Educator Perspectives on Accessing Disability-Related Information and Resources

Abstract

Familiarity with local disability information and resources can impact the ways educators support students with disabilities and their families. We surveyed 462 educators regarding their awareness of and access to disability-related information and resources. Specifically, we examined (a) their familiarity with resources and services across multiple areas, (b) the sources of information they consider to be helpful in their work, and (c) the likelihood they would draw upon new resources designed to connect them to local information and resources. Overall, educators reported mixed familiarity with resources related to supporting important student experiences (e.g., having friends, being physically healthy, participating in recreational activities) and addressing key service needs (e.g., speech therapy, behavior supports, mental health care). Familiarity tended to be higher for resources related to student experiences than for service needs. Educators considered several sources of information to be most helpful in their work, including internet searches, fellow teachers or other school staff, and conferences or workshops. We address implications for teacher training programs, state-level educational leaders, and school districts.

Keywords

special education information dissemination community partnerships

More than 7.3 million students receive special education services within the public education system, an increase from 6.5 million a decade ago (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). These students—who comprise about 14% of the student population—receive direct or indirect support from a range of educators, including special educators, general educators, paraprofessionals, related service providers, and administrators (all referred to as “educators” throughout this article). As the number of students with disabilities has increased, so have the responsibilities of these educators (Shepherd et al., 2016). Not only are educators striving to meet the educational and transition needs of their students with disabilities, they are also charged with drawing upon the best available information and resources to inform their instruction and arrange needed services for students (Gesel et al., 2021; Knight et al., 2019).

Given the ever-changing nature of students’ needs and the availability of relevant resources or services, the task of accessing disability-related information and resources may be daunting for even the most experienced educators. It can be even more challenging depending on the types of communities in which educators work and the availability of disability programs locally (e.g., Azano & Tackett, 2018; Drahota et al., 2020). At the same time, substantial federal and state resources are directed toward making relevant information more available and accessible for many different stakeholders. For example, national clearinghouses and technical assistance centers have been funded to equip professionals and families with needed guidance related to best practices and disability (e.g., IRIS Center, National Technical Assistance Center on Transition, PROGRESS Center; http://osepideasthatwork.org), federally funded parent information and training centers now exist in every state (www.parentcenterhub.org), and state departments of education frequently invest in training and dissemination projects aimed at equipping educators. Yet, the extent to which available information ultimately makes it into the hands of those who need it remains uneven and concerning (e.g., Beahm & Cook, 2021).

Educators of students with disabilities often serve as a primary trusted source of information for parents and other family members. For example, Huscroft-D’Angelo et al. (2021) found that parents were 37% more likely to receive information regarding academic and disability services from the school as opposed to accessing it independently. To date, however, only a limited number of studies have addressed educators’ familiarity with resources that could help them address key student experiences (e.g., having good mental health, making friends, attending community events) or service needs (e.g., occupational therapy, assistive technology) for students and their families (e.g., Gesel et al., 2021). In this study, student experiences refers to valued outcomes for school-age children and youth. Service needs refers to the array of formal resources and supports—provided by schools or community organizations—that can help students and their families attain those experiences.

Special education teacher competencies emphasize the importance of collaboration to promote student success and well-being across the grade span (Council for Exceptional Children, 2022). Several factors may also impact the degree to which educators are familiar with disability-related information and resources. For example, the communities educators serve may shape how they are accessing information and resources (Carter et al., 2022; Drahota et al., 2020). Rural communities in which internet access is less consistent might be more reliant on print resources and personal connections relative to urban or suburban communities (Test & Fowler, 2018). Similarly, the students whom educators serve may impact their familiarity with various resources. Educators who work directly with students with severe disabilities may rely more heavily on resources about related services or medical providers due to their students’ extensive support needs (Browder et al., 2020). Finally, the length of time educators have worked in the field may impact their preferred sources of information. Those with more teaching experience may be less likely to use professional development as opposed to their counterparts with less experience (Brock et al., 2014).

Studies suggest that educators are interested in professional development opportunities as a way of accessing needed information (Brock et al., 2014; Corkum et al., 2014). Brock et al. (2014), however, found that educators of students with autism spectrum disorder who were from rural communities reported less interest in attending professional development opportunities. In addition, educators tend to turn to their coworkers as sources of information when professional development opportunities are scarce (Gesel et al., 2021; Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). The findings of these studies align with one conducted by the Education Week Research Center (2019), which found that general educators were most likely to use professional development opportunities and colleagues/word of mouth to learn about education trends or new ideas to use in their classroom. Still, little is known about how educators working with students with disabilities prefer to receive information. As with resource familiarity, community type, caseload severity, and years in the field may influence these preferences.

The purpose of this study was to examine educators’ familiarity with disability-related information and resources and their preferences for accessing information. We addressed the following research questions:

Research question 1 (RQ1): How familiar are educators with resources related to key student experiences?

Research question 2 (RQ2): How familiar are educators with resources related to key service needs?

Research question 3 (RQ3): Which sources of information do educators consider most helpful?

Research question 4 (RQ4): How likely are educators to use proposed new resources?

Method

Participants

Participants were 462 educators serving students with disabilities in K-12 schools in Tennessee. To be included in this study, participants must (a) have worked with students with disabilities in a school setting in Tennessee and (b) be 18 years of age or older. Participants included a mix of educators who have worked in elementary schools (43.5%), middle schools (45.0%), and high schools (56.7%); 28.1% selected multiple school levels. The majority (92.2%) worked in a public school setting, 3.9% worked in a private school, and 3.9% worked in a charter school. Their roles included special educator (60.2%), administrator (10.2%), related service provider (8.4%), paraprofessional (5.2%), or general educator (3.2%). The remaining 12.8% of participants identified their role as “other” and were prompted to write in their position. Responses included school counselor, school psychologist, transition case manager, vision specialist, autism consultant, inclusion specialist, transition job coach, and school nurse. Nearly half (45.2%) of the participants worked in a rural community, 34.4% worked in a suburban community, and 20.3% worked in an urban community. They averaged 16.2 (SD = 10.3) years of experience and a caseload of 23.4 students (SD = 17.6). Additional information is displayed in Table 1. The population of this southeastern state was 6.9 million, and approximately 116,000 children with disabilities were served in K–12 public schools.

