Navigating Barriers as Special Education Teacher Educators

Abstract

Special education teacher educators face multiple systemic, institutional, and social barriers in preparing teacher candidates to provide students with significant disabilities access to the general curriculum. This qualitative interview study explores how special education teacher educators are working to navigate these barriers while employing strategies at multiple levels. The 14 special education teacher educators in this study utilized strategies to navigate barriers to access the general curriculum in four distinct ways by (a) building relationships, (b) advocacy, (c) increasing knowledge, and (d) being resilient. The discussion includes recommendations for special education teacher educators regarding how to navigate barriers and support pre- and in-service teachers in providing students with significant disabilities access to the general curriculum.

Keywords

teacher preparation access to the general curriculum low-incidence disabilities

A long-standing problem in the field of special education has been the perpetuation of segregated settings for students with significant disabilities¹ (Kurth et al., 2014). Furthermore, research on the quality of instruction in these self-contained settings suggests that students have limited opportunities to engage in meaningful learning activities (Kurth et al., 2016; Ruppar et al., 2018). Students with significant disabilities may not be receiving consistent access to the general curriculum or education in their least restrictive environments (LREs), despite federal mandates requiring such access (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEIA], 2004).

Special education teacher educators have a critical role in preparing teachers to provide students with significant disabilities access to the general curriculum (Olson & Roberts, 2018; Ryndak et al., 2013). Researchers posit that general education classrooms are the ideal location for students with significant disabilities to access the general curriculum (Ryndak et al., 2008). Classrooms where students with and without disabilities learn alongside one another can promote positive academic, social, and functional outcomes for all students (Choi et al., 2016; Cole et al., 2004; Cosier et al., 2013; Dessemontet et al., 2012). General education classrooms also provide opportunities for students and teachers to counter the ableist ideologies that signal that students who are different need to be in separate settings (Ashby, 2010, 2012; Naraian, 2017). Special education teacher educators must consider the context in which access to the general curriculum is occurring.

The role of the special education teacher educator is complex (Dymond et al., 2007; Ryndak et al., 2008; Spooner et al., 2006). Teacher preparation programs are places where teachers develop the ideologies and practices that will shape who they are as teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Pajares, 1992). Several researchers have examined teacher preparation specific to training teachers to teach students with significant disabilities. In a position paper, Delano et al. (2008) outlined several broad areas of focus in preparing teachers to provide access to the general curriculum, including “philosophy, legislation, and evidence-based practices” (p. 233). They described the essential components for preparing teachers to provide access to the general curriculum: (a) shaping inclusive philosophies, (b) weaving Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and the general curriculum together, (c) preparing for assessment, (d) learning how to collaborate, and (e) learning general and special education strategies to support access to the general curriculum in inclusive settings. Similarly, Ryndak and colleagues (2001) identified collaboration, inclusion, advocacy, curriculum content and strategies, instruction, functional assessment and behavior strategies, transition, knowledge of disability types, and research as specific knowledge and skills that teachers of students with significant disabilities should have. Although these seminal papers highlight important topics that should be addressed in teacher preparation, there is limited research on what teaching these concepts looks like in practice.

Coursework focused on inclusion seems key to preparing teachers to facilitate access to the general curriculum in general education classrooms. Inclusion is when students of all abilities, backgrounds, and identities are seen as valued and contributing members of one classroom community in which teachers make continuous, conscious efforts to ensure that all students are accessing the curriculum and instruction. In their study of teachers, Zagona et al. (2017) found a relationship between having coursework on inclusion and having the pedagogical skills to enact inclusion in practice. General and special education teachers who had inclusion coursework or training were more prepared to collaborate with other professionals and families, individualize instruction, make accommodations, and adapt standards for students with significant disabilities.

One approach that supports both a focus on inclusion and collaboration is integrated teacher preparation. This approach, sometimes referred to as a collaborative or blended approach to teacher preparation, prepares all teacher candidates to work with students with disabilities. Teacher candidates have shared coursework, field experiences, and goals that may result in more than one certification (e.g., general and special education certification; Blanton & Pugach, 2007, 2011). This approach counters the historical status quo in teacher preparation, which has traditionally prepared special education and general education teachers in distinctly separate programs, resulting in a single certification for each. Integrated programs also provide teacher candidates with opportunities to develop a critical lens on inclusion and equity.

In addition to program approach, the aims of teacher preparation programs are also essential. Recent research in teacher preparation for inclusion has also focused on the need to prepare teacher candidates with a critical lens. This work aims to disrupt “the widespread ideology of ability that pervades schooling systems as they sort, categorize, and rank students” (Naraian, 2017, p. 54). Advocates of this approach posit that preparation programs need to provide teacher candidates with opportunities to reflect on their own identities in relation to dominant systems of oppression (Ashby, 2012; Siuty, 2019). Furthermore, teacher candidates need to understand how their identities and experiences influence their assumptions about, and their interactions with, students, families, and colleagues. Teacher candidates in these programs are taught to notice how systemic inequities are reified through classroom and school discourses and practices (Oyler, 2011). The goal of this approach to teacher education is to create inclusive learning experiences for all students; not just students with disabilities, but also students from groups who have been historically marginalized in school settings due to their race, religion, or linguistic ability (Oyler, 2011). These programs are often situated in integrated teacher preparation programs and leverage social models of disability, as opposed to traditional medical models of disability (Ashby, 2012; Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017).

Despite advances in teacher preparation, teacher educators still face significant challenges in attempting to prepare teacher candidates to provide access to the general curriculum in general education classrooms. Barriers include (a) challenges in preparing teachers to address both the general curriculum and functional skills, (b) variability and misalignment in what preservice teachers are learning in their university coursework and what they are observing in schools, (c) issues around certification requirements and types, (d) addressing teacher shortages, (e) increasing preservice collaboration opportunities, (f) lack of inclusive field placements, and (g) preservice teachers’ low expectations about access and students with significant disabilities (Delano et al., 2008; Olson & Roberts, 2018). Teacher educators must understand how to prepare teachers to provide access to the general curriculum in spite of these challenges; however, there is limited research on how teacher educators address this complex issue.

