most recently, IDEA as a piece of legislation has not stood up well to the drastic changes in P–12 education. The COVID-19 pandemic and mandatory virtual instruction completely upended traditional delivery of special education services which resulted in a reliance on the swift creation of regulatory guidance from federal and state departments of education. Moreover, court decisions continue to interpret statutory and regulatory laws such as the most recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Endrew F. Douglas County School District (2017). In that case, a majority of justices further clarified the substantive requirement of FAPE to mean an “IEP [Individual Education Program] reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017, p. 1002). Although the Endrew F. ruling may be interpreted as a nuanced change to ensuring FAPE, the implications of any Supreme Court decision are significant and impact all special educators developing and delivering Individualized Education Programs (IEPs; Yell & Bateman, 2017) as well as teacher educators preparing special educators for the challenges of the field (Yell & Bateman, 2019).

Teachers’ Knowledge of Special Education Law

Special education services are rooted in an accumulation and interconnection of statutory, regulatory, and case law. Together, special educators are expected to follow certain procedural and substantive requirements that encompass the essence of enacting special education services (Yell et al., 2020). Procedural requirements involve the process of developing and implementing a student’s special education program, for example, adhering to mandated timelines, including all members of the IEP team in decision-making, and determine a student’s LRE placement only after the IEP has been developed. Substantive requirements encompass the importance of the content of a student’s evaluation and IEP, for example, a student’s annual goals and objectives must be challenging, ambitious, and measurable. In addition, the provision of special education and related services must be specific to individual student needs to enable appropriate progress, given unique circumstances. Based on the many legal and ethical obligations to provide SWD FAPE, special educators should have the knowledge and skills to develop and deliver legally compliant special education services. Failure to do so may result in financial and human resource costs to school districts (Mason-Williams et al., 2020) as well as insufficient educational opportunities for students.

Knowledge of special education law is the first step toward legal compliance. Of the few peer-reviewed studies that have examined teachers’ knowledge of special education law (Horner et al., 2019; O’Conner et al., 2016; Sanders, 2015), general education teachers have been the primary participant of inquiry, given increasing trends of SWD in general education classrooms (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2020). Only two studies included special education teachers in analyses (Horner et al., 2019; Sanders, 2015). Results from Horner and colleagues’ (2019) study showed that both general education and special education preservice teachers scored low on knowledge questions pertaining to IDEA and Section 504. Special education majors scored slightly higher than general education majors in both knowledge and confidence. In addition, general education and special education students who completed a course including special education law content had higher knowledge scores as well as confidence levels compared with those who had not (Horner et al., 2019). Similar results from Sanders (2015) study revealed low composite scores on knowledge of the six principles of IDEA for in-service teachers. Special education teachers scored significantly higher than general education teachers in knowledge, perceived knowledge, and attitudes toward inclusion; nonetheless, we noted the relatively low scores were concerning (Sanders, 2015). Although previous research on special education teachers’ legal knowledge is limited, a troubling deficit may hinder legal adherence to the many procedural and substantive requirements of IDEA. Statutory, regulatory, and case laws have shaped the field of special education as educators know it today (Markelz & Bateman, 2021). Therefore, knowledge and application of those laws are imperative to legal compliance when developing and implementing IEPs.

Special Education Teacher Preparation Priorities

Section 205 under Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) requires states and institutions of higher education to report on teacher preparation accountability measures that promote transparency around the quality of teacher preparation programs in the United States. As a result, state departments of education, institutes of higher education, and accrediting body stakeholders partner to provide guidance regarding teacher preparation program development and implementation. For example, 34 states, and the District of Columbia, have partnership agreements with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2020), the national accrediting body committed to continual improvement of teacher preparation. This accrediting body organizes recommendations for teacher preparation programmatic decisions around five standards for preparing “competent and caring educators” (CAEP, 2020).

Seventy-five teacher educators across two studies reported the accreditation process directed their programmatic decision-making, improved their teacher preparation programs, strengthened the collaboration between state and university, but acknowledged the potential for accreditation to limit or reduce innovation, flexibility, and autonomy as prescriptive standards are prioritized (Germaine & Spencer, 2016; Graves, 2021). Prescriptive guidelines can include caps on credit hours, earmarks for required content area courses, mandatory trainings, and requirements for assessment practices. Teacher educators may prefer to make programmatic decisions based on faculty expertise, regional characteristics, program specialization, or other variables outside the scope of standardized expectations when given the academic freedom to do so (e.g., Jacobs, 2005), but faculty preferences do not always align with accreditation requirements. Therefore, it is possible teacher educators are unable to include content they see as critical to profession-readiness despite their programs being designed to promote excellence in teacher preparation according to state and national regulations.

Purpose of the Study

For decades, scholars have recognized the need to enhance the legal literacy of preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and administrators to prevent future lawsuits (Bull & McCarthy, 1995; Decker, 2014; Decker & Brady, 2016; Umpstead et al., 2015; Zirkel & Vance, 2004). To date, no study was identified that investigated how undergraduate teacher preparation programs are teaching special education law. Given limitations in time-constrained preparation programs and the need to meet accreditation requirements, the purpose of this study was to examine the nature and extent that special education law is taught in a sample of undergraduate teacher preparation programs. A preliminary examination of how special education law is taught in undergraduate programs contributes to the field by illuminating whether more effective teacher preparation practices are warranted to increase the legal knowledge and skills of special educators. In addition, we attempt to gain a holistic view of special education law preparation by examining preparation programs from multiple perspectives including information shared on university websites and faculty’s perceptions to understand the importance of special education law topics in special education teacher preparation. The following research questions guided our analyses.

Research Question

Research Question 1: To what extent to do states require knowledge in special education law for teaching licensure?

Research Question 2: To what extent and nature are special education undergraduate programs teaching special education law?

