The Experiences of Teacher Candidates With Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Despite the availability of disability resource centers and reasonable accommodations to facilitate access among teacher candidates with disabilities, research has shown that access alone may not be conducive to equitable educational experiences that promote program retention and completion. The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to synthesize existing research on the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities in teacher preparation programs and present implications and future directions for research, policy, and practice in higher education disability resources and special education teacher preparation to advance both access and equity in these settings. Results from five total articles showed that teacher candidates with disabilities experienced several barriers to access in their teacher preparation programs that negatively impacted their personal and professional outcomes. The authors conclude with a discussion of future directions for research, policy, and practice in both special education teacher preparation and higher education disability resources.

Keywords

teacher preparation disabled teacher candidates disability disability resources

In the United States, 19% of all postsecondary students report having at least one disability (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019). Frequently, college students with disabilities disclose their disabilities to disability resource centers (DRCs) and request accommodations to mitigate barriers in various higher education environments (e.g., academic, residential, clinical; Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], 1990; Gaddy, 2012; Meeks & Jain, 2018). Upon disclosure, students meet with disability resource professionals (DRPs) to collaboratively determine whether their requested accommodations are within the realm of reasonableness (i.e., removing barriers while not compromising academic standards), a process that often involves students’ submitting both medical documentation to verify disability status and a statement of disability impact (ADA, 1990; AHEAD, 2021; Aquino & Bittinger, 2019; Yull, 2015). If DRPs approve accommodation requests, they support students and relevant stakeholders (e.g., faculty and staff) in accommodation implementation and work with students to modify accommodations as needed (Oslund, 2014). Altogether, DRPs’ responsibilities are centered on ensuring students with disabilities have access to all dimensions of their higher education experiences (i.e., all spaces, programs, and services are usable regardless of disability) as set forth by federal law (ADA, 1990; Rehabilitation Act, 1973).

Despite the well intentions of DRPs and disability-related legislation to create access and equal opportunity for students with disabilities in higher education settings, disparities persist between these students and their non-disabled peers. For example, even with the availability of DRCs, DRPs, and accommodations, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) found that in July of 2021, only 21.1% of people with disabilities aged 25 or older in the United States completed a bachelor’s degree; in contrast, this percentage was nearly double (41%) for people without disabilities. Further, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that 57% of non-disabled college students complete their bachelor’s degree in 5 years as compared with only 40% of students with disabilities completing their degree during the same 5-year window, demonstrating notable attrition among college students with disabilities (NCES, 2019).

Given the discrepancies in degree completion between students with and without disabilities, only focusing on access may not be effective in creating educational experiences that are conducive to program retention and degree completion among students with disabilities in higher education settings (Francis et al., 2018; Parker & Draves, 2017). More specifically, it is possible that despite providing access, DRPs may fall short in assuring equity. When equity is achieved, implementation of access will be individualized to students’ unique identities and experiences and account for broader barriers to access beyond those mitigated through accommodations (Annamma et al., 2013; Artiles, 2011; Kraus, 2021). Barriers, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2001), are “factors in a person’s environment that, through their absence or presence, limit functioning and create a disability” (p. 214).

Examples of barriers to access in higher education settings may include (a) “inadequate policies and standards” (i.e., do not consider the needs of individuals with disabilities or are implemented ineffectively), (b) “problems with service delivery” (i.e., “poor coordination of service, inadequate staffing”), or (c) “negative attitudes toward disability,” (WHO, 2011, p. 9). Negative attitudes towards disability, in particular, may stem from ableism; ableism, according to disability scholars, encompasses intentional or unintentional beliefs or actions that undervalue people because they are disabled (Dolmage, 2017; Kraus, 2021; Ladau, 2021). In higher education settings, then, it may be the case that large-scale barriers to access—potentially tied to conscious or unconscious ableism—are present within postsecondary programs of study and, consequently, impact academic persistence among students with disabilities.

Access and Equity in Special Education Teacher Preparation

Ensuring access, let alone equity is a multifaceted challenge for DRPs working with students across many professional certificates and licensure programs, which is especially true in special education teacher education programs. This is because there are nested and sometimes competing factors such as state accreditation requirements, professional licensure standards, university protocol, and research-based practices informing the policies and practices for preparing profession-ready special educators. As such, teacher candidates with disabilities often report feeling burdensome to their preparation programs and convey a general sense of unpreparedness for their disability-related needs among those who are intended to support them (e.g., DRPs, faculty; Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Griffiths, 2012). In fact, when special education teacher candidates with disabilities seek accommodations within their teacher preparation coursework, they often encounter hesitancy or uncertainty from DRPs, faculty, staff, and clinical field experience stakeholders (e.g., cooperating teachers) who are concerned such accommodations will compromise the profession’s standards (Baldwin, 2007; Griffiths, 2012; Leyser & Greenberger, 2008).

Rigorous preparation standards are thought to be necessary for elevating the profession and addressing special education teachers’ chronic challenges when entering the workforce (Brownell et al., 2019). For example, according to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, n.d.), a predominant professional voice in special education, teacher candidates must fulfill the requirements of a bachelor’s degree and engage in “sufficient opportunities to develop and demonstrate appropriate pedagogical skills, including extensive field experiences and clinical practice” (para. 2). This emphasis on practice-based learning opportunities through field experiences translates to multiple, complex placement situations. During such field experiences, teacher candidates are placed in dynamic classrooms where real-time teaching and learning are happening. Such settings are far from controlled environments, but these practice-based learning opportunities are considered to be the most important aspect of teacher preparation (Nagro & deBettencourt, 2017), underscoring the importance of access to such experiences for all teacher candidates, including candidates with disabilities.