Olson and Roberts (2018) interviewed teacher educators to understand how they defined access to the general curriculum and the specific practices they used to prepare preservice teachers to provide access. Teacher educators in the study emphasized similar components as Delano et al. (2008) and described preparing preservice teachers in individualization, collaboration, and use of evidence-based practices (i.e., universal design for learning, differentiation, and peer supports). They emphasized providing access to grade-level content and standards while individualizing access by intertwining IEP goals. The specific strategies that teacher educators used included (a) sharing their own definitions of access to the general curriculum, (b) discussing what access to the general curriculum is and is not, and (c) embedding practice-based activities, such as lesson planning, in coursework. Teacher educators stressed that inclusive classrooms were the ideal context for access to the general curriculum to occur while acknowledging that inclusion often was not enacted in practice. Similar to Delano et al., teacher educators in the Olson and Roberts study emphasized the importance of shaping teacher candidates’ philosophies and dispositions around access to the general curriculum, inclusion, and students with significant disabilities. Their goal was to promote strengths-based views of students and prepare teachers who saw themselves as agents of change in advocating for inclusion. Participants also noted several challenges, despite not being specifically asked about barriers to their work.

In this follow-up study, we aimed to explore special education teacher educator conceptualizations of and responses to those barriers. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the tensions between teacher educators’ commitment to access the general curriculum and inclusion and the contexts in which they work. The research question was “How do special education teacher educators navigate barriers in preparing teacher candidates to provide students with significant disabilities access to the general curriculum?”

Method

Participants

Participants were teacher educators who were working at Institutes of Higher Education to prepare special education teachers to teach students with significant disabilities in the United States. We used purposeful sampling to obtain a specific, desired sample of teacher educators with expertise in significant disabilities (Maxwell, 2005). This was a follow-up study to our original study examining teacher educator practices (Olson & Roberts, 2018). However, we did sample three participants from the previous study because their initial interviews focused so much on barriers. These three individuals were contacted at the beginning of this study and they participated in a new interview. We identified an additional 136 potential participants by compiling a list based on our own expertise of the field, personal relationships, and board of directors/editorial boards from three peer-reviewed journals that focus on significant disabilities.

We emailed all 136 potential participants a screener that asked whether they faced barriers in preparing teachers to provide students with significant disabilities access to the general curriculum. The screener included a list of barriers identified through previous research on the topic from our previous study (Olson & Roberts, 2018): (a) K–12 schools’ limited inclusive experiences, (b) misalignment between what teacher educators teach about providing access to the general curriculum and what teacher candidates see in schools, (c) barriers associated with principals/administration, (d) barriers associated with general education teachers, and (e) barriers within teacher preparation programs. We also provided space for individuals to type in additional barriers they faced. To be recruited into the study, teacher educators had to indicate that they experienced two or more barriers. This was to ensure that there would be sufficient scope of the data. A total of 27 people filled out the screener. Anyone who faced two or more barriers was invited through email to participate in the study (n = 23). Two additional follow-up emails were sent if there was no response. A total of 14 teacher educators consented and participated in the study (see Table 1 for participant information). All 14 teacher educators worked in programs that had a specialization in low-incidence disabilities, sometimes referred to as moderate or severe disabilities, although candidates in some programs received cross-categorical licensure. None of the teacher educators described their programs as integrated or resulting in dual-licensure in special education and general education although several noted that students came to their program after receiving initial certification in general education. Five of the teacher educators worked in graduate or postbaccalaureate programs, two worked in undergraduate programs, and eight worked in programs that prepared teacher candidates at both the graduate and undergraduate level.

Table 1.

Participant Information.

Participant	Race	Gender	University location	University type	Type of licensure	Level of preparation	Years preparing teachers	Years as classroom teacher
Julie	White	Female	Suburban	Research/doctoral	Add on LID	Graduate	9	10
Morgan	White	Female	Suburban	Research/doctoral	Add on LID	Graduate	20	5
Jade	White/Latina	Female	Urban	Master’s	Initial with specialization in LID	Postbaccalaureate	20	1
Carter	African American	Male	Urban	Research/doctoral	Initial cross-categorical	Undergraduate and graduate	17	8
Celeste	White	Female	Urban	Research/doctoral	Initial and add on LID	Graduate	20	0
Jax	White	Male	Rural	Research/doctoral	Initial LID	Undergraduate and graduate	6	5.5
Aria	White	Female	Urban	Research/doctoral	Initial and add on cross-categorical	Undergraduate and graduate	5	7
Mila	White	Female	Urban	Master’s	Initial with specialization in LID	Postbaccalaureate	37	5
Mac	White	Female	Urban/suburban	Research/doctoral	Initial LID	Undergraduate and graduate	3	10
Ava	White	Female	Urban	Master’s	Initial with specialization in LID	Postbaccalaureate	10	9
Lexie	White	Female	Urban/suburban	Research/doctoral	Initial and add on cross-categorical	Undergraduate and graduate	23	5
Evelyn	White/Native American	Female	Urban	Research/doctoral	Add on LID	Undergraduate and graduate	15	10
Piper	White	Female	Rural	Research/doctoral	Initial and add on LID	Graduate	11	7
Liam	White	Male	Urban	Research/doctoral	Initial and add on LID and cross-categorical	Undergraduate and graduate	28	2

Note.

Cross-categorical refers to special education licensure that spans all disability categories. Initial licensure refers to a candidate’s first certification area, whereas add on licensure is when a candidate is adding an additional certification area to their license. LID = low-incidence disabilities.