Research Question 3: What perceptions do teacher educators have about the level of importance for their preservice teachers’ knowledge and application of special education law and the connection their students have between special education law and being a successful educator?

Method

State Search and Coding

To answer the first research question, we used State Department of Education websites to identify special education licensure requirements for all 50 states within the United States. Two doctoral research assistants (RAs) coded categories for each state independently. First, state degree requirements for special education licensure were coded as requiring (a) bachelor’s degree only; (b) master’s degree; or (c) other (explanation provided). Second, RAs identified whether each state required one or more course credits specifically addressing the topic of special education law. If a special education law course was required by the state for licensure, the RAs listed the course requirements as indicated by the state. Finally, RAs identified whether special education credit hours/courses were required for general education teacher licensure within each state.

State coding reliability

Only traditional state teacher preparation requirements were examined (e.g., 4-year university programs). Alternate routes to certification were beyond the scope of this study and not considered in the analysis. The RAs coded each category for every state independently, compared results, calculated interrater reliability, and resolved discrepancies. When comparing state requirements of initial special education licensure, two disagreements out of 50 states resulted in 96% reliability. Coding state requirements for special education law courses similarly resulted in 96% reliability. Discrepancies in data were addressed by consulting the State’s Department of Education website and coming to a consensus.

University Sampling and Survey

To answer the second and third research questions, we collected both survey and extant data to then analyze using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The intention of including multiple perspectives was to provide a comprehensive understanding of special education law within undergraduate teacher preparation. Using multiple data sources allowed for verification of findings and increased confidence in results through triangulation (Salkind, 2010).

Universities included in this study were identified through two methods. First, 26 universities were chosen based on their inclusion in the U.S. News and World Report (2020) list of “Best Special Education Programs.” During coding procedures, it was identified that six universities did not have undergraduate programs that produced special education licensure; therefore, those six universities were excluded.

Second, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) was used to identify one university from each state (including the District of Columbia) with the greatest reported number of special education licensure program completers (referred to here as largest special education preparation programs). The IPEDS data from all teacher preparation programs, within all reporting universities, from all states within the 2019 reporting window, were the sample frame. The data were then cleaned to identify the largest special education preparation programs. First, preparation programs unrelated to special education licensure (e.g., music, art, reading, and social studies) were excluded. Next, early childhood and early childhood special education preparation programs were removed as the focus was K–12. Finally, alternate routes programs that were not based at an institute of higher education or institutes of higher education that only offered alternate routes programs were excluded. Once these steps were taken, 1,614 unique entries remained. Universities within each state were compared for identifying the university with the greatest reported frequency of program completers during the 2019 reporting period. In cases where universities reported program completers from multiple special education teacher preparation programs, these counts were summed so that each university had one total count that was used for comparison. Forty-eight universities were identified. Rhode Island, Vermont, and Idaho did not report any program completers from special education teacher preparation programs. In Kansas, New Jersey, Delaware, California, and Illinois, the universities with the largest special education preparation programs were at the graduate level. Our interest was to understand undergraduate special education preparation program practices, and therefore, we looked to the second largest program in these states. Kansas did not have a second university listed in the dataset. As a result, our total sample pool for the largest undergraduate special education teacher preparation programs across the United States was 47.

University extant data coding

Four RAs worked in teams of two and used Innovation Configuration tools (Hall & Hord, 1987; Roy & Hord, 2004) to code degree requirements of participating universities. The first team of RAs coded the 20 universities designated as the top undergraduate special education programs in the United States (U.S. News and World Report, 2020). Members of the first team then partnered with a different RA to code the remaining 47 universities as identified through the IPEDS dataset. A member from the original team was on each new team to ensure consistency with procedures and coding. Each new research team divided the 47 universities into half (n = 24 and n = 23) and coded. Coding included (a) the degree level of licensure within the program (i.e., undergraduate or graduate) and (b) the presence of an undergraduate special education course dedicated to special education law. All information gathered from participating universities was publicly available on the university’s program-specific website (i.e., “special education program”), virtual bookstore, or course catalog.

Using widely available search engines, each RA worked independently to explore included university websites. Although university websites differed in layout, all had a school of education or a page dedicated to their special education program. The RAs then examined the requirements for licensure within the special education program. RAs used a coding protocol to document whether each university had (a) an undergraduate special education licensure program, (b) a graduate special education licensure program, or (c) licensure at both levels.

Next, RAs used course catalogs to search for required undergraduate courses with the word law (or a synonymous term, for example, legal aspects . . .) in the title to determine whether the program of study required a course dedicated to special education law. If a required course title contained the term law, or a synonymous term, the course description was reviewed to ensure the course was substantially dedicated to topics of special education law. If a course syllabus was publicly available, the textbook of the course was recorded.

To confirm special education courses dedicated to special education law were not missed simply because the term law, or a synonymous term, was excluded from the course title, RAs used university course catalogs to examine course descriptions of each required special education course. Course descriptions that contained the term law or anything synonymous with law were recorded as a course covering topics of special education law but not solely dedicated to special education law. If the course syllabus was publicly available, the textbook of the course was recorded.

University extant data reliability

Each RA team met to determine interrater reliability. By comparing instances of disagreement with the total number of possible agreements (n = 77; prior to any exclusion for graduate level only universities), interrater reliability was determined. Coding for the degree level within each program (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, or both) resulted in 84% reliability. Required courses with the term law in the title resulted in coding reliability of 100%. Law of a synonymous term mentioned in a required course description resulted in 89% coding reliability. After reliability was determined, RAs reconciled disagreements by working together to examine university websites and course catalogs to obtain an accurate recording of licensure and course requirements.