Table 1.

Educator Demographics (n = 462).

Demographic variable	n	%
Sex
Female	413	89.4
Male	42	9.1
Prefer not to answer	7	1.5
Age
20–29	48	10.4
30–39	87	18.8
40–49	115	24.9
50–59	132	28.6
60 or older	73	15.8
Prefer not to answer	7	1.5
Race/ethnicity^a
American Indian and Alaska Native	4	0.9
Asian	6	1.3
Black or African American	40	8.7
Hispanic/Latino	16	3.5
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	3	0.6
White	389	84.2
Prefer not to answer	18	3.9
Special education categories served^a
Autism spectrum disorder	409	88.5
Deaf-blindness	61	13.2
Deafness	59	12.8
Developmental delay	281	60.8
Hearing impairment	170	36.8
Learning disability	360	77.9
Intellectual disability	346	74.9
Mental illness, mental health disorder, or EBD	264	57.1
Multiple disabilities	289	62.6
Other health impairment or ADD/ADHD	383	82.9
Physical disability	176	38.1
Speech/language impairment	355	76.8
Traumatic brain injury	138	29.9
Visual impairment	190	41.1
Students on 504 plans	119	25.8
Other	12	2.6
Proportion of caseload with severe disabilities
None	54	17.0
1%–24%	123	38.8
25%–49%	40	12.6
50%–74%	15	4.7
75%–99%	24	7.6
All	61	19.2

Note. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; ADD = attention deficit disorder; EBD = emotional/behavioral disorders.

More than one option could be selected; total percentages exceed 100%.

Recruitment

Recruitment efforts spanned 4 months from December 2020 to April 2021. To reach educators, our primary recruitment sources were two statewide educator databases. One comprised educators supporting transition-age youth with disabilities (ages 14–22). The other comprised educators involved in the inclusion of elementary, middle, and secondary school students with disabilities. In addition, we worked with a state educator association and 25 public, specialized, and private school districts to distribute study announcements through their networks. We provided organizations with print and electronic flyers, social media posts, email templates, and newsletter blurbs personalized for their organization. All recruitment materials included the project’s website, which provided study information and a link to the survey.

We took several steps to encourage high levels of participation. First, surveys were completed anonymously. Second, we offered the survey in three forms: online, print, or by phone. Third, we randomly selected 17 participants to receive a US$20 gift card of their choice from four businesses. Fourth, all participants could request free resources related to the topics included in the survey.

Measures

We developed a survey to (a) examine participant familiarity with disability-related resources and services across multiple areas, (b) identify how they currently search for information and services, and (c) solicit recommendations for improving information and resource dissemination. The survey was developed in collaboration with a leadership team that comprised representatives of the state’s Developmental Disability Council and seven other state agencies. Drafts of the educator survey were also shared with staff for a state-level transition project. The final version could be completed online through REDCap (Harris et al., 2009), in print format, or over the phone; most completed it online. The survey areas addressed in this article are described below.

Demographics

In addition to personal demographics (i.e., sex, age, race/ethnicity), we asked participants to identify their role (i.e., special educator, general educator, paraprofessional, related services provider, administrator, other), the school level at which they worked (e.g., early childhood, early intervention, or birth to 3 years of age, pre-k, elementary school, middle school, high school), and the type of school (e.g., public school, charter school, private school). We asked two questions to characterize the students with disabilities whom they serve. First, participants selected all the special education categories listed on the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) of the students they currently serve (see Table 1). Second, we asked about the number of students on their caseload and the proportion of those students they considered to have severe disabilities. The following definition was offered:

These students need intensive academic, behavior, social, communication, and/or other supports across settings. This often includes students served under the special education categories of intellectual disability, autism, or multiple disabilities and/or students who qualify for alternate assessment as a student with a “significant cognitive impairment.”

We also asked how many years they had worked in the field and the type of community they served (i.e., rural, suburban, urban).

Familiarity With Resources Related to Student Experiences

We asked educators about their familiarity with community programs and services related to key experiences valued by many students with disabilities and their families. We presented them with a list of 13 experiences more relevant to elementary school students (e.g., doing well in school, having friends, learning social and communication skills; see Table 2) and a list of 19 items more relevant to secondary school students (e.g., finding or keeping a job, volunteering in the community; see Table 2). Based on the branching logic, educators completed either or both sections depending on whether they served students in elementary and/or secondary school. For all items in this section, they rated their familiarity with community programs or services that could help in each area using a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = not at all familiar, 2 = a little familiar, 3 = somewhat familiar, 4 = very familiar.

Table 2.

Educator Familiarity With Resources to Support Key Student Experiences.