For this reason, as noted by Baldwin (2007), special education teacher preparation programs are unique in the duality of the reasonableness of accommodations that DRPs weigh when determining accommodations, as their preparation programs are held to the standards of their university and those of the special education teaching profession (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children, Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation). DRPS’ assessments of reasonableness for candidates in teacher preparation programs must ensure that accommodations do not fundamentally alter programmatic or professional standards, requiring careful collaboration between candidates, teacher preparation program faculty and staff, and other stakeholders such as school-based personnel (Baldwin, 2007; Scott, 1997; Scott & Gregg, 2000). As a result, the complexities of ensuring access in the context of special education teacher preparation may cause DRPs to unintentionally place an emphasis on compliance as an assurance of access. Compliance as a first step is understandable given the many layers of policy guidance, but compliance as the only step does not necessarily meet the needs of all parties involved, especially the teacher candidates with disabilities passionate about finding a pathway into the profession.

Recognizing the pressing need to effectively-prepare profession-ready special educators who can fill chronic workforce shortages and the increased emphasis placed on diversifying the workforce (Office of Special Education Programs, 2020), identifying potential solutions to improving equitable access to high-quality preparation for candidates with disabilities seems paramount. As a starting point to identifying solutions, the CEC (2016) put forth guidance titled CEC’s Policy on Educators with Disabilities, outlining principles for preparation programs and school systems to apply in practice to mitigate barriers for special educators with disabilities in the following domains: self-advocacy, self-identity, supports and accommodations, and legal responsibilities. Despite the presence of the CEC’s (2016) guidance, however, disparities between expected practices and those impacting the experiences of disabled teacher candidates seemingly persist, underscoring the need for continued evaluation of current approaches to access and equity in special education teacher preparation. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review of the literature is to synthesize existing research on the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities in teacher preparation programs and present implications and future directions for research, policy, and practice in higher education disability resources and special education teacher preparation to advance both access and equity in these settings.

The following questions guided this systematic review:

How are the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities studied?

What conclusions can be drawn from existing literature regarding the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities?

How do experiences in teacher preparation programs influence teacher candidates with disabilities?

Method

To address each research question, the researchers conducted a systematic literature review to explore existing research on the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities. Descriptions of each phase of this systematic review are detailed in the following sections.

Establishing Eligibility Criteria

All articles were initially screened to determine if they met the following criteria: (a) peer-reviewed; (b) empirical study using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; (c) written in English; and (d) set in the United States (i.e., reflective of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act). If articles met the screening criteria, they were then investigated further to determine if they met the following inclusion criteria: (a) included special education teacher candidates with disabilities; (b) explored experiences in teacher preparation programs); and (c) published after the reauthorization of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 2008 (i.e., representative of the current legal climate). The reauthorization of the ADA expanded the definition of “disability” and, consequently, the potential number of disabled teacher candidates protected by this legislation and entitled to accommodations in higher education settings.

Literature Identification Procedures

To locate articles meeting the inclusion criteria for this review, the first author accessed the databases of Academic Search Complete, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), Social Sciences Citation Index, Education Research Complete, and APA PsycINFO. Next, the researcher used multiple combinations of the following search terms to locate articles: (“college students with disabilities” OR “disabled college students” OR “teacher candidates with disabilities” OR “disabled teacher candidates” OR “disabled preservice teachers” OR “preservice teachers with disabilities”) AND (“teacher education” OR “teacher training” OR “teacher preparation”). This initial search yielded 48 results. Once 15 duplicate results were removed, the results were filtered to include only articles that were (a) peer-reviewed, (b) published in academic journals, (c) written in English, and (d) published after 2008. A total of 18 articles remained to screen at the title and abstract level for relevance to this review. Of the 18 potential articles, seven articles were identified for a full-text review based on the initial eligibility criteria. In this full-text review, two articles were excluded because they occurred outside of the United States, and two were excluded because they did not include teacher candidates with disabilities studying special education, leaving a total of three articles to include in this review.

Next, the first author input the same search terms ((“college students with disabilities” OR “disabled college students” OR “teacher candidates with disabilities” OR “disabled teacher candidates” OR “disabled preservice teachers” OR “preservice teachers with disabilities”) AND (“teacher education” OR “teacher training” OR “teacher preparation”)) into ProQuest to identity relevant dissertation studies in which to conduct ancestry searches of their reference lists. With these search terms, two dissertation studies were identified as pertinent to conducting an ancestry search, yielding an additional six potential articles for inclusion in this systematic review. The six articles were then screened at the title and abstract levels. This ancestry search yielded no additional results.

The first author then conducted ancestry searches within the three articles located in the database search, identifying five potential articles through a title screening for a full review. After a full review, it was determined that none met the inclusion criteria for this review. Finally, the first author conducted progeny searches of the three included articles, identifying four potential articles through a title screening for a full review. Of the four potential articles, none were determined to meet the inclusion criteria for this review. See Table 1 for the results of the initial literature search.

Table 1.

Results of Initial Literature Search.