University survey

Survey development

A survey was developed to measure participant’s perceptions on special education law and the nature and extent their programs are teaching special education law. The survey also served to contextualize and provide greater insight into extant data analysis. The first and second authors of the research team developed the initial university survey using Qualtrics survey software. The survey was then sent for content review to three experts in special education law. The criterion for expertise was that the person had published at least 10 peer-reviewed papers on special education policy or law. Each content expert provided feedback that was reviewed by the first and second authors and incorporated into the survey.

Next, a cognitive interview process was used to analyze how participants understand the survey questions (Tourangeau et al., 2000). The cognitive interview process allows researchers to examine whether participants’ interpretations of self-reported items are consistent with intended meanings, which is fundamental for judging whether survey results provide valid interpretations (Ryan et al., 2012). Three proxy participants were identified to take the survey, at individual times, while the first author listened via video conferencing software. To qualify as a proxy participant, the faculty member had to meet the inclusion criteria of the sample population, meaning they were the most appropriate faculty member to provide information on their university’s special education undergraduate coursework. Proxy participants were not from any of the included universities in this study.

Proxy participants were encouraged to “think-aloud” as they responded to each survey item (Tourangeau et al., 2000). Thinking aloud provided the first author insight into any survey questions that caused confusion for the proxy participant or feedback on the survey structure and flow. Similar feedback from the three proxy participants was discussed by the first and second authors and the survey was refined as needed.

Survey participants

The electronic survey was sent to one faculty member from each included university (i.e., the university had an undergraduate program resulting in special education licensure; n = 67). The faculty member was identified by first searching university websites to identify the special education department chair and/or faculty member in-charge of the university’s special education undergraduate program(s). Given that most universities have differing role titles and multiple licensure programs within their undergraduate program (e.g., mild/moderate disabilities, severe disabilities, and autism), the majority of searches resulted in recording the department chair’s name and contact information in addition to one other faculty’s name and contact information. Next, the two identified contact persons were emailed and asked whether either of them was the most appropriate person to survey on their university’s undergraduate special education program, in particular, pertaining to required coursework and special education law topics. Those contact persons responded by indicating that one of them was the most appropriate person to send the survey to, or they provided a name and email address of an additional faculty member within their special education department. Some primary contacts required follow-up emails to confirm the correct contact person for survey participation. Ninety-three percent of included universities verified the most appropriate faculty member and contact information to send the electronic survey. For universities without a verified contact person (n = 5), the survey was electronically sent to the special education department chair.

Prior to having access to the survey, participants were informed that the survey was anonymous and that completion of the survey indicated voluntary consent. In addition, participants were informed that upon completion of the survey, they would be sent a US $25 gift card. A link at the end of the survey took participants to a separate confidential form where they could enter their name and email address to receive the gift card. To maintain survey anonymity, their name and contact information was not connected to their survey responses.

Survey dissemination

The survey was sent electronically to identified participants at the beginning of February 2021. After the first attempt to collect data, 16 responses were recorded. A reminder prompt to complete the survey was sent out 1 week after the initial email. Following the reminder prompt, an additional six responses were collected. A third and final prompt was emailed 1 week later, which resulted in eight more responses. In total, 31 participants (45%) initiated the survey. One participant did not agree to the terms and conditions, and four participants did not complete enough portions of the survey to be included in the results; therefore, those responses were removed from the analysis (n = 5). The remaining completed responses (n = 26 or 38% of targeted participants) were included in the results of this study. This response rate is higher than response rates of recent national, online surveys of teacher educators, which ranged from 30% to 31.7% (e.g., Flockton & Cunningham, 2021; Kyzar et al., 2019; McCulloch et al., 2019).

Survey description

The stated purpose of the 38-item survey was to measure teacher educators’ perceptions of special education law and learn the extent to which undergraduate special education programs include content related to special education law. The complete survey can be obtained from the corresponding author. Demographic questions are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Survey Respondent and University Characteristics (n = 26).

Respondent characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
Role within department
Faculty	10	38
Faculty and program coordinator	6	23
Department chair or assistant chair	10	38
Years in current position
Less than 1 year	2	8
2–6 years	6	23
7–15 years	15	58
16+ years	3	12
Years in higher education overall
Less than 1 year	0	0
2–6 years	7	27
7–15 years	9	35
16+ years	10	38
Number of tenured/tenure track faculty in department
1–5 faculty	7	27
6–10 faculty	7	27
11–15 faculty	7	27
16+ faculty	5	19
Number of contracts and adjunct faculty in the department
1–5 faculty	13	50
6–10 faculty	3	12
11–15 faculty	2	8
16+ faculty	8	31
Total student population of university
<5,000 students	4	15
5,000–9,999 students	0	0
10,000–30,000 students	11	42
>30,000 students	11	42
Geographic region of the university
West	6	23
Southwest	2	8
Midwest	10	38
Southeast	4	15
Northeast	4	15

Following the purpose statement, participants were asked to provide three topics, concepts, or issues that come to mind pertaining to special education teacher preparation when they hear the phrase special education law. This open-ended response was designed to gather information on participants preconceived notions of special education law prior to the research team providing an operational definition.

The next section of the survey included Likert scales to measure participant’s perception of importance of various special education law topics. For each special education law topic, participants were asked to rank the degree of importance for knowledge of a provided topic, application of the topic, and the degree to which their undergraduate students connect the importance of the special education law topic with being successful educators. Participants were then required to rank the special education law topics in level of importance for preservice teachers to master prior to graduation. Because the Likert-scale section allowed participants to potentially report each topic as very important, a force ranking required participants to provide a range of importance across topics.

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2020) states that a professional ethical principle is “Practicing within the professional ethics, standards, and policies of CEC; upholding laws, regulations, and policies that influence professional practice; and advocating improvements in the laws, regulations, and policies.” After stating this principle and CEC standard 1.1, participants were asked to indicate how well prepared their graduating preservice teachers are to meet CEC standard 1.1. An open-ended response allowed participants to articulate how CEC standard 1.1 is addressed in their undergraduate program.