Item	Percentage responding				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Not at all familiar	A little familiar	Somewhat familiar	Very familiar	M (SD)	Type of community^a	Caseload severity^a	Years of experience^b
Elementary (n = 201)
Doing well in school	11.0	27.2	34.7	27.2	2.78 (0.97)	.22	.26	.12
Learning social and communication skills	13.9	27.2	32.9	26.0	2.71 (1.00)	.15	.38	.09
Participating in recreational activities	11.6	30.6	35.8	22.0	2.68 (0.95)	.02	.26	.09
Learning to make choices and decisions	19.1	24.9	32.4	23.7	2.61 (1.05)	.17	.44*	.15*
Being physically healthy	15.6	27.2	38.7	18.5	2.60 (0.96)	.20	.24*	.11
Learning daily living skills	17.9	29.5	28.9	23.7	2.58 (1.04)	.15	.40*	.14
Having friends	17.9	28.3	37.6	16.2	2.52 (0.97)	.17	−.08	.12
Having good mental health	21.4	24.9	34.7	19.1	2.51 (1.03)	.31*	.14	.14
Attending community events	17.9	33.5	36.4	12.1	2.43 (0.92)	.16	.06	.15
Participating in a faith community	21.4	31.2	31.2	16.2	2.42 (1.00)	.30	−.10	.10
Being part of their local community	20.8	36.4	31.2	11.6	2.34 (0.94)	.31*	.06	.11
Attending summer camps/programs	20.8	40.5	24.9	13.9	2.32 (0.96)	.19	.04	.12
Experiencing personal growth	27.7	26.6	34.1	11.6	2.29 (1.00)	.38*	.07	.15*
Middle and high (n = 368)
Going to college or technical school	7.1	26.6	37.0	29.3	2.89 (0.91)	.03	−.11	.14*
Finding or keeping a job	9.8	29.6	37.0	23.6	2.74 (0.93)	.06	.07	.11*
Being physically healthy	13.6	30.7	36.7	19.0	2.61 (0.95)	<.01	.09	.10
Participating in recreational activities	13.3	31.0	38.6	17.1	2.60 (0.92)	−.02	.05	.08
Making friends	15.8	27.7	38.3	18.2	2.59 (0.96)	−.06	<.01	.06
Having good mental health	15.2	30.7	35.3	18.8	2.58 (0.96)	.01	−.10	.11*
Being part of a faith community	18.2	28.0	33.7	20.1	2.56 (0.98)	.16	−.02	.17*
Making their own choices and decisions	16.6	29.6	35.1	18.8	2.56 (0.98)	−.10	−.10	.11*
Volunteering in the community	15.5	30.2	38.3	16.0	2.55 (0.94)	.05	.07	.14*
Attending community events	17.4	31.5	34.0	17.1	2.51 (0.97)	.05	−.08	.14*
Feeling part of a community	19.6	30.7	33.2	16.6	2.47 (0.99)	−.03	−.05	.05
Pursuing personal growth	21.7	30.4	31.3	16.6	2.43 (1.00)	.01	−.12	.05
Advocating for others	21.7	31.3	30.7	16.3	2.42 (1.00)	−.13	−.02	.14*
Making money well	23.9	29.9	29.9	16.3	2.39 (1.02)	−.08	.02	.04
Having reliable transportation	20.1	34.0	32.3	13.6	2.39 (0.96)	−.21	−.11	.10
Having their own place to live	24.5	38.9	26.4	10.3	2.23 (0.93)	.11	−.12	.16*
Being part of a cultural community	29.9	34.2	25.3	10.6	2.17 (0.98)	.02	−.20	.10
Dating	32.9	32.1	19.8	8.2	1.96 (0.96)	<.01	−.30*	.07
Starting a family	47.3	29.6	16.6	6.5	1.82 (0.93)	.15	−.27*	.07

Cohen’s d. bPearson’s r.

p < .05.

Familiarity With Resources Related to Service Needs

We asked educators about their familiarity with community programs and services related to key service needs of students with disabilities and their families. We presented them with a list of 22 service areas (e.g., assistive technology, behavior supports/services, respite care; see Table 3). For all items in this section, they rated their familiarity with community programs or services that could help in each area using a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = not at all familiar, 2 = a little familiar, 3 = somewhat familiar, 4 = very familiar.

Table 3.

Educator Familiarity With Resources to Support Key Service Needs.

Item	Percentage responding				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Not at all familiar	A little familiar	Somewhat familiar	Very familiar	M (SD)	Type of community^a	Caseload severity^a	Years of experience^b
Speech therapy	16.0	23.8	35.5	24.7	2.69 (1.02)	.14	.08	.09*
Food assistance	15.2	27.1	36.4	21.4	2.64 (0.98)	.25*	.05	.12*
Behavior supports/services	12.1	32.9	35.1	19.9	2.62 (0.94)	−.16	.10	.06
Physical therapy	17.1	27.5	34.2	21.2	2.60 (1.01)	.19*	.08	.14*
Occupational therapy	18.0	26.4	35.3	20.3	2.58 (1.01)	.09	.08	.12*
Ealy intervention services	20.3	29.7	28.1	21.9	2.52 (1.05)	.19	.05	.13*
Disability evaluations	22.1	29.4	26.0	22.5	2.49 (1.07)	.04	−.05	.18*
Assistance technology	20.8	31.6	33.1	14.5	2.41 (0.98)	−.04	.26*	.13*
Mental health care	22.5	36.1	27.3	14.1	2.33 (0.98)	.03	.03	.10*
Other therapies	27.1	34.0	29.0	10.0	2.22 (0.96)	.04	.14	.11*
Family counseling	28.8	35.1	25.7	11.5	2.19 (0.98)	.14	−.19	.07
Financial assistance	26.4	36.1	29.2	8.2	2.19 (0.92)	.06	.02	.12*
Interpretation or translation services	26.8	38.1	26.6	8.4	2.17 (0.92)	−.06	.05	.04
Accessible medical care	30.3	37.9	22.7	9.1	2.11 (0.94)	.19	−.02	.10*
Legal assistance	31.0	34.6	27.5	6.9	2.10 (0.92)	−.05	−.01	.11*
Childcare	35.1	36.4	22.1	6.5	2.00 (0.91)	.21*	−.12	−.02
Accessible dental care	35.3	37.9	19.5	7.4	1.99 (0.92)	.17	.05	.06
Medical equipment	40.3	32.7	20.6	6.5	1.93 (0.92)	.16	.14	.08
Parent or sibling support groups	37.9	36.6	20.1	5.4	1.93 (0.89)	.04	.05	.16*
In-home care	39.6	34.2	20.3	5.8	1.92 (0.91)	.10	.13	.09*
Benefits counseling	41.3	33.1	18.4	7.1	1.91 (0.94)	.10	−.12	.06
Respite care	43.7	294.0	19.7	7.1	1.90 (0.96)	.04	.06	.11

Cohen’s d. ^bPearson’s r.

*p < .05.