Data Collection

Prior to the interview, we asked participants to fill out an online demographic questionnaire distributed through Qualtrics to gather background information. After they completed the questionnaire, the first author conducted one phone interview with each participant. Interviews ranged from 23 to 55 min in length with an average of 39 min. During the interviews, the first author reminded participants that they would be discussing barriers they face in preparing teachers to provide students with significant disabilities access to the general curriculum and how they worked to navigate these barriers. This involved clarifying the focal population of students if participants had questions about the goals of the study. During the interviews, we asked participants to (a) describe each barrier they indicated on the screener, including barriers that they added, and (b) explain how they navigated each barrier in their daily work. For example, if they indicated on the screener that they experienced a lack of inclusive placements, they were asked to describe that in detail and then describe how they navigated that particular barrier. The first author repeated this process for each barrier; thus, some participants had longer interviews than others, depending on the number of barriers they identified. Although each interview question focused on a specific barrier, participants talked about the intertwined nature of the barriers. Finally, participants were asked, “In general, how have barriers impacted the type of teacher preparation program you can provide?”

Data Analysis

The research team transcribed each interview verbatim and uploaded it into the qualitative analysis software, Dedoose, for coding. To begin analysis, both authors completed independent initial coding of the entire data set. During first cycle coding, we used structural and descriptive codes to organize and label our data in relation to our research question (Saldaña, 2013). For example, we used structural codes to label and create a parent code for each barrier (e.g., lack of inclusive experiences/placements and teacher preparation programs). We then coded all data where participants described what that barrier looked like, using descriptive codes that were applied as subcodes, or child codes, under that barrier. For example, under the parent code barrier of educational stakeholders’ knowledge and beliefs, lack of knowledge and perceptions were descriptive child codes to describe what the participants meant by naming educational stakeholders’ knowledge and beliefs as a barrier to facilitating access to the general curriculum. We also used structural codes to create a child code under each barrier titled “navigated by.” This is where we placed any strategy that participants described for navigating each specific barrier. For example, under the “navigated by” code in the educational stakeholders’ knowledge and beliefs barrier, we added the descriptive codes creating educational opportunities and focus on preservice administrator. These were specific strategies or approaches participants used to counter the barrier of educational stakeholders’ knowledge and beliefs. Throughout this initial coding process, we used in vivo codes to highlight and honor the specific language used by participants, which were salient to our research questions. For example, participants described using their recent graduates as allies in districts as a “home grown” approach. We also used evaluation coding during initial analysis to signal what participants described as working and not working with regard to teaching preservice teachers about access to the general curriculum.

After the first round of initial coding, we met to discuss initial themes and patterns in the data. In this first meeting, we discussed how themes appeared across barriers and the specific ways they were navigated. An example of initial themes under the lack of inclusive placements barrier included administrator relationships, grow your own teachers, and challenging a deficit perspective. After the initial meeting, we returned to the data set independently to engage in a second round of coding to refine and determine the saturation of the initial themes. This involved creating data displays that illustrated how evidence was distributed across our initial themes. We then met to create a final collaborative table to track the final four themes across each participant to determine saturation of the findings. Themes with the most representative evidence across participants became our final four themes: building relationships, advocacy, increasing knowledge, and being resilient. All 14 participants had data coded underneath the first three themes. Twelve participants had data coded underneath being resilient.

Next, we aimed to further examine how specific strategies employed by the teacher educators contributed to the four major themes. This process involved creating tables that displayed how each strategy addressed each theme, and then meeting together to discuss how our thinking regarding the relationship between themes and strategies were similar or different. Finally, we collaboratively created a table that illustrated how each theme was supported by each strategy, which was based on our individual tables and several rounds of conversations regarding how strategies may address more than one theme.

Trustworthiness and Credibility

We implemented member checks on two levels to help establish trustworthiness and credibility (Brantlinger et al., 2005). During interviews, the first author frequently restated what the participant said to ensure accurate understanding. Next, participants were sent their interview transcripts to review. Finally, each participant was sent an interview summary that highlighted the major content of the interview and asked to review and make changes as needed. This process ensured that the data accurately represented the participants’ experiences. Two participants provided clarification on inaudible parts of their interviews and another participant made minor additions to the interview summary. The use of multiple researchers also facilitated trustworthiness and credibility of the data. The study was collaboratively designed and implemented to ensure that both researchers fully participated in the analysis and final interpretations of the findings.

Positionality

We were both special education teachers who taught students with significant disabilities and experienced micro- and macro-level challenges with providing access to the general curriculum. Now, as special education teacher educators, we have experienced several of the barriers addressed in this study and identified in our previous research (Olson & Roberts, 2018). We believe that access to the general curriculum is best provided in general education classrooms, where all students learn together and are committed to preparing teachers to teach in general education classrooms. We recognize that this “ideal” vision of access to the general curriculum, and more expansive view of inclusion, is not consistently happening and thus we work to prepare teachers to provide access to the general curriculum in self-contained settings while exploring ways to continually advance inclusive educational experiences for all students.

Findings

On the screener, special education teacher educators identified several barriers to teaching about access to the general curriculum including (a) lack of inclusive experiences/placements, (b) misalignment between what teacher educators teach teacher candidates about providing access to the general curriculum and what teacher candidates see in schools, (c) knowledge and beliefs of various K–12 educational stakeholders, and (d) challenges in their teacher preparation programs (see Table 2). These barriers very often did not present themselves as single, isolated issues, but instead as multilayered and an ongoing part of the teacher educators’ role. These four multilayered barriers manifested themselves in various systems, including the K–12 school level, teacher preparation level, and the state and national level. This meant that multiple stakeholders, including administrators, general education teachers, special education teachers, teacher educators and university colleagues, and teacher candidates, were a part of both the barriers and solutions. Table 2 provides quotes that illustrate where challenges were visible, including similar challenges across systems. Instead of being overwhelmed by the persistent, multilayered barriers, participants embraced them as an important part of their work.