To corroborate extant data analysis, participants were asked whether their university has a course specifically and solely dedicated to special education law. In addition, participants were asked whether their undergraduate program interweaves special education law concepts into various courses. If so, participants were asked to report how and to what degree decisions are made to integrate special education law topics within their program.

Survey data analysis

Data were analyzed with a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods depending on item measures. Each survey item required a response; therefore, missing data were not present. Unfinished survey responses (n = 4) were not included in analysis.

Quantitative analysis

A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether, on average, there were differences between responses to the three subgroups of Likert-scale questions about teacher educators’ perceptions: (a) the importance of special education law content knowledge, (b) the application of special education law for special education teachers, and (c) undergraduate students’ ability to connect the importance of special education law to being successful educators. Knowledge and connect subgroups each had 12 items where the total possible score was 48 for each subgroup, and the application subgroup included 11 items and the total possible score was 44. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to determine the internal consistency of these three subsets of survey items using the present sample set, resulting in .811 for knowledge, .878 for application, and .463 for connecting. The number of subset items were limited to prevent respondent fatigue. This decision may have sacrificed internal consistency, yet expert feedback during the survey development phase strengthens confidence in construct validity. Future iterations of such work would benefit from expanding beyond the 11 or 12 items per subset.

To make an accurate comparison between subsets with an unequal number of items, all scores were transformed to percentages out of 100. To provide context to the ANOVA descriptive statistics and within-subjects test, the summed responses were categorized by quartiles to coincide with the 4-point Likert-type scale, where 0–25 was considered “not at all,” 26–50 was considered “slightly,” 51–75 was “moderate,” and 76–100 was “very.” Mauchly’s test of Sphericity indicated sphericity was not assumed, and therefore, Greenhouse-Geisser Test of Within-Subjects Effects was selected. This slightly lowered the degrees of freedom in the formula from 2 to 1.38. The summed responses were categorized by quartiles to coincide with the 4-point Likert-type scale, where 0–12 was considered “not at all,” 13–24 was considered “slightly,” 25–36 was “moderate,” and 37–48 was “very.”

The ranking of special education law topics was analyzed by grouping participants’ responses into three categories. Topics ranked as first, second, or third were categorized as high priority. Topics ranked as fourth, fifth, or sixth were categorized as medium priority. Topics ranked as seventh through tenth were categorized as low priority.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative procedures are discussed in terms of trustworthiness pertaining to the confirmability, credibility, dependability, and transferability of findings (Shenton, 2004). Two items within the survey required qualitative analysis. A keywords-in-context method was used to code participant responses and identify themes through both a multileveled coding process and inductive reflexive analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Open-ended response data were coded using multiple iterations of reading and analyzing responses, assigning codes, refining codes, recoding, and clustering codes into thematic categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The first and second authors independently reviewed open-ended responses and assigned codes to participant responses. Then, they met to discuss findings, identify discrepancies, and collapse codes into larger themes based on synonymous terms. Taken together, these steps uphold qualitative research standards in special education (Brantlinger et al., 2005) and support the accuracy and trustworthiness of the findings.

Results

State Requirements

To answer our first research question, extant data analysis of State Department of Education websites (including Washington, DC; n = 51) revealed that minimum requirements for special education licensure is a bachelor’s degree. The type of licensure varied per state; for example, New Jersey only allows dual general education/special education licensure at the bachelor level, while sole special education licensure requires a graduate level degree. To obtain initial special education licensure, Utah is the only state to require a special education law course called Special Education Laws, Policies, and Procedures (3 credits). All other states, including Washington, DC, do not require a course dedicated to special education law for bachelor-level licensure.

Six State Department of Education websites mentioned knowledge of special education law as a requirement for licensure but do not require specific credit hours (Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas, and Virginia). For example, the New Hampshire Department of Education (2020) stated that special education candidates must have

The ability to understand the federal law, state law, local policies and the New Hampshire Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities in Ed 1100 [New Hampshire special education legislation], including the following steps in the special education process; (a) identification of children with disabilities. . . (b) referral procedures. . . (c) evaluation procedures. . . (d) determination of eligibility. . . (e) development of the Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) or Individualized Education Program (IEP). . . (f) determination of educational placement. . . and (g) implementation and monitoring of the IFSP or IEP.

For general education teacher licensure, seven states require at least one course dedicated to topics of special education (Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, and New York). Course requirements for general education teachers in these states do not mention special education law, rather, more broad topics of special education. For example, the Maine Department of Education (2020) required general elementary educators to complete a course titled Teaching Exceptional Students in the Regular Classroom (3 credits). The Illinois State Board of Education (2020) required one course (3 credits) addressing “methods of teaching exceptional children.”

Five State Departments of Education mention knowledge of diverse learners and/or dyslexia but do not specify requirements (Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). For example, the Virginia Department of Education (2020) stated,

Effective July 1, 2017, every person seeking initial licensure or renewal of a license shall complete awareness training, provided by VDOE [Virginia Department of Education], on the indicators of dyslexia, as that term is defined by the board pursuant to regulations, and the evidence-based interventions and accommodations for dyslexia.

University Coursework

To answer our second and third research questions, a combination of extant data and survey results are reported. Extant data from 67 universities were gathered from university websites and course catalogs. Approximately 18% of included universities required an undergraduate course dedicated to special education (n = 12). For example, one university had an undergraduate course titled Legal Foundations of Special Education and included a description that students will study federal statutes, case law, state regulations, and related historical events regarding the protections for individuals with disabilities in access to educational opportunity.

Of the remaining universities that did not have a course solely dedicated to topics of special education law (n = 55), 21 universities required an undergraduate course that mentioned law or a synonymous term in the course description. The majority of these courses were introductory special education courses that covered many aspects of special education, including legislation, disability categories, instructional practices, and other general topics concerning the education of SWD. Thirty-four included universities (approximately 51%) did not have a course dedicated to special education law nor mention special education law (or a synonymous term) in required coursework for a bachelor level licensure.