Helpful Sources of Information

We asked educators about the sources of information or resources they found helpful to their work. We presented a list of 16 commonly used sources of information (e.g., internet searches, books, research articles or journals, conferences, or workshops; see Table 6; Brock et al., 2014). Responses were provided on a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = not at all helpful, 2 = a little helpful, 3 = somewhat helpful, 4 = very helpful. We also asked them to respond to the following prompt: Are there other sources of information you use that were not listed above? Next, we asked educators to rank the three sources of information they used most from the same list of 16 items. We also asked them to indicate how often in the past year they needed information or assistance related to serving students with disabilities but did not know where to get it. This question was phrased broadly and did not refer to any specific area (e.g., assistive technology, finding a job). Responses were provided on a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often. As a follow-up in this area, we asked educators the following question: “What (if anything) makes it hard to find the information that you need?”

Informing Families

We asked educators an opened-ended question: What are the biggest questions or needs you hear from the families you serve? We then asked a closed-ended question addressing how they share information about nonschool programs or agencies with families. Response options included: at IEP meetings, at other meetings, through newsletters, through phone calls, through text, through an app, through our website, providing brochures, referring them to other websites, referring them to other organizations, other, and we do not share information. More than one option could be selected. Finally, we asked how often they are connecting families to agencies, organizations, or other programs outside of the school district. Response options included daily, weekly, monthly, several times per year, annually, and never.

Anticipated Use of Resources

We asked educators to rate their likelihood of using an array of resources—if they were made available—that could help connect students, families, and themselves to disability information. We presented a list of 14 possible resources (e.g., an app on their smartphone, a toll-free number where you can talk to someone in person, online videos that explain what various programs offer; see Table 7). Responses were provided on a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = definitely not, 2 = probably not, 3 = probably would, 4 = definitely would.

Data Analysis

A total of 462 surveys were completed and analyzed. A survey glitch, however, omitted one survey section (Familiarity With Community Resources) for 28 elementary educators. Otherwise, there were no missing data. We used SPSS software (SPSS 26; IBM Corporation, 2019) for all analyses. For each research question, we summarized responses by item using descriptive statistics (i.e., percentage, means, standard deviations). For RQ1, valued experiences were separated into two age categories (elementary and middle or high school) to account for commonly valued experiences by age, as educators could respond to either or both based on the age of students served.

In addition to the descriptive statistics, we used exploratory analysis (i.e., independent-samples t tests and Pearson correlations) across all research questions to analyze the following variables: community type, caseload severity, and years of experience. For RQ1 and RQ2, we examined educator ratings of familiarity with resources related to valued student experiences and service needs based on our three variables. First, we compared educator familiarity based on the type of community—rural versus nonrural (i.e., suburban or urban). Our primary interest was in whether there were distinct views or experiences associated with serving students with disabilities in rural communities. We anticipated that educators in rural communities would be less familiar with available resources. Second, we compared educator ratings based on the percentage of students with severe disabilities they reported on their caseload—less than 24% versus 25% or more. We anticipated that educators who served a large proportion of students with severe disabilities would be more familiar with resources. Third, we examined the strength of the association between years of experience and familiarity ratings using a Pearson correlation. We anticipated that educators with more experience would report more familiarity with available resources. We then examined the magnitude of any differences by calculating Cohen’s d. We divided the difference in group means by the pooled standard deviation. For both correlation coefficients and Cohen’s d, we interpreted effect sizes using guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988): .20 was considered small, .50 moderate, and .80 large. For RQ3, we also examined educators’ ratings of helpfulness of various sources of information based on these same three variables. For RQ4, we examined reported likelihood of use for various sources of information based on these same three variables.

Thematic coding of open-ended responses was also used in RQ2 and RQ3 to examine open-ended responses. Three graduate students and one undergraduate student were assigned to code all open-ended responses used in this article under the guidance of project staff. For each open-ended question, we created a coding framework comprised of thematic codes and definitions, which served as a working document that coders added to throughout the process. Two students, both serving as primary coders, used the coding framework to code all responses from each open-ended question independently. Upon completion, the two primary coders met with each other to compare their individual codes and agree upon one code per open-ended response. Following this, a third person independently coded the same open-ended responses based solely on the updated coding framework.

Results

How Familiar Are Educators With Resources Related to Key Student Experiences?

Elementary School Level

At least half of elementary school educators indicated they were somewhat or very familiar with community resources that could help their students in eight of the 13 experiences (see Table 2). Educators were most familiar with resources related to doing well in school (M = 2.78), learning social and communication skills (M = 2.71), and participating in recreational activities (M = 2.68). They were least familiar with resources focused on helping students be a part of their local community (M = 2.34), attending summer camps/programs (M = 2.32), and experiencing personal growth (M = 2.29).

Some differences were found based on community type. Educators working in rural communities were significantly more familiar with resources related to supporting students to have good mental health, t(171) = 2.04, p = .043; be part of their local community, t(171) = 2.04, p = .042; and experience personal growth, t(171) = 2.48, p = .014. In addition, differences were found based on caseload severity. Educators who had students with severe disabilities making up at least a quarter of their caseload were significantly more familiar with resources related to learning to make choices and decisions, t(101) = 2.20, p = .030; being physically healthy, t(101) = 1.22, p = .023; and learning daily living skills, t(101) = 2.03, p = .045. A small, positive correlation was found between years of experience and resource familiarity for two areas: learning to make choices and decisions (r = .15, p = .046) and experiencing personal growth (r = .15, p = .049).

Middle and High School Level

At least half of all middle and high educators felt somewhat or very familiar with 10 out of the 19 areas. Educators were most familiar with community resources related to supporting students in going to college or technical school (M = 2.89), finding or keeping a job (M = 2.74), and being physically healthy (M = 2.61). They were least familiar with resources focused on supporting students in being a part of a cultural community (M = 2.17), dating (M = 1.96), and starting a family (M = 1.82).

No differences in familiarity were found based on community type (i.e., rural versus nonrural). Some differences, however, were found based on caseload severity. Educators who had students with severe disabilities making up at least a quarter of their caseload were significantly less familiar with resources related to supporting students in the areas of dating, t(366) = −2.39, p = .017, and starting a family, t(366) = −2.16, p = .031. A small, positive correlation was found between years of experience and resource familiarity for nine areas: finding or keeping a job (r = .11, p = .042), going to college or technical school (r = .14, p = .007), volunteering in the community (r = .14, p = .006), having their own place to live (r = .16, p = .003), having good mental health (r = .11, p = .031), attending community events (r = .14, p = .009), being part of a faith community (r = .17, p = .001), advocating for others (r = .14, p = .007), and making their own choices and decisions (r = .11, p = .035).