Search method	Potential articles	All included articles
Database searches	7	3
Hand searches of dissertations	6	0
Ancestry searches of included articles	5	0
Progeny searches of included articles	4	0
Total articles		3

Due to the limited results of the initial search, a second search was conducted with expanded inclusion criteria to include teacher candidates with disabilities in any teacher preparation program instead of those in special education preparation programs only. With this expanded criterion, the first author conducted a second round of each search in the same databases and dissertations and then ancestry and progeny searches of the newly included articles. First, the first author input multiple combinations of the same search terms ((“college students with disabilities” OR “disabled college students” OR “teacher candidates with disabilities” OR “disabled teacher candidates” OR “disabled preservice teachers” OR “preservice teachers with disabilities”) AND (“teacher education” OR “teacher training” OR “teacher preparation”)) into Academic Search Complete, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), Social Sciences Citation Index, Education Research Complete, and APA PsycINFO to return to the initial 18 results. Of these 18, three additional articles were reviewed in full, and upon application of inclusion criteria, researchers determined that two new articles met all criteria for this review.

Next, the first author returned to the two dissertations to conduct a secondary ancestry search of their references for articles meeting the expanded inclusion criteria. From this ancestry search, three potential articles were identified, and after a full-text review, all three were excluded for taking place outside of the United States. Finally, the first author conducted secondary ancestry and progeny searches of all articles meeting all inclusion criteria. In the ancestry search, three articles were screened in full, and one met all additional inclusion criteria for this review. The progeny search of all six results yielded two literature reviews (Bellacicco & Demo, 2021; Neca et al., 2022) in which to conduct additional ancestry searches of references. This final ancestry search yielded no further results, as all potential articles were excluded for occurring outside of the United States. As a measure of inter-rater reliability, the first and second authors independently coded the final pool of six articles. There was one discrepancy; after discussing this, the authors removed this one article from the sample as it was deemed not empirical. Therefore, five articles were included in the analysis (see Table 2).

Table 2

Results of Expanded Literature Search.

Search method	Newly included articles
Database searches	2
Hand searches of dissertations	0
Ancestry searches of included articles	1
Progeny searches of included articles	0
Total	3
Cumulative total	5

Data Analysis Procedures

To begin data analysis, the first author extracted data from all five articles into a summative table, including (a) authors’ names, (b) the title of the article, (c) aims/purpose, (d) research questions, (e) methodology, (f) data collection, (g) participants, (h) setting, (i) findings, and (j) implications. Of the five articles, two (Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018) included participants from the same study (i.e., one larger study divided into multiple publications), and of these participants (college students with disabilities in professional preparation programs), some were not studying teacher education. As a result, the first author carefully extracted findings that either (a) referred directly to participants enrolled in teacher education programs or (b) cited “several,” or “many” participants, as the authors reported that 48% of participants were teacher candidates.

Because all five articles included in this systematic review involved the use of qualitative methodology for data collection and analysis, the first author then extracted all relevant findings (e.g., quotations, researchers’ interpretations, and summaries) that addressed the current research questions (i.e., the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities) into an analysis table to engage in thematic analysis. The first author’s analytic process was iterative and included constant comparative coding of all extracted data units, subcategory development, and categories within the data. The first author then organized these categories into three interrelated themes drawn directly from the data. The second author, who was blind to the initial coding process, reviewed each theme along with the emic comments and coded them as either representative or not representative of the given theme. Intercoder reliability showed no inconsistencies, as the raw data cohered to each assigned theme and there was no overlap. All themes, categories, and subcategories are presented in the following section.

Results

To answer research question one, this section will include a summary of the characteristics of all five articles (four studies) included in this systematic review (see Table 3). Following this summary results of the systematic review are presented, organized by research questions two and three and the themes that emerged within each.

Table 3

Description of Included Studies.

Citation	Researcher aims	Participants	Participants’ disabilities	Setting	Data collection
Bargerhuff et al. (2012)	To understand the experiences of one teacher candidate with a disability in teacher preparation	Zachary, a teacher candidate studying early childhood education, his Director of Field Placement, & his field supervisor	Traumatic brain injury (TBI)	A mid-sized university in the United States	Written reflections, concern conference notes, emails, evaluation reports, and verbatim accounts of conversations
Parker and Draves (2017)	To re-story the student teaching experience of two preservice music education majors who are visually impaired or blind	Two teacher candidates in music education (Antoine and Lindsey) their cooperating teachers, & university supervisors	Visually impaired and blind	Two universities in the United States	Multiple interviews, reflective journals, observation notes, emails, informal conversations, and re-storying
Siuty and Beneke (2020)	To explore the ways teacher candidates with disabilities experience ableism	25 teacher candidates in various preparation programs	Diverse disabilities	Two universities in the Pacific Northwest and one university in the Midwest of the United States	Interviews, written reflections, and Critical Conversation Journey Mapping
Squires and Countermine (2018)	To understand the experiences of college students with disabilities in professional preparation programs	12 students in professional preparation programs	Diverse disabilities	A public college in the North-eastern United States	Surveys and optional follow-up interviews
Squires et al. (2018)		12 students in professional preparation programs	Diverse disabilities	A public college in the North-eastern United States	Surveys and optional follow-up interviews

How Are the Experiences of Teacher Candidates With Disabilities Studied?

Description of Included Studies

Researchers in all four studies employed qualitative methodology to answer their research questions. Researchers did vary, however, in their approach to qualitative methods. Bargerhuff and colleagues (2012), for example, used a “case study ethnographic approach with qualitative methods to obtain an extensive description of a single unit or bounded system” (p. 190). Two studies utilized narrative inquiry; Parker and Draves (2017), on one hand, engaged in re-storying with participants, while Siuty and Beneke (2020), on the other hand, engaged participants in Critical Conversation Journey Mapping (CCJM) to explore their experiences in teacher preparation visually. Finally, Squires and Countermine (2018) and Squires and colleagues (2018) employed a survey instrument with optional follow-up interviews using a phenomenological approach.