Survey Results

A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to explore whether there was a significant difference between teacher educators’ perceptions around (a) the importance of special education law content knowledge, (b) the importance of the application of special education law, and (c) undergraduate students’ ability to connect the importance of special education law to be successful educators. Descriptive statistics indicated that on average teacher educators reported knowledge was 44.96 (SD = 3.07), perceptions of application were 41.92 (SD = 1.60), and perceptions of connecting were 35.92 (SD = 6.02). This translates to teacher educators reporting both knowledge and application of special education law as “very important” while undergraduates’ ability to connect the importance of special education law to being successful educators as “moderate.”

A comparison of means across subsets indicated a significant difference among the three variables, F (2, 25) = 48.25, p < .000. Furthermore, pairwise comparison of means using Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated significant differences (p < .000) between connect and knowledge and application variables. Teacher educators reported undergraduate students’ ability to connect was significantly lower than the reported levels of importance of special education law knowledge and application.

Qualitative coding results from ranking the priority of special education law topics that preservice teachers must master prior to graduation are presented in Figure 1. The three highest priority topics were IEP, LRE, and FAPE. These results corresponded with survey participants’ identification of topics when first starting the survey where they identified three topics that come to mind when hearing the phrase special education law. Qualitative analysis identified that survey participants consistently mentioned IDEA legislation and the individual pillars of IDEA (e.g., IEPs) as topics related to special education law and teacher preparation.

Figure 1.

Prioritization of special education law topics.

Participants reported that their graduates were between moderately prepared and very prepared to meet CEC standard 1.1 (M = 3.23; on a scale of 1–4). Forty-two percent (n = 11) of survey participants reported having an undergraduate course solely dedicated to special education law. Nonetheless, after cross-referencing university extant data, three courses were not solely dedicated to special education law (e.g., introductory special education courses which cover disability categories, educational practices, assessments, etc.). Therefore, 31% (n = 8) of participants’ universities had a course solely dedicated to special education law.

Regardless of whether a program had a course dedicated to special education law, qualitative results suggest nearly all faculty reported through open-ended responses that CEC standard 1.1 was addressed through multiple courses and field-based practicums. A majority of participants (80%; n = 21) reported that the decisions of how topics of law are interwoven is split between programmatic planning (e.g., curriculum committee) and individual instructor decisions. Who had a greater role in that decision was evenly split across participant responses. Thirty-eight percent (n = 8) reported that programmatic planning accounts for the majority of decision-making (approximately 70%) involving special education law topics within courses versus individual instructor decision-making (approximately 30%). Thirty-three percent (n = 7) reported that their department splits decision-making evenly between programmatic planning (50%) and individual instructors (50%). Twenty-nine percent (n = 6) reported that individual instructors make the majority of decision (approximately 70%) versus programmatic planning (30%).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and extent that special education law is taught in undergraduate teacher preparation programs. To do so, we asked three research questions: (a) To what extent to do states require knowledge in special education law for teaching licensure? (b) To what extent and nature are special education undergraduate programs teaching special education law? and (c) What perceptions do teacher educators have about the level of importance for their preservice teachers’ knowledge and application of special education law and the connection their students have between special education law and being a successful educator? Each research question is discussed in greater detail below.

Special Education Law State Licensure Requirements

The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for all subsequent federal and state laws; still, the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution claims that powers not specifically identified in the U.S. Constitution are reserved for individual states. As “education” is absent from the U.S. Constitution, disparate state educational policies are predictable (Sindelar et al., 2019). Over the years, the federal government has significantly affected educational policies through funding initiatives, such as IDEA (2004), the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), or civil rights legislation such as Section 504 (Nagro et al., 2020). In addition, seminal case laws have forced states into required practices such as the inclusion of SWD (e.g., Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 1972) or clarified how school personnel can provide an appropriate education under the FAPE provision of IDEA (e.g., Endrew F. v. Douglas County Schools District, 2017). Even with federal legislative, executive, and judicial involvement in education, individual states have considerable authority over educational policy.

State Department of Education requirements are basic minimums and do not prevent universities from implementing coursework above and beyond legislated requirements. As identified through university extant data, nearly half of included universities had a course dedicated to special education law or mentioned special education law in course descriptions. Furthermore, findings suggest topics of special education law are interwoven through multiple courses within preparation programs. Based solely on State Department of Education data, it appears the extent that states require knowledge in special education law for preparation of special educators is low. In addition, the limited number of states (n = 7) that require general educators to complete an introductory course about SWD is also low, especially considering long-term increasing trends of including SWD in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).

Minimal state requirements for special education law and general education exposure to special education are concerning, given the combination with the principal’s lack of coursework and field experiences related to special education (Burdette, 2010; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). Lynch (2012) reported that only eight states adopted required coursework about special education for preservice principal preparation. Furthermore, about half of principals indicated they had not taken a course in special education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009). In response to these concerning statistics, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (2021) has recently adopted a position statement emphasizing the need for policy makers and district/school leaders to increase principals’ knowledge and skills around special education law and inclusive practices. A combination of principals’ and teachers’ low knowledge of special education law (e.g., Horner et al., 2019; O’Conner et al., 2016; Sanders, 2015) is concerning. State lawmakers should consider whether legislative or regulatory means are appropriate in elevating bare-minimum requirements to address persistent deficits.

Nature and Extent of Special Education Law Topics During Preparation

Although state and university extant data results suggest that 51% of included universities’ undergraduate programs do not identify topics in special education law, survey responses suggest all universities (who completed the survey) are covering special education law topics in some form. Yet, there is a difference between teaching topics involving special education law (i.e., knowledge and application) and systematically teaching contextual factors contributing to special education law (i.e., connection of importance). In other words, teaching what (knowledge) and how (application) are critical features in special education, yet so is the inclusion of why (connection; Ambrose et al., 2010; Livingston & Borko, 1989).