Table 2.

Barriers Around Preparing Teachers.

Barrier and description	Description	Participant quote
Lack of inclusive experiences/placements	Struggle to find inclusive placements for teacher candidates	But it’s really hard for them to go into a practicum site and it’s fully segregated with a teacher who’s not even trying to promote inclusive education . . . no matter what we tell them in class, they seem to get it in class, but then they go out there and there’s so much not happening that I think they forget. (Morgan)
Misalignment between coursework and fieldwork	Misalignment in the context for access and practices to provide access	They go to the K–12 schools and they see really probably the same thing that’s been happening since 1975. It’s like a time capsule in some of these places. Nothing has changed. (Julie)
Educational stakeholders’ knowledge and beliefs	Limited knowledge and experiences; deficit views of students and teachers	The principals just aren’t up to date. So they maybe have never personally experienced inclusive education and they just don’t think it works. (Lexie)
		I think at that level it’s more fear-based. Like “I don’t know what to do.” (Evelyn—talking about general education teachers)
Teacher preparation programs	Isolated programs with limited shared experiences; limited knowledge and experiences; teacher candidate knowledge and beliefs	I think even within our own special ed program, they’re not always convinced that this would work with kids with more severe disabilities. (Mila)We have a special education department, an elementary education department and a secondary education department and educational leadership, which prepares school administrators. They really function very, very separately. (Ava)

We identified four key strategies that teacher educators employed to navigate the identified barriers: (a) building relationships, (b) advocacy, (c) increasing knowledge, and (d) being resilient. Each of these strategies are detailed and described in the subsequent sections, and we have provided quotes that illustrate the multiple contexts in which the work took place. Table 3 includes a listing of all of the strategies identified by the teacher educators, including associated levels and themes. It is important to note the intertwined nature of the themes, including the theme of resilience, which could be seen across strategies.

Table 3.

Strategies to Navigate Barriers.

Level	Strategy	Theme
In-service	Mending broken relationships with educators and administrators in K–12 schools	BR
	Providing professional development in K–12 schools	BR, IK
	Coaching in-service teachers and administrators	BR, IK
	Ongoing involvement in K–12 school meetings	BR, IK
	Sharing data, evidence, and stories with K–12 educators and administrators	BR, IK
	Supporting families through sharing knowledge, resources, and IEP support	BR, IK, A
Teacher preparation	Preparing teacher candidates to provide access to the general curriculum	IK
	Preparing teacher candidates to advocate for students and themselves	IK, A
	Engaging teacher candidates in application activities that push for inclusive settings	IK, A
	Assigning coursework that pushes for access in inclusive settings	IK, A
	Assisting teacher candidates in finding the right first job	BR, A
	Providing ongoing support to recent graduates	BR, A
	Facilitating a community of practice/social hour for in-service teachers	BR
	Supporting “home grown” teachers	BR, IK
	Creating new licenses, certificates, and programs	IK, A
	Designing new courses	IK
	Monitoring placements for teacher candidates	BR, A
	Educating and sharing resources with colleagues	BR, IK
State/national	Involvement in state and district committees	A
	Conducting research	IK, A
	Writing for grants	IK, A
Across levels	Challenging deficit views	IK, A

Note. BR = building relationships; IK = increasing knowledge; A = advocacy; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Building Relationships

Teacher educators described building relationships as one way to navigate barriers. Liam described the goal of these relationships, “It’s a matter of helping others feel successful and that, in the long run, promotes the inclusive process.” Building relationships across systems often overlapped with other strategies, like advocacy and increasing others’ knowledge. Teacher educators emphasized important relationships with school staff and teacher candidates.

Building Relationships in Schools

Morgan explained that historically there was not always a strong relationship between their department and local schools, which meant teacher educators often had to rebuild relationships with administrators. Evelyn described relationships with schools that are not top-down: “You have to team with people. You can’t come in as the expert—then it doesn’t improve.” She also noted that teacher coaching and coteaching were a part of building relationships. Beyond one-time support, Ava participated in monthly meetings with partner schools and Celeste described a school in which her program provided “on-going support.” Six teacher educators noted the ongoing nature of relationship building and connection to professional development. They felt that building and sustaining relationships could improve access to the general curriculum by shifting attitudes around inclusion and inclusive practices.

While teacher educators built relationships with schools themselves, they also pushed their teacher candidates to build relationships with teachers and staff at field placements. For a coteaching assignment, Mila explained, “They [teacher candidates] have to make a relationship with another teacher . . . I always tell the students, ‘Blame it on me. Tell them that I’m a pain in the neck and I require you to do this collaboration.’” Thus, this assignment explicitly required teacher candidates to build relationships with an in-service teacher. Ava shared,

It’s unfortunate, but I think that we’re often in the position of seeking permission, or often our candidates, when they go to general education classes and the students they’re supporting, are kind of seen as potentially unwelcome guests within those classrooms. So I think that they’re trying to tread carefully. We want them to be seen as an asset in the classroom.

Teacher educators were aware of the complex special education–general education dynamic (Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012) and designed assignments that would build relationships across disciplinary barriers.

Teacher educators described how the relationships they formed with staff in schools impacted practices beyond the life span of a teacher candidate’s preparation program. For example, relationships with schools helped teacher candidates find the right first job and continue to develop as teachers. Aria explained,

This is when I’m calling the principals and saying, “Here’s a great student who will fit really well in your school.” I don’t want them to go to these local schools and get burned out. I want them to go where they can continue to grow as educators and then if they decide, “Now I’m going to become a change agent somewhere else after I have a few years of being in a setting where I see how it can work.”