Research Aims

Using various approaches to qualitative methodology, all authors sought to understand the experiences of students with disabilities, primarily in the context of teacher preparation programs. Two studies generally focused on the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities in teacher preparation to inform future policy and practice (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017), and more specifically, one study focused on how teacher candidates with disabilities experienced ableism within their programs of study (Siuty & Beneke, 2020). In addition, one study (two articles) focused broadly on the experiences of students with disabilities in professional preparation programs, including a large sample of students in teacher education programs (Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018).

Participants

Studies varied in their participants relative to sample size, degree program, and disability diagnoses. However, all students were actively enrolled in teacher preparation programs when the research was conducted. Two studies reported including teacher candidates with disabilities from special education programs (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Siuty & Beneke, 2020; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018), one study included teacher candidates from music education programs (Parker & Draves, 2017), and one study included teacher candidates from various degree programs, including special education (Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018). Some studies also recruited teacher preparation stakeholders, such as cooperating teachers and field supervisors, to provide their perspectives on participants’ experiences (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017). Sample sizes ranged from a single case (Bargerhuff et al., 2012) to two participants and their respective teacher preparation support systems (Parker & Draves, 2017) to larger sample sizes (e.g., 25, 12; Siuty & Beneke, 2020; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018) from which to aggregate findings.

Only two studies reported specific disability diagnoses. One study included a teacher candidate with a Traumatic Brain Injury (Bargerhuff et al., 2012), and another included two participants who were visually impaired or blind (Parker & Draves, 2017). Other studies (Siuty & Beneke, 2020; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018) reported including participants with diverse disabilities. Siuty and Beneke (2020) noted the use of a broad definition of disability (i.e., not limited to categories or diagnoses) when they recruited participants to include a wide range of experiences in their sample.

Setting

All studies took place within the United States. One study was conducted at a public college in the Northeast region of the United States (Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018). Two studies took place across multiple institutions; one study did not specify where these institutions were located (Parker & Draves, 2017) and the other noted including participants from two universities in the Pacific Northwest region and one in the Midwest region of the United States (Siuty & Beneke, 2020). Bargerhuff and colleagues (2012) did not report a geographical location. Still, they noted conducting their research at a mid-sized university in the United States. University location (e.g., state leadership and corresponding political priorities) and size (i.e., the ratio of DRPs to students with disabilities) are important policy-related factors to consider in accommodation implementation within DRCs.

Data Collection

All studies used various qualitative data collection methods to address their research questions. Three research teams employed interviews as a means of data collection (Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018), three included document (e.g., journals and written reflections) and analyses (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020), and two accessed emails/field notes for analysis (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017). Two research teams (Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020) used methods more specific to narrative inquiry, such as re-storying and Critical Conversation Journey Mapping. Only one study used a survey instrument to collect data (Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018).

What Conclusions Can Be Drawn from Existing Literature Regarding the Experiences of Teacher Candidates With Disabilities?

Barriers to Access in Teacher Preparation

All studies highlighted numerous barriers to access that impacted the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities in teacher preparation programs. The categories within this theme include (a) negative perceptions of teacher candidates with disabilities, (b) differential treatment because of disability, and (c) lack of access.

Negative Perceptions of Teacher Candidates With Disabilities

Many researchers noted deficit-based thinking toward teacher candidates with disabilities as common among faculty, staff, and other teacher preparation stakeholders (Parker & Draves, 2017; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018). According to researchers, deficit-based thinking manifested as (a) situating candidates’ disabilities as their responsibility to manage (Parker & Draves, 2017), (b) viewing disability as a negative and limiting attribute (Squires et al., 2018), and (c) focusing primarily on teacher candidates’ disabilities while working with them (Squires & Countermine, 2018). As an example, Bargerhuff and colleagues (2012) found that one field supervisor approached their work with Zachary, a teacher candidate with a disability, with a mind-set of trying “fix” his disability after other field supervisors noted that he lacked potential as a teacher because of it (p. 195).

In addition, researchers found that stakeholders commonly believed that teacher candidates with disabilities should not enter the teaching profession (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020; Squires et al., 2018). One participant, for example, described a time when a faculty member explicitly told them to exit the teaching profession based on the impact of their disability:

I had a professor who one time told me I should maybe think about switching my major because I forget to hand things in . . . I know I’m going to be a darn good teacher. I’m 100% sure of that. It just made me so mad because depression can actually make you lose your memory (Squires & Countermine, 2018, p. 36).

Similarly, another participant noted that an instructor told them that because of their Learning Disability, they “definitely shouldn’t be in the field of special education” (Squires et al., 2018, p. 129).

Finding similar experiences among their participants, Siuty and Beneke (2020) attributed these negative perceptions of teacher candidates with disabilities to ableism. Specifically, Siuty and Beneke (2020) uncovered detailed accounts of “normative expectations” (i.e., being non-disabled) that teacher candidates with disabilities felt they had to conform to succeed in their programs of study (p. 35). Although not explicitly noted as ableism, Parker and Draves (2017) also described the impact of the idea that sight is “an essential function” of the teaching profession on blind and visually impaired teacher candidates (Antoine and Lindsay) as both of their participants discussed the extent to which they faced skepticism among stakeholders (e.g., field supervisors) regarding how they would become effective teachers with disabilities (p. 398).