How Familiar Are Educators With Resources Related to Key Service Needs?

At least half of the educators indicated they were somewhat or very familiar with resources that could help students and their families in six of the 22 areas (see Table 3). Educators were most familiar with resources related to speech therapy (M = 2.69), food assistance (M = 2.64), and behavior supports and services (M = 2.62). They were least familiar with resources related to in-home care (M = 1.92), benefits counseling (M = 1.91), and respite care (M = 1.90).

Some differences were found based on community type. Educators working in rural communities were significantly more familiar with the following service areas: food assistance, t(460) = 2.69, p = .007; childcare, t(460) = 2.26, p = .024; physical therapy, t(460) = 2.07, p = .044; and early intervention services, t(460) = 2.02, p = .044. One difference was found based on caseload severity. Educators who have students with severe disabilities making up at least one quarter of their caseload were significantly more familiar with assistive technology, t(315) = 2.32, p = .002. A small, positive correlation was found between years of experience and service need familiarity for 15 areas: financial assistance (r = .12, p = .011), food assistance (r = .12, p = .013), legal assistance (r = .11, p = .016), respite care (r = .11, p = .018), in-home care (r = .10, p = .043), assistive technology (r = .13, p = .006), mental health care (r = .10, p = .028), accessible medical care (r = .01, p = .040), occupational therapy (r = .12, p = .010), speech therapy (r = .09, p = .043), physical therapy (r = .14, p = .003), other therapies (r = .11, p = .022), parent or sibling support groups (r = .16, p < .001), disability evaluations (r = .18, p < .001), and early intervention services (r = .13, p = .005).

More than half of all educators (54.8%) reported that they sometimes or often needed information or assistance related to serving students with disabilities, but did not know where to get it. In addition, we asked educators to identify what made it hard for them to find needed information (see Table 4). Lack of organization was the top challenge identified by educators. Responses described how information and resources were not well-organized or streamlined across organizations. The second most common response involved misinformation (e.g., finding incorrect or out-of-date information). Educators also reported the time commitment needed to find, research, and contact programs as a barrier. Participants were also asked to share the biggest question or needs they hear from the families (see Table 5). The top three themes we identified were transition to adulthood, finding services, and financial assistance.

Table 4.

What Makes Information and Resources Hard to Find for Educators.

Code	Definition
Lack of organization	Information and resources are not organized in a user-friendly way; information is not streamlined or consistent across different state agency or organization websites; information is scattered across websites rather than in one central location
Misinformation	Incorrect or out-of-date information; difficult to discern whether information is reliable or research-based
Time commitment	Not enough time to find, research, and contact programs and information
Difficulty finding information	Information needed is difficult to find (e.g., not widely publicized, incomplete information, keyword searches do not yield desired results, finding information geared toward educators)
No supports for my location	Lack of or limited resources in rural locations
Lack of specificity	Information found is not specific enough for need
Unsure where to start	Unsure where to go for help, who to ask, or what information they are looking for
Lack of resources	Resources (e.g., programming, services, workshops or conferences for educators and parents, evidence-based practices) needed do not exist
Connecting with service providers	Problem connecting with service providers (e.g., ability to speak with a live person, difficulty finding contact information on website, receiving a call back, finding the right person to answer their questions)
Feeling overwhelmed	Overwhelmed by the amount of information available and number of sources
Accessibility of resources	Online resources are not accessible to some users (e.g., students with significant disabilities, students who speak Spanish); difficulty navigating websites
Coronavirus	Wait time for services and difficulties connecting with providers due to the pandemic; lack of information and resulting changes due to coronavirus
Financial issue	Resources are not accessible due to associated costs (e.g., paid membership required to access articles, cost of webinars or conferences, affordability of curriculums or trainings)
Ineligible	Student is not eligible for a service or program due to age or disability

Table 5.

Biggest Question or Needs Educators Hear From the Families They Serve.

Code name	Definition
Transition to adulthood	Supports, services, and resources related to a student’s transition from young adulthood to adulthood (e.g., planning for the future, skill development, self-determination, services)
Finding services	Finding services for students; educating families on what services are available and would be a good fit for their child; understanding the service system
Financial assistance	Support for families to pay for basic needs (e.g., food, rent, clothing), supports, and equipment
Academics	Academic-related information or support for school-age children or youth with disabilities (e.g., curriculum modifications, virtual learning resources, tutoring, academic accommodations, enhancement opportunities for gifted students)
Employment	Supporting students to prepare for and find paid employment
Post-secondary education	Post-secondary education options (e.g., college, training programs, vocational education, disability services); disability services within post-secondary programs
Respite care	Finding short-term caregivers to provide a break for primary caregivers
Behavior	Behavior support for educators and parents; finding in-home behavior services
Transportation	Availability and need for transportation options for students
Conservatorship	Information and support regarding conservatorship
Mental health	Mental health services and resources for students
Where to start	Families do not know where to begin when looking for resources, services, or information related to their child’s disability
Community access	Finding inclusive community events or programs (e.g., recreational activities, summer camps)
Housing	Independent or supported living opportunities and programs
Medical	Finding doctors or medical providers, medical equipment, and resources regarding medical needs of students
Virtual learning	Adapting to and supporting students within a virtual setting
Adaptive equipment	Obtaining adaptive equipment and assistive technology
Communication	Supporting students’ communication skills and language development
Eligibility	Availability and timing of diagnostic and evaluative testing
Technology	Technology access (e.g., devices, internet)

We asked participants how they share information about nonschool programs with families and how often they are connecting families to agencies, organizations, and other programs outside of school. Over three quarters of all educators reported sharing information at IEP meetings (87.0%), through phone calls (56.9%), and by referring families to other organizations (50.9%). Less than half of all educators (38.1%) reported connecting families to agencies, organizations, and other programs outside of school several times per year, as opposed to the 2.6% that reported connecting families to resources daily.