Building relationships with teacher candidates

Lexie explained the ongoing relationships teacher educators have with former students: “We tell them, ‘You have us for life.’ I’m still in contact with students that I had back in 1994 when I started doing this.” Aria described creating a “Community of Practice” group as teachers of students with significant disabilities are often the only one in their school. The goal of the group is “to create this collegial group of teachers and then infuse evidence-based practices and research partnerships.” Similarly, Jade created a social hour for graduates and former teacher educators “to vent or bounce around ideas.” Teacher educators engaged in these activities not only to connect their graduates with meaningful learning experiences and support, but also to sustain relationships for future placements.

Another way teacher educators built relationships that extended beyond teacher preparation programs was through their development of what they referred to as “home grown teachers.” These “home grown teachers” referenced teachers in the field who were previous teacher candidates in teacher educators’ programs. Homegrown teachers helped extend the teacher educators’ individual capacity and created opportunities for additional high-quality inclusive placements. As Lexie described, “We built quite a capacity of our own graduates. So a lot of the placements that we put the students into are our own graduates.” For former graduates, maintaining a relationship with the university helped them stay on top of current practices. As Ava shared,

Even if they’ve [graduates] fallen back into that self-contained culture, having a teacher candidate with them can impact practice. So I know that when I have my student out there completing their assignments, that at least this person knows what I’m going to want to see. I think that it gives them that push and that reminder about what they should be doing and what they learned.

Thus, the concept of “home grown teachers” was beneficial for multiple parties—teacher education programs and the pre- and in-service teachers associated with them.

Advocacy

The second way teacher educators navigated barriers was through their role as advocates. This included being agents of change who continually challenged deficit views held by various educational stakeholders while shifting practices across multiple contexts: K–12 schools, their own institutions, and at the national level.

School-level advocacy

Advocacy at the school level included teacher educators using their power and knowledge of school and special education systems to support parents while modeling this for teacher candidates. Mila shared, “I try to make sure that they understand that it is their obligation to offer it [inclusion] at the IEP meeting.” Three teacher educators discussed supporting families at IEP meetings, which involved helping families advocate for access to the general curriculum in general education classrooms. Evelyn reflected on collaborating with families and “making sure that they’re involved and that their voice and vision is heard as well.” Teacher educators viewed family advocacy as a part of their professional role.

Teacher candidate advocacy

Teacher educators noted that sometimes they had to use coursework and explicit program requirements to ensure teacher candidates had sufficient learning opportunities. Julie described assigning coursework that required teacher candidates “to break out, escape from a self-contained room.” This advocacy sometimes involved teacher educators taking on blame for challenging the status quo in schools so teacher candidates were provided with meaningful learning experiences. Evelyn explained how she discussed advocacy with teacher candidates:

Really being pragmatic about how would you take your child that you’re working with and getting them included in science or whatever it might be. What are the steps you can take to get there? So it’s helping them to be advocates and allies. I really enforce upon them that they are an advocate for that child and it is their job to look at pushing that inclusion forward.

Teacher educators modeled to teacher candidates what it looked like to be a change agent in school settings while developing teacher candidates’ advocacy skills.

Teacher preparation program advocacy

At the teacher preparation level, teacher educators also had to advocate for access to the general curriculum with their own colleagues. This sometimes took the form of advocating for program changes that would improve teacher candidates’ learning. Celeste explained why this advocacy is necessary at her institution, “So we’ve kind of operated for a while in silos. What happens often in K–12 schools, we do that at the university level as well.” At her university, accreditation drove conversations and she advocated for the creation of a technology course focused on collaboration and coteaching. Aria explained how she advocated for a solution to a “logistical problem” to too many courses: “Why don’t we just take a class on access to the general curriculum and it’ll be one 3-credit class” and everybody said, “Yeah, that’s a great idea.” Teacher educators also worked to create new or varied learning opportunities for school administrators pursuing coursework at their institutions. Morgan shared about creating a certificate for administrative leadership that focused “on inclusive ed and how to be a change agent.” Teacher educators saw this advocacy work within their institutions as necessary to further the conversation around access to the general curriculum.

Advocacy at the teacher preparation level also involved advocating for strong field placements. Seven teacher educators kept a watchful eye on placements and informed colleagues about their preference for quality placements. Piper explained, “We’re really limited on strong model classrooms. Every year we have to look through the list again and say, ‘Yeah, we’re not going back to that classroom again.’” Aria, who was not involved in deciding who cooperating teachers are, described the struggle in suggesting new strong placements: “I think there’s a gap between the placement people and the people who supervise their teacher education program as being maybe less focused on inclusive ed than I personally am.” To replace poor-quality placements, teacher educators worked to handpick teachers who modeled best practices.

State/national-level advocacy

Three teacher educators cited advocating at the state level as a way to address barriers and promote programmatic shifts. Mila shared, “A lot of our faculty are involved in statewide and local district focus on curriculum and on scope and sequence. Just so that we become familiar with what it is so that we can build in the language vocabulary.” Mila was also involved with her state’s restructuring of teacher credentialing, including creating crossover between programs and receiving a grant for a merged dual certification program.

Eleven teacher educators discussed their research as part of their advocacy work that has national impact. Their research included a focus on access to the general curriculum in general education classrooms. Aria expressed her motivation as follows:

Those are the kids [students with significant disabilities in segregated settings] that I’m most concerned about in my research, in my advocacy. Those are the kids that I care about the most, the kids that are most at risk for that isolation in schools.

Mac described a study that shifted teachers’ mind-set about teaching academics. She shared “These teachers were like, ‘We don’t even know what you can tell us that we can implement.’ . . . . Now they’ve become the greatest ambassadors ever for teaching academics to students with really severe disabilities.”

Teacher educators applied for grants to secure funding and tangible opportunities to advocate for access to the general curriculum. Ava shared,

When we have grants that will provide students with stipends, we tie those to some expectations. The expectations are that if they want to be part of our grant program, they have to commit to acting as agents of change in their schools.

Aria described a grant’s impact, “Those students in that grant have created their own culture around advocacy. . . . They take a class right out of the gate that is all about severe disabilities and equity and full participation.” Thus, these opportunities facilitate teacher educators’ advocacy on a larger scale.