Differential Treatment Because of Disability

As a likely consequence of the various negative perceptions toward teacher candidates with disabilities, researchers provided numerous examples of differential treatment of participants within their findings (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017). In all instances, this differential treatment manifested as either over-accommodating/supporting the teacher candidate because of their disability (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017) or direct discrimination based on disability (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017). For example, in terms of over-accommodating, Bargerhuff and colleagues (2012) found that Zachary’s cooperating teacher made conscious efforts to make his fieldwork experience easier, “opting to always give him another chance” when he made mistakes in the classroom (p. 192). Notably, researchers also found that Zachary’s cooperating teacher was hand-picked solely because she had a child with a disability and may have been more “accepting of people with disabilities” and therefore best qualified to work with him (Bargerhuff et al., 2012, p. 192).

Similarly, Parker and Draves (2017) found that the principal of Antoine’s cooperating school requested that he have an assistant with him because he had a visual impairment. As Antoine noted, this request was the first of its kind in his teacher preparation program, and as a result, he did not understand why he required an assistant when other teacher candidates did not (Parker & Draves, 2017). The researchers found that this situation eventually amounted to one of discrimination, as the assistant shared with Antoine that because he was the first student teacher at their school to have a visual impairment, he had to put in additional work to demonstrate his abilities as a teacher (Parker & Draves, 2017). However, this instance of discrimination was more covert than those experienced by Zachary; on two separate occasions, Zachary was denied placement in a classroom for his student teaching experience because of his disability (Bargerhuff et al., 2012).

Lack of Access

Three articles described a general lack of access for participants in several domains of teacher preparation. These findings included (a) inaccessible materials (Parker & Draves, 2017), (b) inadequate accommodations from DRCS (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Squires & Countermine, 2018), and (c) failures in effectively implementing accommodations in fieldwork (Parker & Draves, 2017; Squires & Countermine, 2018). Researchers found, for example, that despite previous accommodation approval through their respective DRCs, some participants encountered field supervisors who were either unwilling to implement accommodations or not prepared and knowledgeable in how to do so effectively (Squires & Countermine, 2018). Challenges in implementing accommodations were echoed by both Parker and Draves (2017) and Bargerhuff and colleagues (2012), who found that in some instances, miscommunications occurred between DRCs and cooperating schools concerning approved accommodations, again limiting teacher candidates’ access to clinical field experiences.

As a result of a lack of access, Parker and Draves (2017) discussed the consequential self-accommodating that occurred on the part of two participants, Antoine and Lindsay, in their clinical field experiences. Antoine, for example, found himself regularly adapting to a lack of accessible materials in his music education program; instead of using the brailed scores he was supposed to have available to him, he often worked with students in his classroom to develop scores on his Brailler (Parker & Draves, 2017). However, Lindsay typically had access to brailed scores but faced barriers when her lesson plans were changed at the last minute, or she was asked to rehearse different scores with her students unexpectedly (Parker & Draves, 2017). To self-accommodate, Lindsay relied on her students, her audio recorder, or accompanists to ensure she had access to her clinical field experiences (Parker & Draves, 2017).

Impact of Barriers to Access

In addition to describing the barriers to access in teacher preparation programs, researchers also discussed the impact of these barriers on teacher candidates with disabilities. The categories within this theme include (a) variations of inadequate support, (b) challenges in field experience settings, and (c) teacher candidates’ fears and perceptions.

Variations of Inadequate Support

Researchers found several approaches to providing support for teacher candidates with disabilities, and all were deemed inadequate by either the teacher preparation program stakeholders or by the teacher candidates themselves. Bargerhuff and colleagues (2012), for example, discussed an approach used to support Zachary called a “concern conference,” which involved anything from “brainstorming accommodations, to developing action plans for remediation, and finally to communicating final results” of his student teaching experiences (p. 191). This finding reveals a reactive approach to support, in which cooperating teachers and field supervisors connect with the teacher candidate only in response to an issue or concern (Bargerhuff et al., 2012). Zachary’s experience was similar to that of Antoine’s; Antoine reported meeting with his university supervisor only when he started to experience barriers in his field experiences, during which he was told that he needed to “learn how to learn” (Parker & Draves, 2017, p. 393).

Zachary’s experiences also reflect an additional variation of inadequate support: erasing disability (Bargerhuff et al., 2012). Specifically, in their written reflections, Zachary’s cooperating teacher and field supervisor noted that they tried to “negate the impact of his disability” (Bargerhuff et al., 2012, p. 196). Relatedly, another participant (Violet) described her efforts to erase her disability to “survive” in response to the normative expectations of her support systems, including keeping her diagnosis a secret and “masking” its impact to the greatest extent possible (p. 35). According to Violet, without these conscious efforts to erase her disability, she was labeled as “lazy” instead of valued and supported as a teacher candidate with a diverse identity (Siuty & Beneke, 2020, p. 35).

Challenges in Field Experience Settings

Researchers found that the impact of barriers to access was particularly pertinent in clinical field experience settings. The logistics involved in completing field experiences, for example, were noted by Parker and Draves (2017) as barriers for both Antoine and Lindsay. Specifically, Antoine and Lindsay described difficulties ensuring access to transportation to and from their cooperating schools (Parker & Draves, 2017). Lindsay, in particular, arranged transportation through her university but found it to be unreliable:

AccessShuttle was not finding the same gate every time, and it was never the same driver. We just decided that my dad would show me how to get from the administration building to the choir room. Which is a little bit of a walk. . .Right now I am just following directions on my recorder. If I walk it a number of times, I will eventually get it (Parker & Draves, 2017, p. 395).