Which Sources of Information Do Educators Consider Most Helpful?

At least half of the educators considered 13 of 16 sources of information to be somewhat or very helpful (see Table 6). Educators rated the following sources as most helpful: teachers or other school staff (M = 3.32), internet searches (M = 3.28), and conferences or workshops (M = 3.23). The least helpful resources included social media (M = 2.41), podcasts (M = 2.02), and blogs (M = 2.01).

Table 6.

Educator Ratings of the Helpfulness of Various Sources of Information.

Item	Percentage responding				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Not at all helpful	A little helpful	Somewhat helpful	Very helpful	M (SD)	Type of community^a	Caseload severity^a	Years of experience^b
Teachers or other school staff	2.4	12.1	36.6	48.9	3.32 (0.78)	<.01	−.09	−.01
Internet searches	1.3	13.0	42.2	43.5	3.28 (0.74)	.16	−.23*	.08
Conferences or workshops	4.3	12.6	38.5	44.6	3.23 (0.83)	.17	.13	−.02
Families I work with	7.4	21.9	41.6	29.2	2.93 (0.90)	.03	.10	.05
Friends	6.5	23.4	44.2	26.0	2.90 (0.86)	.09	.05	.04
Doctors, therapists, or other medical professionals	11.9	22.5	34.8	30.7	2.84 (0.99)	.16	−.06	−.03
Other videos	10.4	23.4	43.5	22.7	2.79 (0.91)	.14	−.12	−.03
Staff from state agencies or programs	12.6	25.1	35.1	27.3	2.77 (0.99)	.13	.16	.04
Research articles or journals	14.7	22.3	39.4	23.6	2.72 (0.99)	−.02	−.17	−.07
School-provided professional development	13.2	28.6	33.3	24.9	2.70 (0.99)	.04	−.19	−.01
Local/state disability organizations	15.6	26.0	32.5	26.0	2.69 (1.02)	.07	.10	.07
Books	16.0	28.6	38.7	16.7	2.56 (0.95)	−.08	−.15	−.05
National disability organizations	19.5	32.7	33.1	14.7	2.43 (0.97)	.02	.09	<−.01
Social media (like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram)	22.1	27.7	37.0	13.2	2.41 (0.98)	−.16	−.07	−.04
Podcasts	38.5	28.4	26.2	6.9	2.02 (0.96)	.03	−.12	−.01
Blogs	35.1	34.2	25.5	5.2	2.01 (0.90)	−.08	−.02	−.07

Cohen’s d. ^bPearson’s r.

p < .05.

No differences were found based on community type. One difference was found based on caseload severity. Educators who have students with severe disabilities making up at least one quarter of their caseload found internet searches to be less helpful, t(315) = 2.01, p = .045. No correlations were found between years in field and helpfulness of resources.

How Likely Are Educators to Use Proposed New Resources?

At least half of all educators said they probably would or definitely would use 12 out of 14 resources (see Table 7). Educators reported the highest likelihood of use for a website where you can search for resources (M = 3.71); an app on your smartphone or tablet (M = 3.10); and notifications of things to consider based on student disability, age, and community (M = 3.10). Educators reported the lowest likelihood of use for a Facebook page that provides information about services (M = 2.63), a podcast that talks about disability resources or topics (M = 2.31), and text messages about resources (M = 2.28).

Table 7.

Educator Ratings of Their Likelihood of Using Proposed Resources.

Item	Percentage responding				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Definitely not	Probably not	Probably would	Definitely would	M (SD)	Type of community^a	Caseload severity^a	Years of experience^b
A website where you can search for resources	0.2	1.1	26.6	72.1	3.71 (0.49)	.01	.06	.06
An app on your smartphone or tablet	5.4	17.3	39.0	38.3	3.10 (0.87)	−.05	.04*	−.02
Notifications of things to consider based on student disability, age, and community	3.0	13.4	53.7	29.9	3.10 (0.74)	<.01	.25*	.01
A printed guide that explains disability resources simply	4.1	16.5	45.7	33.8	3.09 (0.81)	.26*	.07	.13*
A weekly or monthly e-newsletter highlighting resources	3.9	17.7	51.7	26.6	3.01 (0.78)	.08	−.11	.08
Notifications of upcoming local events	3.9	16.0	56.9	23.2	2.99 (0.74)	.05	.26*	.03
A live chat feature where you can ask questions in real time	5.2	23.2	43.4	28.4	2.95 (0.85)	−.03	.06	−.02
Online videos that explain what various programs offer	6.3	22.9	47.0	23.8	2.88 (0.84)	.12	.05	<−.01
A toll-free number where you can talk directly to someone	6.5	31.4	38.5	23.6	2.79 (0.88)	.11	.01	.19*
Ratings and reviews of resources from others	8.0	25.1	48.1	18.8	2.78 (0.84)	−.02	−.06	−.01
A print newsletter highlighting resources	11.5	27.9	39.2	21.4	2.71 (0.93)	.30*	−.10	.11*
A Facebook page that provides information about services	18.0	24.5	34.4	23.2	2.63 (1.03)	.16	.05	−.04
A podcast that talks about disability resources or topics	16.2	46.1	27.9	9.7	2.31 (0.86)	−.13	.04	−.04
Text messages about resources	25.1	34.4	28.1	12.3	2.28 (0.98)	.08	.25*	−.06

Cohen’s d. ^bPearson’s r.

p < .05.

Two differences were found for community type. Educators working in rural communities indicated they would be significantly more likely to use a print newsletter highlighting resources, t(460) = 3.22, p = .001, and a printed guide that explains disability resources simply, t(460) = 2.78, p = .006. Some differences were found based on caseload severity. Educators who have students with severe disabilities making up at least one quarter of their caseload said they were significantly more likely to draw upon an app on their smartphone or tablet, t(315) = 3.34, p = .001; text messages about resources, t(315) = 2.21, p = .028; notifications of upcoming or local events, t(315) = 2.27, p = .024; and notifications of things to consider based on student disability, age, and community, t(315) = 2.25, p = .026. Two small, positive correlations were found between years of experience and a toll-free phone number where you can talk directly to someone (r = .19, p < .001) and a printed guide that explains disability resources put simply (r = .13, p = .004).