Increasing Knowledge

An ongoing strategy that teacher educators employed was increasing others’ knowledge about access to the general curriculum. They did this in a variety of ways. First, they built teacher candidate knowledge about access to the general curriculum. Second, they built knowledge about access at the K–12 school level. Third, they built knowledge around access to the general curriculum at their own institutions.

Increasing teacher candidate knowledge

At the teacher candidate level, teacher educators used a variety of avenues—including coursework, assignments, and practicum experiences—to increase teacher candidates’ knowledge regarding access to the general curriculum. One prominent theme was coursework focused on inclusion, which included providing examples of students receiving access to the general curriculum; completing case studies; reading, critiquing, and interpreting research; and learning from exemplar inservice teachers. Participants showed exemplar videos of inclusion “being done the right way” (Piper) and instruction of IEP-aligned academic content (Mac). Teacher educators had teacher candidates apply their knowledge and create lesson plans with modifications to age-appropriate curricula. This required both teacher educators and teacher candidates to be flexible, especially if teacher candidates were not in inclusive settings. Lexie shared that she tells teacher candidates in self-contained settings to “Pretend. Go into a general ed class and pretend one of your students is in there and how might you meet their IEP goals in that environment?” Teacher educators described teaching about how access to the general curriculum can happen in a variety of contexts, so candidates are prepared to provide access even if they are not in general education classrooms. Morgan stated, “We talk about it in terms of what they can do in their role even though they’re in segregated settings, to help promote inclusion.”

Teacher educators also assigned coursework to increase teacher candidates’ advocacy skills. Jade described an action plan project for their first year of teaching in which she asks teacher candidates to think about the multiple educational stakeholders with whom they will have relationships. She asks them to consider, “What do you need to know about them? What resources are you going to need?” Similarly, Julie reflected on how she thinks about embedding advocacy in her courses, “We’re trying to have assignments both in our courses and then practicum experiences where they do things like write a letter to their principal explaining what inclusive education is and why it matters to them.” These application activities helped teacher candidates practice advocacy skills that could be employed in their current and future settings.

Increasing school-level knowledge

Teacher educators increased knowledge of access to the general curriculum at the school level through professional development and training. Lexie explained, “We work with small groups of teachers or we model what can happen. Sometimes that can really make a difference.” Morgan noted, “A principal’s willingness to form relationships can blossom into other things, such as professional development.” These experiences gave in-service teachers opportunities to practice and apply best practices for providing access to the general curriculum.

Storytelling was another primary instrument through which teacher educators attempted to increase in-service teacher knowledge. Evelyn explained how stories can shift attitudes: “I think stories are really powerful . . . Where it’s worked well and it’s not only benefitting the child that has a disability, but it’s benefiting the whole classroom.” In-service teachers were often moved and motivated by hearing individual accounts of success and the stories often highlighted alternative and innovative approaches to instruction. Liam discussed his use of sharing stories to build in-service teacher knowledge:

It is true that by showing how it can be done, you are saying to someone who’s teaching for the ninth year in a row money skills to a 12th grader. You can say, “You don’t need to be doing that. Here’s what you can be doing.”

Increasing knowledge within institutions of higher education

Teacher educators also worked to increase knowledge about access to the general curriculum within their own institutions, making structural changes to their programs while also promoting knowledge development of colleagues. This included creating new licenses and courses specifically focused on adapting the general curriculum. Teacher educators described being aware of the courses general education teacher candidates and administrators were taking related to special education and ensuring knowledge about access to the general curriculum was embedded in those courses. Piper suggested the benefits of educating future educators across programs, not just in special education:

Maybe we put more effort in working with the colleagues in our building on what they’re teaching in their classes to influence future people, versus trying to spend so much effort where we feel like we’re talking to the wall with people that are currently out there.

Teacher educators also worked to increase their colleagues’ knowledge about access to the general curriculum, including sharing resources and doing presentations with both general and special education teacher educators. Mila explained, “I look for easily accessible videos and articles that I can share with my colleagues in the area and try to give them a perspective that maybe they just have never had before.” At times, departments were restructured so the special education department wasn’t so separate (Jade), which encouraged more “collaborative work.” Thus, through actions within their own institution, teacher educators worked within and outside of their own context to increase knowledge around access to the general curriculum.

Being Resilient

Although teacher educators described several barriers, they did not allow the barriers to deter their progress. Instead, barriers were framed as a contributing, positive feature of their discipline and being resilient was one way they navigated them. They also saw progress toward access to the general curriculum as an important part of progress toward inclusion and thus the efforts toward both were intertwined. Six teacher educators described the impact of barriers on their programs, using terms such as “creative” and “vigilant” and were optimistic about the future. Mac noted, “The more that we’re able to share with students a vision and a heart for inclusion, the more I think they’ll be able to creatively meet the challenges.” They modeled resilience for their teacher candidates.

Despite the barriers they faced, teacher educators held on to their ideal vision of seeing access to the general curriculum being provided in general education classrooms. Five teacher educators expressed a hope for their teacher candidates to become future leaders and advocates in the field. Evelyn explained, “We’re teaching them when they graduate that they’re going to establish that vision and have to be leaders within their district to move inclusion forward.” Lexie described this commitment as follows:

We’ve tried to stay very true to what we believe is right. And we try to prepare them to be teachers who we hope will follow their hearts and follow their instincts and their ethics and use their preparation to really make a difference.

Thus, teacher educators in this study used their shared vision of providing access to the general curriculum in general education classrooms, as an ethical compass to advocate for equitable practices even in the face of barriers, with the hope that their teacher candidates would develop the same sense of commitment and urgency.