A prioritization of mastery on specific pillars of special education (see Figure 1) suggests an emphasis on the practical knowledge and application of IDEA provisions. In fact, special education law is often presented in textbooks by focusing on the six pillars (e.g., Brady et al., 2019; Rothstein & Johnson, 2014; Yell, 2019). Survey participants identified the IEP as the highest priority regarding special education law, which is an expected outcome given the legal and practical importance of a student’s IEP (see Yell, 2020). According to Bateman (2017), the IEP is so crucial to a student’s educational services that it is often the center of most IDEA disputes.

The IEP, however, is not a standalone pillar that is disassociated from all other pillars of IDEA. There is an interconnectedness between the pillars. For example, a nondiscriminatory evaluation is critical in identifying a student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. Based on those baseline data, a student’s annual goals and objectives can be developed with plans for progress monitoring. Centered around the student’s goals and objectives, her LRE can be determined and related supports and services considered. These procedural and substantive steps must include parent/family participation who are afforded procedural safeguards. The result is that the IEP team is able to implement an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of her circumstances.

The variance in the program versus instructor decision-making about how topics of special education law are interwoven throughout undergraduate programs may suggest that a systematic articulation of special education law is not occurring. Faculty’s perceptions of special education law provide insight into the discussion of whether what, how, and why is being taught.

Teacher Educator Perceptions

In 2009, CEC added a standalone domain of collaboration as a standard for special education teacher preparation (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014). The latest revisions of the CEC standards now include standard 7.2 which states, “Candidates collaborate, communicate, and coordinate with families, paraprofessionals, and other professionals within the educational setting to assess, plan, and implement effective programs and services that promote progress toward measurable outcomes for individuals with and without exceptionalities and their families” (CEC, 2020).

To meet this standard, universities may have a course dedicated to collaborative practices as well as implement opportunities for preservice teachers to practice collaborative skills in classrooms with supervision. Learning and practicing collaborative approaches may demonstrate evidence of meeting standard 7.2, yet it may not address the many procedural and substantive legal requirements within IDEA (and state statutes) concerning parent/family collaboration, such as IEP membership, parental consent, LRE placement, IEP development, procedural safeguards, and overall implementation of FAPE, to name a few. Furthermore, a course on collaborative practice may not cover important case law that has shaped legal requirements concerning parent/family participation such as Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2013), where the substantive requirement of including parental input in IEP development superseded the procedural requirement of meeting an annual review deadline.

The significant difference between faculty reporting the importance of knowledge and application of special education law topics (e.g., parent/family participation), and the connection preservice teachers have of the importance of those legal topics to being successful educators, suggests a reported lack in preservice teachers understanding the why. Why is understanding nondiscriminatory evaluations important to being a successful special educator? Why is understanding the outcome of the Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) Supreme Court case important to being a successful special educator? IDEA has not been reauthorized in nearly 20 years; nonetheless, teaching special education law as if it were solely historic and stagnate is a disservice to the legal literacy of preservice teachers. Regulatory and case laws continually affect the daily operations of special educators, and the COVID-19 pandemic was a seismic event highlighting this reality. Special educators were tasked with adhering to procedural and substantive requirements of IDEA, yet mandated virtual learning upended traditional instruction and delivery of services. Nearly immediate federal and state regulatory guidance was issued to address IEP and FAPE adherence concerns (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2020), while subsequent case law has already started to emerge (Zirkel, 2021). Knowing and applying special education law are certainly essential aspects to legal literacy, yet our results suggest faculty report preservice teachers are lacking an ability to connect the importance of why legal literacy impacts their professional readiness. This disconnect may negatively impact continued self-education on the shifting legal issues of the future.

Although the scope of this study did not explore the granular level of what and how special education law topics were taught in specific courses, the overall approach to addressing special education law within undergraduate programs is varied across universities. More than 60% of universities reported that individual instructors make half, or a majority, of decisions about how special education law is interwoven in their courses. Therefore, among these universities, it is less likely that a systematic approach to interweaving law topics between multiple courses is occurring; for example, highlighting the interconnectedness between statutory, regulatory, and case law among the pillars of IDEA.

Limitations

There are at least three limitations to this study that should be discussed. First, we only surveyed one faculty member from each university which may have provided a limited account of the university’s nature and extent of teaching special education law. We chose to survey one faculty member with the best overall knowledge of the undergraduate program to obtain a holistic view of programmatic decision-making. A more granular analysis of how special education law is taught in individual courses was beyond the scope of this study. Results, however, should be generalized with caution, given the small sample of universities surveyed. Future research should build on the results of this study with a specific focus on the content and fidelity of teaching special education law with individual courses. We encourage researchers to review a study by Kyzar and colleagues (2019) for methods in surveying faculty on course content.

Second, the pandemic completely disrupted educational service for all educators. News reports (Watson, 2020) and U.S. Department of Education (2021) guidance documents highlighted difficulties around the continuation of special education services. Virtual learning platforms increased challenges for delivering FAPE for K–12 students as well as post-secondary students receiving accommodations under Section 504. We recognize that the seismic shift in service and educational delivery may have impacted survey responses due to heightened attention to matters associated with special education law.

Finally, the discrepancy between our extant data analysis of universities with special education law courses (18%) and survey participants’ reported courses (31%) might indicate a survey completion bias (i.e., nonresponse bias). In other words, survey participants who have a special education law course at their university may have been more inclined to complete a survey on the topic of special education law. Based on potential survey completion bias, survey responses may present a best-case scenario of current practice; therefore, readers should interpret and generalize teacher perception data with caution.