Discussion

Educators need access to relevant information and resources to meet the broad array of educational and transition needs of their students with disabilities. Moreover, educators are often a primary source of information and guidance for families. In this study, we asked 462 educators about their familiarity with resources and services across multiple areas, how they currently access information, and how they would prefer to access information. These findings extend the literature regarding what educators know and where they go for disability-related information.

First, this study provides new insights into educators’ familiarity with resources that could advance an array of key student experiences (e.g., having good mental health, making friends, attending community events). Overall, their familiarity with resources varied widely—both across participants and across topics. Knowledge of available resources is important to ensuring educators can provide strong instruction, support, and connections for their students with disabilities. Lacking such knowledge, educators may have more difficulty supporting their students or equipping families with helpful guidance.

Some trends were apparent in the data. For example, educators working with elementary school students with disabilities tended to report more familiarity with resources related to school-based experiences (e.g., doing well in school, learning social and communication skills) than community-based experiences (e.g., attending summer camps/programs, being part of their local community). Although most educators will not directly address experiences that take place outside of classroom in their daily practice, they can still serve as a trusted resource for students with disabilities and their families in these areas (Huscroft-D’Angelo et al., 2021). In addition, educators working with older students (i.e., middle school and high school) reported less familiarity with resources related to important, but often overlooked, issues for transition-age youth (e.g., having their own place to live, dating, starting a family). It may be that local resources for these topics are simply less available. Educators who served more students with severe disabilities tended to be more familiar with resources related to supporting students to learn social and communication skills, learn daily living skills, and learn to make choices and decisions. This suggests that who educators serve shapes what they know or need to know. Finally, educators who had been in the field longer reported higher levels of familiarity with resources related to finding or keeping a job, going to college or technical school, volunteering in the community, having their own place to live, having good mental health, attending community events, being part of a faith community, advocating for others, and making their own choices and decisions. Over time, working in the field may lead one to accrue experiences and training that build their familiarity with resources across a wide range of areas.

Second, familiarity with resources related to service needs was also mixed, but somewhat lower overall. Educators reported less familiarity with resources to support community-based service needs (e.g., benefits counseling, respite care) as opposed to school-based service needs (e.g., speech therapy, behavior supports/services), which is to be expected due regular collaborations between educators and related service providers within the school. A large proportion of educators reported little or no familiarity with several key service areas—in-home care, benefits counseling, and respite care—all of which are vital for student and family well-being (e.g., Harper et al., 2013). Educators working in rural communities reported more familiarity with resources related to food assistance, childcare, accessible medical care, physical therapy, and early intervention services. In addition, educators who had been in the field longer tended to have more familiarity with resources for financial assistance, food assistance, assistive technology, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, other therapies, parent or sibling support groups, disability evaluations, and early intervention services. These findings again indicate that years of experience impacts familiarity with resources (Ruppar et al., 2016). The longer the educators are in the field, the more they learn about what is available in the field and in their community.

Third, this study identified which sources of information educators consider the most helpful for their work. Educators tended to report that interpersonal sources of information (e.g., teachers or other school staff, families) were more helpful than independently accessed sources (e.g., books, social media, podcasts). One exception to this finding was the use of internet searches, which have become a ubiquitous source of information. As also evident in a study by Gesel et al. (2021), one primary avenue considered helpful was educators’ personal connections. Educators may be more likely to rely on a personal connection (i.e., fellow teachers) as a source of information because of the regularity of their encounters in school and shared professional expertise. A second avenue was through internet searches (and online videos). Internet searches serve as a helpful source of information due to their breadth of information and immediate accessibility. Furthermore, they can connect educators to desired resources and services outside of typical work hours, accommodating the school day. A third avenue was trainings. Whether sought out or required, trainings provide educators with uninterrupted time to further their knowledge and network with other professionals. In contrast, some of the newer dissemination avenues (e.g., social media, podcasts, blogs) were considered helpful by far fewer educators.

Educators working in rural communities found doctors, therapists, or other medical professionals to be more helpful. This may be due to limited resources and professionals in rural communities compared with those in nonrural communities (Test & Fowler, 2018). In addition, educators who served students with severe disabilities found internet searches to be less helpful, possibly due to the lack of information applicable to their students. Educators with more experience reported research articles or journals to be less helpful, as they rely heavily on their personal experiences from the classroom. It may be that educators who have been working in the field longer rely more on their track record of personal experiences as opposed to published research. It remains important to know what educators consider helpful as it provides service providers and organizations with information on how to best disseminate resources and service information in a meaningful way.

Fourth, educators indicated their eagerness to access an array of proposed resources that could help connect them with disability-related information. Over half of educators indicated they would probably or definitely use 12 of the 14 resources we listed on our survey. This finding highlights the opportunities that state agencies and disability programs have to create valued resources. Educators working in rural communities reported a higher likelihood of accessing a printed guide that explains disability resources simply and a print newsletter highlighting resources, which may be indicative of the challenges some rural communities face regarding internet access. In addition, educators who served students with severe disabilities reported a higher likelihood of accessing automatically provided resources (e.g., notifications of things to consider based on student disability, notifications of upcoming or local events, text messages about resources) as opposed to individually sought out resources. Furthermore, educators with more years of experience reported an increased likelihood of accessing print-based resources (e.g., a printed guide that explains disability resources put simply) as opposed to technology-based resources. As also noted in the study by Corkum et al. (2014), this preference may be due to limited experience with technology as a means of information and resource access among older educators.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations to this study suggest areas for future research. First, we recruited educators within a single state; therefore, our sample represents state-specific demographics. Each state—including both agencies and disability organizations—may adopt different approaches for disseminating information and resources locally. As a result, the portrait of familiarity may be higher or lower in other states based on how they approach this process. To address this limitation, this study should be replicated in other states.