Zachary, too, had difficulty traveling to his cooperating school (Bargerhuff et al., 2012), but researchers noted that this was not the most challenging aspect of fieldwork for him. Alternatively, they noted that because his support system only focused on providing him with physical accommodations, they left him to “flounder” in the technical aspects of student teaching, such as lesson planning and classroom management (Bargerhuff et al., 2012, p. 193). In the same vein, Parker and Draves (2017) noted that Antoine and Lindsay’s field experiences “turned their visual impairment or blindness into a disability” (p. 397) because of (a) students taking advantage of them/lack of cooperating teacher support in classroom management and (b) being in “fight or flight” mode (p. 393) while managing a new, complex, and often inaccessible environment.

Teacher Candidates’ Fears & Self-Perceptions

A total of four articles addressed the fears and self-perceptions among teacher candidates with disabilities during their time in teacher preparation. Specifically, Squires and colleagues (2018) found that several participants emphasized the stigma of using accommodations and their fear of accessing them in teacher preparation. One participant described this stigma as the result of society’s negative perceptions of disability, while others went further and stated that this stigma created a fear of being “singled out” (Squires et al., 2018, p. 129). Antoine and Lindsay echoed this fear of accommodation usage, citing the belief that the administration would not be willing to grant their approved accommodations, concerns that accommodation usage would make them unemployable, and (c) uncertainty in how needed accommodations would translate to practice (Parker & Draves, 2017).

Furthermore, many participants discussed internalized negative perceptions of themselves as students and future teachers (Siuty & Beneke, 2020; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018). More specifically, some described their disabilities as deficits or the cause of their challenges in teacher preparation (Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018). Other participants took this a step further by expressing their desire to be “normal” and equally capable as their non-disabled peers (Siuty & Beneke, 2020; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018). Moreover, Parker and Draves (2017) noted that these fears and deficit perspectives impacted Antoine and Lindsay by “weakening” their identities as teachers due to the culmination of stress, anxiety, and uncertainty surrounding their acceptance from students, school staff, and teacher preparation stakeholders (p. 399).

How Do Experiences in Teacher Preparation Programs Influence Teacher Candidates With Disabilities?

Long-Term Consequences of Barriers to Access

Three studies addressed the long-term consequences of the barriers to access in teacher preparation for teacher candidates with disabilities (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020). The categories with this theme include (a) leaving the teaching profession and (b) damaged disability and teacher identity.

Leaving the Teaching Profession

Of the research studies in which participants’ outcomes within their teacher preparation programs were reported (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017), two participants (Zachary, Antoine) either withdrew from or failed their clinical field experiences. Moreover, all three participants (Zachary, Antoine, and Lindsay) reportedly did not enter the teaching profession. Zachary, for example, was deemed a “threat” to the health and safety of students and, ultimately, ineligible for teaching licensure (Bargerhuff et al., 2012, p. 193). On the other hand, Antoine withdrew from his student teaching experience after only 7 weeks in his clinical field placement, citing feelings of overwhelm and anxiety (Parker & Draves, 2017). On the matter, Antoine stated:

I really don’t know how to sum it all, I just think there are things I could have done, but there were things that maybe other people could have done to make it more successful. . .it is hard to explain (Parker & Draves, 2017, p. 394).

Finally, although Lindsay did complete her program of study, she decided that public education was not a good fit for her based on her experiences in teacher preparation (Parker & Draves, 2017). For her, barriers such as the financial aspects of being a teacher with a visual impairment and general uncertainty in access led her to pursue music in community/church spaces instead of education, noting that these environments were liberating and flexible (Parker & Draves, 2017).

Damaged Disability and Teacher Identity

Researchers reported several personal outcomes from teacher candidates’ experiences in teacher preparation (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020). Antoine and Lindsay, for example, were found to have sustained immense damage to their teacher identities as a direct result of their experiences in teacher preparation (Parker & Draves, 2017). In addition, Zachary ultimately developed a “learned helplessness” concerning his abilities as a teacher and an inability to accept responsibility for his actions, which researchers attributed to the numerous failures among his teacher preparation stakeholders in supporting him as a teacher candidate (Bargerhuff et al., 2012, p. 188). Furthermore, Siuty and Beneke (2020) found that because of their experiences with ableism in higher education, several teacher candidates (a) downplayed their disability identity, (b) became accustomed to acting “normal” to be successful, and (c) found themselves feeling responsible for others’ responses to them as teacher candidates with disabilities. Siuty and Beneke (2020) also found, however, that because of these experiences, participants developed a critical consciousness regarding ableism in education and, as such, developed “invaluable insight into the specific role educators play in upholding ableism” (p. 39). See Figure 1 for a conceptual model of the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Model of the Experiences of Teacher Candidates With Disabilities.

Discussion

The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to synthesize existing research on the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities to present implications and future directions for higher education disability resources and special education teacher preparation. Five articles (four total studies) were included in this review for analysis. Overall, this systematic review of the literature revealed an urgent need to address the state of teacher preparation for teacher candidates with disabilities. Although only three included articles named special education teacher preparation specifically, the consistency of barriers to access across teacher education programs allows for conclusions concerning the experiences of special education teacher candidates with disabilities. Furthermore, results point to numerous facets of teacher preparation in which DRPs and teacher preparation programs can expand their focus from access alone to proactively removing barriers; if done effectively, it may be possible to enhance both equity and access for teacher candidates with disabilities and strengthen the pipeline special educators with disabilities.