Implications

Given the novelty in exploring the nature and extent of special education law in teacher preparation, there are some important implications of our findings and directions for future research. The low number of states that require, or mention, special education law in teacher preparation legislations and regulations indicate a low prioritization of special education law on the part of lawmakers. The low number of universities that require a course dedicated to special education law suggests a low prioritization of the law when it comes to programmatic planning. Undoubtedly, programs comprise important courses and practicums to prepare preservice teachers and meet accreditation requirements; therefore, decisions must be made as to what topics demand a 3-credit course. Results from this study suggest a majority of included universities approach the instruction of special education law by interweaving topics among many courses. Future researchers should explore the nature and extent that law topics are taught within courses and the fidelity that those topics are taught (see Kyzar et al., 2019 as a methodological guide). A nuanced examination of the course content will allow the field to further understand the discrepancies between faculties’ perceptions that knowledge and application of the law are important and preservice teachers’ inabilities to connect the importance of the law and successful teaching practices.

Conclusion

There is a long-standing U.S. legal tradition that says “ignorantia juris non excusat” which means “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Special educators, therefore, cannot escape legal liability by claiming to be unaware or unknowledgeable of the law’s content. Teacher preparation programs should ensure graduating teachers know the law, can apply the law, and continue to educate themselves, as statutory laws are reauthorized, regulatory laws are issued, and new case laws are decided. Through an analysis of multiple data sources, the results of this study suggest states and universities lack a systematic approach to ensuring preservice teachers exit preparation programs profession ready to meet their many procedural and substantive legal requirements under IDEA. Nearly 50 years ago, teachers and parents advocated shoulder to shoulder to open public-school access for children with disabilities. A proactive approach to educating preservice teachers on topics of special education law can result in positive interactions rather than legal ones between those who have advocated for decades together to ensure the educational rights of 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.

ORCID iDs

Andrew M. Markelz

Sarah A. Nagro

Author Biographies

Andrew M. Markelz is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education and coordinator of the special education director license program at Ball State University. Dr. Markelz is editor of the Journal of Special Education Preparation and co-author of The Essentials of Special Education Law. The focus of his research is on expediting the novice-to-expert teaching curve in proactive classroom management strategies and issues related to special education law.

Sarah A. Nagro, EdD, is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at George Mason University. Dr. Nagro’s research focuses on preparing profession-ready teachers through meaningful field-based experiences. Additionally, Dr. Nagro researches how to prepare educators to influence and be responsive to policymaking at the local, state, and national levels.

Katherine Szocik is a Special Education doctoral student at George Mason University. Katherine has been teaching in early childhood settings since 2014 and received a Master’s degree in Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education from The Catholic University of America in 2016. Katherine’s research interests include special educator professional identity development and early childhood professional preparation practice in inclusive settings.

Kevin Monnin is a member of the PRISE doctoral cohort studying Special Education at George Mason University. He researches strategies that attract, prepare, and retain high-quality special education teachers. His specific research interests include state and local education policy, dispute resolution, teacher working conditions, and the impact of alternative routes to certification on the teacher shortage.

Margot Gerry is a PhD student at George Mason University. She is studying Special Education Policy, aspects of the teacher shortage, and comparative international education policy.

Anna Macedonia is a PhD candidate in the School of Education at George Mason University with a primary specialization in Special Education and a secondary emphasis in Education Leadership and Policy. Her research interests include studying the connection between special education teacher education across local, state, and federal levels connected to teacher retention issues, specifically administrative support. Additionally, her research focuses on the intersections of special education and education leadership, specifically preparing school-based administrators to support special education teachers.

Allison Mason is a general education/special education preservice teacher at Ball State University. She is interested in teaching first or second grade in an inclusive, co-teaching classroom. Ms. Mason is also obtaining a minor in deaf education studies and American Sign Language.

References

Ambrose

S. A.

Bridges

M. W.

DiPietro

Lovett

M. C.

Norman

M. K.

(2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley.

Angelle

Bilton

(2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal preparation training in issues related special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(4), 5–9.

Bateman

B. D.

(2017). Individualized education programs for children with disabilities. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

Pullen

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 91–108). Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

Brady

K. P.

Russo

C. J.

Dieterich

C. A.

Osborne

A. G.

Jr. (2019). Legal issues in special education: Principles, policies, and practices. Routledge.

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205

Bull

B. L.

McCarthy

M. M.

(1995). Reflections on the knowledge base in law and ethics for educational leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 613–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X9503100406

Burdette

(2010). Principal preparedness to support students with disabilities and other diverse learners. National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Corbin

Strauss

(Eds.), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65–86). SAGE.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2020). Vision, mission, & goals. http://caepnet.org/about/vision-mission-goals

10.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2020). https://exceptionalchildren.org/

11.

Decker

(2014). Legal literacy in education: An ideal time to increase research, advocacy, and action. Education Law Reporter, 304(1), 679–696.

12.

Decker

Brady

(2016). Increasing school employees’ special education legal literacy. Journal of School Public Relations, 36(3), 231–259.

13.

DiPaola

M. F.

Walther-Thomas

(2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders (COPSSE Document No. IB-7). Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida.

14.

Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education, 720 F.3d 1038, (9th Cir., 2013).

15.

Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1401.

16.

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

17.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 4104 (2015).

18.

Flockton

Cunningham

(2021). Teacher educators’ perspectives on preparing student teachers to work with pupils who speak languages beyond English. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1855942

19.

Germaine

Spencer

(2016). Faculty perceptions of a seven-year accreditation process. Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 6(1), 67–98. https://doi.org/10.5325/jasseinsteffe.6.1.0067

20.

Graves

L. B.

(2021). Faculty perceptions of accreditation in the field of educator preparation [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Kentucky. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=epe_etds

21.

Hall

G. E.

Hord

S. M.

(1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. State University of New York Press.

22.