Discussion

In a “call to action,” Delano et al. (2008) shared a number of ways that teacher preparation programs could address barriers to promote access to the general curriculum. They suggested future articles be a “celebration of achievements . . . rather than a litany of challenges” (Delano et al., 2008, p. 237). In this study, we responded to this call by exploring how teacher educators made sense of and navigated complex barriers to enact change and counter dominant ideologies, while preparing their teacher candidates to do the same. They navigate these multilayered barriers in four distinct ways: (a) building relationships, (b) advocacy, (c) increasing knowledge, and (d) being resilient. Their work in these areas is inherent to their role and identity as faculty members in significant disabilities, is ongoing and multilayered as it crosses K–12 and university contexts, and aims to challenge dominant deficit views of disability. These findings offer insight into the relational and critical aspect needed for true systems transformation and progress in access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities (see Table 3). The findings also highlight how teacher educators described inclusion and access to the general curriculum as intertwined efforts. Specifically, that access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities could help promote access to general education classrooms and inclusive learning experiences.

Collaborative partnerships between teacher education programs and schools have been advocated as a way to improve inclusion in schools (Sindelar et al., 2014). This study corroborates and extends these findings by situating them within the context of teacher education for teachers of students with significant disabilities and efforts to promote access to the general curriculum. Teacher educators must nurture existing relationships and work to cultivate new ones as they prepare teacher candidates to understand, value, and advocate for access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities. A relationship can serve as the foundation for later opportunities to increase the knowledge of others with regard to access to the general curriculum. Increasing the knowledge of others can include informal activities like sharing stories or teaching experiences that highlight access to the general curriculum and can evolve into more formal opportunities for increasing knowledge through focused professional development. As teacher educators and educational stakeholders share knowledge, they can build and sustain long-lasting relationships that have the potential to improve access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities. Teacher educators should evaluate their professional networks and consider how they build and maintain relationships with a diverse group of educational stakeholders. Teacher educators in this study used innovative approaches to build and sustain relationships with professionals in the field, including hosting social and networking opportunities (e.g., Community of Practice and Social Hour). These relationships also served as a way to help address the isolation many teachers of students with significant disabilities feel (Greenway et al., 2013; Ruppar et al., 2017).

In addition to building relationships and increasing knowledge, teacher education programs that promote access to the general curriculum need to shape teacher candidates’ beliefs, values, and dispositions (Delano et al., 2008; Kurth & Foley, 2014; Olson & Roberts, 2018). One way that teacher educators navigated barriers was by challenging historical deficit narratives about students with disabilities. Kurth and Foley (2014) noted that inclusion is better facilitated when teacher candidates have a social justice orientation that focuses on creating equitable opportunities for all students and advocates on behalf of educating them together to the greatest extent possible. The same logic can be applied to shaping teacher candidates’ views of access to the general curriculum. Teacher educators in this study shared that they wanted their candidates to question “traditional practices” and be “committed to inclusion” as they modeled this resilience in their own work. This commitment to challenging dominant paradigms is advocated for by teacher education programs that take a critical inclusive lens (Ashby, 2012; Oyler, 2011). Teacher educators should ensure this commitment is made transparent for teacher candidates who will need to engage in similar activities in their role as classroom teachers to enact change in their own settings.

The teacher educators in this study emphasized the need to make their ongoing efforts to navigate barriers through “vigilance” and “diligence” transparent for teacher candidates. They felt that a part of their job was to help prepare teacher candidates to understand the challenges, both current and historical, related to access to the general curriculum. What was missing from the teacher educators’ discussion in this study was an explicit naming of the systems of power and privilege operating within schools and classrooms (Kozleski & Handy, 2017). Although teacher educators described how they make the work they do explicit for teacher candidates, only three teacher educators (i.e., Jax, Lexie, and Liam) specifically described how navigating barriers involves reflecting on their own power and privilege. We recommend that, in addition to sharing their own stories and experiences, teacher educators highlight how power and segregation continue to operate in systems, such as K–12 schools and universities, and impacts opportunities to access the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities.

Teacher educators’ work at the teacher preparation level moves beyond their interactions with teacher candidates and also includes colleagues. Although teacher educators described how they educated colleagues within their institutions or advocated for program changes, there was limited discussion about integrated or blended preparation (Blanton & Pugach, 2007). We recommend that teacher educators reflect on their current university structures and actions to examine whether they are including opportunities for teacher candidates across disciplines to learn and work together. It is critical that teacher educators are not mirroring the isolation of special education that occurs in many K–12 schools. Blanton and colleagues (2018) suggested that to advance a collective equity agenda, teacher educators must start by modeling this collaborative work for teacher candidates by engaging in shared learning across disciplines. To transform systems and advance access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities, all teacher educators should engage in conversations that challenge their assumptions about teaching and learning and provide opportunities to reflect critically on their own identities. The work at the teacher candidate level will hopefully translate into shifts in teacher behavior at the in-service level as novice teachers learn to collaborate and build relationships early on in their careers.

Teacher educators should take advantage of opportunities that arise to engage with a wide variety of educational stakeholders. Activities such as serving on state committees, partnering with local parent or community organizations, or attending conferences that draw a diverse set of attendees, may open the door for collaborative relationships and advocacy opportunities. Teacher educators can challenge long-standing barriers to access the general curriculum by building relationships with a wide array of stakeholders, engaging in ongoing advocacy, and working to create “new” knowledge through research that can be used to inform teacher preparation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. Most of the participants in this study taught at research-intensive universities where teacher education may look different from more teaching-focused institutions. Second, interviews were our only source of data; hence, we did not observe barriers and solutions in action. Finally, we did not have any participants from blended preparation programs, which may reflect a different set of barriers and commitments.