As a key theme, researchers found numerous barriers to access within teacher preparation that cumulatively harmed the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities. These barriers included (a) negative perceptions of teacher candidates with disabilities (Parker & Draves, 2017; Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018), (b) differential treatment of teacher candidates because of their disability (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017), and (c) a general lack of access to educational experiences (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Squires & Countermine, 2018). This consistency of inaccessible educational experiences among teacher candidates with disabilities—regardless of the degree program—sheds light on an urgent need for shifting policy and practice within teacher preparation broadly and higher education disability resources to support individuals in improving the equitable application of policies and procedures in place to support teacher candidates with disabilities.

In addition, this review revealed the impact of barriers to access in teacher preparation programs. Together, these impacts included (a) variations of inadequate support for teacher candidates (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020), (b) challenges in field placement settings (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017), and (c) teacher candidates’ fears and self-perceptions (Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke; (Squires et al., 2018; Squires & Countermine, 2018). In the long-term, impacts of barriers to access evolved to include (a) leaving the teaching profession (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017) and (b) a damaged teacher and disability identity (Bargerhuff et al., 2012; Parker & Draves, 2017; Siuty & Beneke, 2020). This contributes to a new understanding of the dangers of ignoring these issues in teacher preparation programs and points to the potential causes of limited success in recruiting special education teachers with disabilities.

Altogether, results of this systematic literature review contribute new knowledge to the field by revealing that the current state of teacher preparation does deter teacher candidates with disabilities from entering the teaching profession, including special educators with disabilities.

Of particular concern, during their time in teacher preparation programs, teacher candidates with disabilities, especially those studying special education, sustained immense damage to their self-perceptions and identities as teachers and individuals with disabilities. As noted by the CEC (2016), personal disability experience allows special educators to “understand and effectively teach children and youth while providing a role model of success” (para. 1).

For this reason, this finding sheds light on (a) discrepancies between current practices and CEC’s (2016) guidance, and (b) the need to remove barriers to access and equity in teacher preparation that contribute to disability stigma and diminished disability identity. Overall, because of pushes from the federal government (OSEP, 2020) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2016) to attract, prepare, and retain special educators with disabilities, there is urgent work to be done to ensure this is done ethically, equitably, and effectively.

Limitations

Although this study sheds new light on the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities in teacher preparation programs, it is important to recognize its potential limitations. First, the researchers did not include gray literature (e.g., dissertations) in the systematic review, potentially contributing to the modest number of included articles for analysis. Second, the researchers used broad search terms relative to disability (e.g., “disabled teacher candidates”); it is possible that additional articles would have been found by using specific disability-related terms (e.g., learning disability, autism spectrum disorder). Third, despite employing inter-rater reliability in the final coding phase of the included articles, it is possible that selection bias in the identification of articles occurred.

Implications

Overall, this systematic review presents implications relative to policy and practice across special education teacher preparation and higher education disability resources. It is evident, for example, that current policies (e.g., approaches to support, implementation of accommodations) regarding support for teacher candidates with disabilities are insufficient in ensuring access, an essential component of disabled special educators’ success (CEC, 2016), let alone equity. As such, it is recommended that DRCs and special education teacher preparation programs collaborate to either review existing policies related to support for teacher candidates with disabilities or develop policies if they do not already exist. Within these policies, DRCS and special education stakeholders should consider (a) the fundamental components of their program of study (i.e., what can and cannot be altered via accommodations), (b) standardized procedures for proactively planning clinical field experiences (a strategy noted by Parker and Draves (2007) to be successful in Lindsey’s case), (c) the who, what, when, and where of ensuring all dimensions of access for each component of teacher preparation for teacher candidates with disabilities, and (d) procedures for monitoring teacher candidates’ access and success.

In practice, it is suggested that DRCs, in collaboration with special education teacher preparation stakeholders, specifically engage in proactive efforts beyond those relative to access for teacher candidates with disabilities and work also to ensure equity throughout their programs of study. As an example, based on the results of this systematic review, DRCs may facilitate continual workshops/training/outreach for cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and other relevant stakeholders in (a) effective accommodation implementation in special education teacher preparation, (b) cultivating an inclusive clinical field experience for teacher candidates with disabilities, (c) disability as an identity, and (d) the impact of bias on interactions with teacher candidates with disabilities, particularly in relation to ableism. Together, these efforts may help reduce the stigma associated with teachers with disabilities continually reported among participants in this review.

Finally, because of the extent of the harm caused by the barriers to access noted among participants (e.g., damaged identities and self-efficacy), teacher preparation programs would likely benefit from soliciting continual feedback from teacher candidates with disabilities on the accessibility and inclusivity of their experiences. Teacher preparation programs may, for example, create a structure of regular check-ins with all teacher candidates, including those with disabilities, to keep abreast of any persistent barriers or challenges that have not been mitigated by accommodations or modifications. In any format, when obtaining feedback from teacher candidates with disabilities, teacher preparation program faculty and staff are encouraged to position the candidates as experts in their disabilities and experiences and resolve any issues of inaccessibility as promptly as possible. This valuable feedback can guide program improvement opportunities as well as inform the field regarding the extent to which maintaining high standards and expanding recruitment efforts can simultaneously be achieved.