Hamilton-Jones

B. M.

Vail

C. O.

(2014). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 76–86.

23.

Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965., Pub. L. No. 89-329, U.S.C § 1001 et seq. (1965).

24.

Horner

Mrachko

O’Connor

Yasik

(2019). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of special education laws. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 32(1), 48–70.

25.

Illinois State Board of Education. (2020). Educator licensure: PEL teaching endorsements. https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Professional-Educator-License-Teaching-Endorsements.aspx

26.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, U.S.C § 1400 et seq. (2004).

27.

Jacobs

C. S.

(2005). Accreditation in teacher education: An analysis of the costs and benefits associated with NCATE peer review [Doctoral dissertation]. University of North Florida. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/251

28.

Kyzar

K. B.

Mueller

T. G.

Francis

G. L.

Haines

S. J.

(2019). Special education teacher preparation for family–professional partnerships: Results from a national survey of teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(4), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419839123

29.

Livingston

Borko

(1989). Expert and novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002248718904000407

30.

Lynch

J. M.

(2012). Responsibilities of today’s principal: Implications for principal preparation programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2), 40–47.

31.

Maine Department of Education. (2020). Certification requirements by position. https://www.maine.gov/doe/cert/requirements

32.

Markelz

A. M.

Bateman

D. F.

(2021). The essentials of special education law. Rowman & Littlefield. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538150023/The-Essentials-of-Special-Education-Law

33.

Mason-Williams

Bettini

Peyton

Harvey

Rosenberg

Sindelar

P. T.

(2020). Rethinking shortages in special education: Making good on the promise of an equal opportunity for students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406419880352

34.

McCulloch

A. W.

Lovett

J. N.

Leatham

K. R.

Bailey

N. G.

Reed

S. D.

(2019). Preparing secondary mathematics teachers to teach with technology: Findings from a nationwide survey. In Otten

Candela

A. G.

de Araujo

Haines

Munter

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1126–1130). University of Missouri.

35.

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

36.

Nagro

Markelz

A. M.

Davis

(2020). Every student succeeds act as it applies to special education. In Murkowski

Rodriguez

(Eds.), Special education law and policy: From foundation to application (pp. 157–193). Plural Publishing.

37.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2021). Supporting principals as leaders of special education. https://www.nassp.org/top-issues-in-education/position-statements/supporting-principals-as-leaders-of-special-education/

38.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2020). Students with disabilities, inclusion of. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59

39.

New Hampshire Department of Education. (2020). Certification standards for education personnel. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/state_agencies/ed500.html

40.

O’Connor

E. A.

Yasik

A. E.

Horner

S. L.

(2016). Teachers’ knowledge of special education laws: What do they know? Insights into Learning Disabilities, 13(1), 7–18.

41.

PARC v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).

42.

Rothstein

Johnson

S. F.

(2014). Special education law (5th ed.). SAGE.

43.

Roy

Hord

S. M.

(2004). Innovation configurations chart a measured course toward change. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 54–58.

44.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1525822X02239569

45.

Ryan

Gannon-Slater

Culbertson

M. J.

(2012). Improving survey methods with cognitive interviews in small-and medium-scale evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1098214012441499

46.

Salkind

N. J.

(2010). Triangulation. In Encyclopedia of research design. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n469

47.

Sanders

(2015). Teachers’ knowledge of special education policies and practices. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 10(3), 207–234.

48.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. http://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

49.

Sindelar

P. T.

Fisher

T. L.

Myers

J. A.

(2019). The landscape of special education licensure, 2016. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406418761533

50.

Tourangeau

Rips

L. J.

Rasinski

(2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.

51.

Umpstead

Decker

Brady

Schimmel

Militello

(2015). How to prevent special education litigation: Eight legal lesson plans. Teachers College Press.

52.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). 40th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act/. Washington, D.C. http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep

53.

U.S. Department of Education. (2020, March). Questions and answers on providing services to children with disabilities during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/qa-covid-19-03-12-2020.pdf

54.

U.S. Department of Education. (2021). COVID-19 resources for schools, students and families. https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus

55.

U.S. News and World Report. (2020). Best Special Education Schools. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-education-schools/special-needs-education-rankings

56.

Virginia Department of Education. (2020). Licensure. https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/licensure/

57.

Watson

(2020, December 8). Challenges to delivering special education have increased during the COVID era. The Ct Mirror. https://ctmirror.org/2020/12/08/challenges-to-delivering-special-education-have-increased-during-the-covid-era/

58.

Yell

M. L.

(2019). The law and special education (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

59.

Yell

M. L.

(2020). Policy to practice: Developing and implementing IEPs to support academic and functional progress for students [Special issue]. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 267–350. https://doi.org/10.1177%2FTCXA_52_5

60.

Yell

M. L.

Bateman

D. F.

(2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas county school district (2017) FAPE and the US supreme court. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0040059917721116

61.

Yell

M. L.

Bateman

D. F.

(2019). Free appropriate public education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for personnel preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406417754239

62.

Yell

M. L.

Collins

Kumpiene

Bateman

(2020). The individualized education program: Procedural and substantive requirements. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0040059920906592

63.

Yell

M. L.

Drasgow

Bradley

Justesen

(2004). Critical legal issues in special education. In McCray Sorrells

Reith

H. J.

Sindelar

P. T.

(Eds.), Issues in special education (pp. 16–37). Allyn & Bacon.

64.

Zettel

J. J.

Ballard

(1979). The education for all handicapped children act of 1975 PL 94-142: Its history, origins, and concepts. Journal of Education, 161(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002205747916100303

65.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2021). Legal decisions for special education COVID-19 issues: Emerging answers. https://perryzirkel.com/2021/03/08/incase-article-covid-19/

66.

Zirkel

P. A.

Vance

S. D.

(2004). Education law course offerings in law schools. Journal of Law and Education, 33(3), 327–340.