Future Research

To better understand how to prepare teachers to provide access to the general curriculum, more research on programs that have been recognized for preparing teachers to provide access to the general curriculum in general education classrooms is needed. Innovative programs that involve blended general education and special education preparation (Blanton & Pugach, 2007, 2011) or leverage social models of disability (Ashby, 2012; Oyler, 2011; Siuty, 2019), should be studied in more depth. Future research should examine these contexts to better understand what teacher educators and teacher candidates learn and do in these programs, how they shift instruction in local schools and districts, and how program partners (e.g., districts, families, and self-advocates) view and collaborate with these programs. Traditional approaches to special education teacher preparation may not translate to meaningful progress in schools for students with significant disabilities. Longitudinal research that examines the learning trajectory of general and special education teachers in these programs, specific to their views on teaching and learning for students with significant disabilities, is needed to inform advances in teacher preparation.

Conclusion

Advancing access to the general curriculum and inclusion requires an ongoing commitment to building relationships, advocacy, and challenging deficit models across multiple systems. Findings from this study highlight how this complex work is being carried out by teacher educators preparing future teachers of students with significant disabilities. The experiences of the teacher educators in this study emphasize the need to create strategic alliances with school partners and general education teacher educators to transform inequitable systems (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016). If we can work though some of these barriers and propose innovative solutions at the teacher preparation level, perhaps there will be fewer barriers at the in-service level.

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 iD

Amy J. Olson

Editor-in-Charge: Erik W. Carter

Notes

Author Biographies

Amy J. Olson is an associate professor in special education at Winona State University. Her research focuses on teacher preparation, access to the general curriculum, and teacher expertise.

Carly A. Roberts is an assistant professor in the College of Education at the University of Washington in Seattle. Her research addresses teacher preparation and instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

References

Artiles

A. J.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(43), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1919

Ashby

(2010). The trouble with normal: The struggle for meaningful access for middle school students with developmental disability labels. Disability & Society, 25(3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687591003701249

Ashby

(2012). Disability studies and inclusive teacher preparation: A socially just path for teacher education. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691203700204

Baglieri

Shapiro

(2017). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for embracing diversity in education (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642543

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

(2007). Collaborative programs in general and special education: An action guide for higher education and state policy makers. Council of Chief State School Officers.

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

(2011). Using a classification system to probe the meaning of dual licensure in general and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(3), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411404569

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

Boveda

(2018). Interrogating the intersections between general and special education in the history of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118778539

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(20), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205

Choi

J. H.

Meisenheimer

J. M.

McCart

A. B.

Sailor

(2016). Improving learning for all students through equity-based inclusive reform practices: Effectiveness of a fully integrated schoolwide model on student reading and math achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516644054

10.

Cochran-Smith

Dudley-Marling

(2012). Diversity in teacher education and special education: The issues that divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112446512

11.

Cole

C. M.

Waldron

Majd

(2004). Academic programs of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42%3C136:APOSAI%3E2.0.CO;2

12.

Cosier

Causton-Theoharis

Theoharis

(2013). Does access matter? Time in general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513485448

13.

Darling-Hammond

(2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education. AACTE.

14.

Delano

M. E.

Keefe

Perner

(2008/2009). Personnel preparation: Recurring challenges and the need for action to ensure access to general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Significant Disabilities, 34(1), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33/4.232

15.

Dessemontet

R. S.

Bless

Morin

(2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behavior of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

16.

Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Gilson

C. L.

Slagor

M. T.

(2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practices for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.32.1.1

17.

Greenway

McCollow

Hudson

R. F.

Peck

Davis

C. A.

(2013). Autonomy and accountability: Teacher perspectives on evidence-based practice and decision-making for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(4), 456–468.

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat 2647 (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/

19.

Kozleski

E. B.

Handy

(2017). The cultural work of teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 56(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1336033

20.

Kurth

J. A.

Born

Love

(2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for students with severe cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-2.4.286

21.

Kurth

J. A.

Foley

J. A.

(2014). Reframing teacher preparation: Preparing teacher for inclusive education. Inclusion, 2(4), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-2.4.286

22.

Kurth

J. A.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914555580

23.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). SAGE.

24.

Naraian

(2017). Teaching for inclusion. Teachers College Press.

25.

Olson

A. J.

Roberts

C. A.

(2018). Teacher educators’ perspectives: Preparing preservice teachers to provide access to the general curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 39(6), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517738567

26.

Oyler

(2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive and critical (special) education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411406745

27.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170741

28.

Ruppar

A. L.

Fisher

K. W.

Olson

A. J.

Orlando

A. M.

(2018). Exposure to literacy for students eligible for the alternate assessment. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(2), 192–208.

29.

Ruppar

A. L.

Roberts

C. A.

Olson

A. J.

(2017). Perceptions about expert teaching for students with severe disabilities among teachers identified as experts. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917697311

30.

Ryndak

D. L.

Clark

Conroy

Stewart

(2001). Preparing teachers to meet the needs of students with significant disabilities: Program configuration and expertise. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26(2), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.26.2.96

31.

Ryndak

D. L.

Jackson

L. B.

White

J. M.

(2013). Involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K-12 inclusive-education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

32.

Ryndak

D. L.

Moore

M. A.

Orlando

Delano

M. E.

(2008). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and the role of context in research- based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(1), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.199

33.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.

34.

Sindelar

P. T.

Adams

A. J.

Leko

C. D.

(2014). How can teacher education improve effective inclusive schools? In McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

Spooner

Algozzine

(Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 55–66). Routledge.

35.

Siuty

M. B.

(2019). Teacher preparation as interruption or disruption? Understanding identity (re)constitution for critical inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 81(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.02.008

36.

Spooner

Dymond

S. K.

Smith

Kennedy

C. H.

(2006). What we know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 277–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969060310041

37.

TASH. (1991). Definition of the people TASH serves. In Meyer

L. H.

Peck

Brown

(Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (p. 19). Brookes.

38.

Westling

D. L.

Fox

(2009). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Merrill.

39.

Zagona

A. L.

Kurth

J. A.

MacFarland

S. Z. C.

(2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840641769