Future Research

The results of this systematic review led to several recommendations for future research on the experiences of special education teacher candidates with disabilities. First, it is evident that this topic is largely under-researched; of all five studies included in this review, only three involved teacher candidates with disabilities in the field of special education. As a result, it is recommended that future research on the experiences of teacher candidates with disabilities expand to include those in special education teacher preparation programs to better understand accessibility and inclusivity in these spaces. Furthermore, due to the complex nature of special education teacher preparation and evidence that clinical experiences present the greatest number of barriers, it is recommended that future research explores how teacher candidates with disabilities are supported during clinical field experience from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. At a minimum, this should include disability resource centers, teacher candidates with disabilities, and their cooperating teachers. With a deeper understanding from all stakeholders, the field may best be able to change policy and practice to create preparation programs that attract and retain a diverse pool of future educators.

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

Morgan M. Strimel

Sarah A. Nagro

Author Biographies

Morgan M. Strimel is a doctoral candidate in the Policy and Research-Intensive Special Educators (PRISE) program at George Mason University.

Dr. Sarah A. Nagro is an Associate Professor in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University.

Dr. Pamela H. Baker is an Associate Professor in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University.

Dr. Colleen A. Thoma is an Interim Chair and Professor in the School of Education at Virginia Commonwealth University.

References

AHEAD. (2021). Code of ethics. Association on Higher Education and Disability. https://www.ahead.org/about-ahead/ahead-ethics

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 USC § 12101 et seq. (1990)

Annamma

S. A.

Connor

Ferri

B. A.

(2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Aquino

K. C.

Bittinger

J. D.

(2019). The self-(un)identification of disability in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(1), 5–19.

Artiles

(2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11429391

Baldwin

J. L.

(2007). Teacher candidates with learning disabilities: Effective and ethical accommodations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(3), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640703000302

Bargerhuff

M. E.

Cole

D. J.

Teeters

(2012). Using a transdisciplinary model to address inequalities in field placements for teacher candidates with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003721098

Bellacicco

Demo

(2021). Becoming a teacher with a disability: A systematic review. Form@re—Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 19(3), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.13128/form-7720

Brownell

M. T.

Benedict

A. E.

Leko

M. M.

Peyton

Pua

Richards-Tutor

(2019). A Continuum of pedagogies for preparing teachers to use high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824990

10.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Persons with a disability: Barriers to employment, types of assistance, and other labor-related issues summary. US Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/people-with-a-disability-less-likely-to-have-completed-a-bachelors-degree.htm

11.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2016). CEC’s policy on educators with disabilities. https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/full/10.1177/0014402916651880

12.

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

13.

Dolmage

J. T.

(2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.

14.

Francis

G. L.

Duke

J. M.

Brigham

F. J.

Demetro

(2018). Student perceptions of college readiness, college services and supports, and family involvement in college: An exploratory study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(10), 3573–3585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3622-x

15.

Gaddy

(2012). 2-part process can help you determine reasonableness of requested accommodations. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 18(2), 6–6.

16.

Griffiths

(2012). “Being dyslexic doesn’t make me less of a teacher.” School placement experiences of student teachers with dyslexia: Strengths, challenges, and a model for support. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(2), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01201.x

17.

Kraus

(2021). Operationalizing our commitment to social justice: A guide for disability resource professionals in higher education [Monograph]. Association on Higher Education and Disability.

18.

Ladau

(2021). Demystifying disability: What to know, what to say, and how to be an ally. Ten Speed Press.

19.

Leyser

Greenberger

(2008). College students with disabilities in teacher education: Faculty attitudes and practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250802130442

20.

Meeks

L. M.

Jain

N. R.

(2018). Accessibility, inclusion, and action in medical education. Association of American Medical Colleges.

21.

Nagro

S. A.

deBettencourt

L. U.

(2017). Reviewing special education teacher preparation field experience placements, activities, and research: Do we know the difference maker? Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(3), 7–33. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/9001090

22.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Students with disabilities. Institute of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60

23.

Neca

Borges

M. L.

Pinto

P. C.

(2022). Teachers with disabilities: A literature review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26, 1192–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1776779

24.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2020). Attract, prepare, retain: OSEP national summit on improving personnel for children with disabilities. US Department of Education. https://osepideasthatwork.org/federal-resources-stakeholders/attract-prepare-retain-osep-national-summit-improving-effective-personnel-children-disabilities

25.

Oslund

(2014). Disability resources and disability studies in higher education: History, contexts, and social impacts. Palgrave Pivot.

26.

Parker

E. C.

Draves

T. J.

(2017). A narrative of two preservice music teachers with visual impairment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(4), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416674704

27.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC § 701 et seq.

28.

Scott

S. S.

(1997). Accommodating college students with learning disabilities: How much is enough? Innovative Higher Education, 22(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025141306537

29.

Scott

S. S.

Gregg

(2000). Meeting the evolving education needs of faculty in providing access for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300204

30.

Siuty

M. B.

Beneke

M. R.

(2020). Authoring dis/ability identities: Mapping the role of ableism in teacher candidate identity construction. Critical Education, 11(15), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v11i15.186515

31.

Squires

M. E.

Burnell

B. A.

McCarthy

Schnackenberg

(2018). Emerging adults: Perspectives of college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(2), 121–134. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1192068.pdf

32.

Squires

M. E.

Countermine

(2018). College students with disabilities explain challenges encountered in professional preparation programs. Exceptionality Education International, 28(1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v28i1.7757

33.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. World Health Organization.

34.

World Health Organization. (2011). Summary world report on disability. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/50854a322.pdf

35.

Yull

(2015). The impact of race and socioeconomic status on access to accommodations in postsecondary education. Social Policy, 23(41), 353–392.