Second, educators who ultimately participated in this study may be more likely to be connected to information and resources than educators who did not. Because this study was shared with school districts and educator databases, those who are already connected to resources and services may have been more likely to receive information about the study than their less-connected colleagues. Future studies should use additional recruitment efforts to reach educators who are not well-connected with statewide educational and transition initiatives. This could be attempted through increased personal contacts to potential participants in underrepresented schools, or counties.

Third, this study relied on self-report from educators. Although educators are in the best position to speak on their own familiarity with various resources and the helpfulness of information sources, there is the potential for participants to indicate they are more familiar than they actually are. We tried to address this possibility by allowing anonymous responses. Future studies should prioritize both participant anonymity and the neutral wording of survey questions to promote accurate responses.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Findings from this study have several implications for policy and practice. First, we documented moderate and varied levels of educator familiarity with resources related to student experiences and key service needs. To improve educator familiarity with resources available in their community, school districts should collaborate with their own federally funded information and referral centers. Nationally, there are more than 100 Parent Centers funded by the Office of Special Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Such programs often maintain databases of community resources that can be searched by topic. In addition, many states have developed and funded their own resource centers with disability-related information and resources. Most participants in our study, however, reported very little familiarity with these resources. In addition, community organizations and programs may benefit from disseminating information about their resources directly to schools.

Second, as noted in the study by Shepherd et al. (2016), it may be beneficial for university programs to instruct educators on how to access a range of resources and services prior to graduation. For example, every state has a Developmental Disabilities Network made up of a state Council on Developmental Disabilities, a protection and advocacy agency, and at least one university center for excellence in developmental disabilities. These agencies are supported by the Administration for Community Living in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and freely offer a wide range of information and resources and services and support in their states. Explicit instruction on resource and service access will help new educators build their professional repertoire. Furthermore, educators may benefit from the identification of commonly valued experiences and service needs of their desired student population upon graduation to increase their familiarity with each area prior to entering the classroom.

Third, community organizations and programs should prioritize the creation of resources that are accessible through multiple means (e.g., print-based resources, technology-based resources, toll-free number) to best meet the diverse needs of educators within the state. By providing multiple means of information access, educators can access needed information in the way that serves them best.

Summary

Access to information is crucial to the effectiveness of educators and the success of students. Although educators reported varied familiarity with a range of resources and services, they did report a strong likelihood of various resource use, indicating a desire to build their professional repertoire through accessing resources and services. Our findings establish the need for streamlined resource dissemination, strengthened teacher training, and the creation of multiple means of resources.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a contract with the Tennessee Council on Developmental Disabilities and through Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [NCATS]/National Institutes of Health [NIH]). We are grateful for the contributions of Kara Charpentier, Lily Hauptman, Claire Lawrence, and Emilee Spann to this project.

ORCID iD

Erik W. Carter

Author Biographies

Claire E. Lawrence received her master’s degree in special education (low-incidence disabilities) from Vanderbilt University. She currently serves as a behavior technician in Kentucky.

Erik W. Carter is the Lewis Sweet Endowed Chair in Disabilities at Baylor University. His research focuses on evidence-based strategies for enhancing outcomes and valued roles in school, work, community, and congregational settings for individuals with intellectual disability, autism, and multiple disabilities.

Emily R. Lanchak is an Educational Consultant at Vanderbilt University. Her work focuses on strengthening dissemination pathways and outcomes for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.

Elise D. McMillan is Co-Director of the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. She has more than 20 years of experience in leading programs and projects that support individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, their families, and their communities.

References

Azano

A. P.

Tackett

M. E.

(2018). Perceptions of teachers and parents on the educational experiences of students with autism in a remote rural community. The Rural Educator, 38(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v38i3.219

Beahm

L. A.

Cook

B. G.

(2021). Merging practice-based evidence and evidence-based practices to close the research-to-practice gap. In Cook

B. G.

Tankersley

Landrum

T. L.

(Eds.), The next big thing in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 47–60). Emerald.

Brock

M. E.

Huber

H. B.

Carter

E. W.

Juarez

A. P.

Warren

Z. E.

(2014). Statewide assessment of professional development needs related to educating students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 29(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614522290

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

Courtade

G. R

. (2020). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. The Guilford Press.

Carter

E. W.

Lanchak

E. R.

McMillan

E. D.

(2022). “Too many brick walls”: Perspectives on accessing disability information and resources among service providers. Inclusion, 10(4), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-10.4.256

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Corkum

P. V.

Bryson

S. E.

Smith

I. M.

Giffin

Hume

Power

A. M.

(2014). Professional development needs for educators working with children with autism spectrum disorders in inclusive school environments. Exceptionality Education International, 24(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v24i1.7709

Council for Exceptional Children. (2022). Initial special education preparation standards. https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards/initial-special-education-preparation-standards

Drahota

Sadler

Hippensteel

Ingersoll

Bishop

(2020). Service deserts and service oases: Utilizing geographic information systems to evaluate service availability for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 24(8), 2008–2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320931265

10.

Education Week Research Center. (2019). Education innovation: Results of a national survey.

11.

Gesel

S. A.

Foreman-Murray

Gilmour

A. F.

(2021). Sufficiency of teachers’ access to resources and supports for students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 45(3), 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211046237

12.

Harper

Taylor Dyches

Harper

Olsen Roper

South

(2013). Respite care, marital quality, and stress in parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(11), 2604–2616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1812-0

13.

Harris

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

(2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

14.

Huscroft-D’Angelo

Farley

Duppong Hurley

Lambert

Trout

(2021). Engaging parents in special education: An examination of knowledge and access to resources. Exceptionality, 30(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.2006060

15.

Jackson

C. K.

Bruegmann

(2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 85–108. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.1.4.85

16.

Knight

Huber

H. B.

Kuntz

Carter

E. W.

Juárez

(2019). Instructional practices, priorities, and preparedness for educating students with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755694

17.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities

18.

Ruppar

A. L.

Neeper

L. S.

Dalsen

(2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916672843

19.

Shepherd

K. G.

Fowler

McCormick

Wilson

C. L.

Morgan

(2016). The search for role clarity: Challenges and implications for special education teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637904

20.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

(2018). A look at the past, present, and future of rural secondary transition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(2), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517751607