The Special Education Teacher Pipeline: Teacher Preparation, Workforce Entry, and Retention

2021 ◽  
pp. 001440292110101
Author(s):  
Roddy J. Theobald ◽  
Dan D. Goldhaber ◽  
Natsumi Naito ◽  
Marcy L. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Teacher Preparation ◽  
General Education ◽  
Student Teaching ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Special Education Teacher ◽  
Teacher Education Programs ◽  
Education Teacher ◽  
General Education Setting ◽  
Licensure Programs

We used data on the student teaching placements, degrees, teaching credentials, and workforce outcomes of more than 1,300 graduates of special education teacher education programs in Washington to provide a descriptive portrait of specific measures of special education teacher preparation and their relationships with workforce entry and early-career retention. Although rates of workforce entry and retention for these special education candidates were high, we documented considerably lower rates of entry into and retention in special education teaching positions for candidates who hold a dual endorsement in special education and another subject. These patterns have potential implications for the state’s new dual-endorsement requirement and for dual-licensure programs more broadly. Student teaching with a cooperating teacher who is endorsed in special education was also associated with a higher likelihood of becoming a special education teacher, even when controlling for whether the placement was in a special or general education setting.

Developing a Theory of Program Vision as Professional Socialization in Special Education Teacher Preparation

2021 ◽  
pp. 088840642110589
Author(s):  
Hannah Morris Mathews
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Teacher Preparation ◽  
General Education ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Professional Socialization ◽  
Special Education Teacher ◽  
Teacher Preparation Programs ◽  
Preparation Programs ◽  
Education Teacher ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities

In general education, researchers find candidates’ pre-service experiences are a tool for socialization into the knowledge, norms, and values of the profession. An important aspect of this process is program vision—the collective understanding of teaching put forth by a preparation program. Yet, few investigations in special education examine program vision. Using interviews with candidates across six teacher preparation programs, the author generates theory to understand the role of vision in special education teacher candidates’ professional socialization and how experiences of program vision are associated with their conceptions of their future roles and responsibilities. Candidates’ conception of special educators’ roles reflected three characterizations consistent within, but distinct across programs: Direct Instructor, Supportive Differentiator, and General Responder. Each profile was associated with unique roles and responsibilities for special educators. Findings draw attention to the importance of examining vision as a tool for professional socialization in special education teacher preparation.

scholarly journals Transforming Special Education Teacher Education: A Reaction to the Report Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Newton ◽  
Michael J. Kennedy ◽  
Christine Walther-Thomas ◽  
Jake Cornett
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Teacher Education ◽  
Teacher Preparation ◽  
General Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Effective Teachers ◽  
Special Education Teacher ◽  
Education Teacher ◽  
Social Success ◽  
Achievement Data

Policy makers, university teacher education faculty, school leaders, and government officials are asking the same question: How do we recruit, prepare, and retain effective teachers who will produce desired student outcomes in every classroom? This complex question garners distinct opinions depending on the queried stakeholder, but most agree that significant improvement is needed in the processes of teacher preparation and induction (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Greer & Meyen, 2009; Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy, 2010; Wang, Odell, Klecka, Spalding, & Lin, 2010). An argument can be made that the need for improvement is most urgent within the field of special education teacher preparation (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010; Piper, 2007; Pugach, Blanton, & Correa, 2011; Simonsen et al., 2010; Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010) . To illustrate, recent achievement data for students with disabilities provides striking evidence of the critical need for improvement in areas of literacy, graduation rates, and other postsecondary outcomes (e.g. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2009; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Garza, 2006). There is substantial variability in the numerous factors that contribute to the struggles of students with exceptionalities on measures of academic and social success (see Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005; Wagner et al., 2006). Many complex factors influence a teacher's impact on student achievement, which leads to the need for us to continue to examine and reform our current models of teacher preparation. Thus, teacher educators and practitioners must continue to investigate and evaluate the effects of new and existing policies, programmatic structures, and individual practices on outcomes of interest and disseminate those findings. Although calls to reform teacher education and P-12 instruction for children with exceptionalities are not new (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), it is clear that new thinking is needed to overcome traditional barriers to academic and social success for individuals with exceptionalities. However, despite the critical need for improvement, teacher preparation models within special and general education largely remain fixed to traditional methods that reflect the status quo as opposed to evidence-based practice (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wycoff, 2009; Brownell, Griffin, Leko, & Stephens, 2011; Sykes et al., 2010).

scholarly journals Transforming Special Education Teacher Education: A Reaction to the Report Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Newton ◽  
Michael J. Kennedy ◽  
Christine Walther-Thomas ◽  
Jake Cornett
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Teacher Education ◽  
Teacher Preparation ◽  
General Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Effective Teachers ◽  
Special Education Teacher ◽  
Education Teacher ◽  
Social Success ◽  
Achievement Data

Policy makers, university teacher education faculty, school leaders, and government officials are asking the same question: How do we recruit, prepare, and retain effective teachers who will produce desired student outcomes in every classroom? This complex question garners distinct opinions depending on the queried stakeholder, but most agree that significant improvement is needed in the processes of teacher preparation and induction (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Greer & Meyen, 2009; Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy, 2010; Wang, Odell, Klecka, Spalding, & Lin, 2010). An argument can be made that the need for improvement is most urgent within the field of special education teacher preparation (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010; Piper, 2007; Pugach, Blanton, & Correa, 2011; Simonsen et al., 2010; Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010) . To illustrate, recent achievement data for students with disabilities provides striking evidence of the critical need for improvement in areas of literacy, graduation rates, and other postsecondary outcomes (e.g. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2009; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Garza, 2006). There is substantial variability in the numerous factors that contribute to the struggles of students with exceptionalities on measures of academic and social success (see Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005; Wagner et al., 2006). Many complex factors influence a teacher's impact on student achievement, which leads to the need for us to continue to examine and reform our current models of teacher preparation. Thus, teacher educators and practitioners must continue to investigate and evaluate the effects of new and existing policies, programmatic structures, and individual practices on outcomes of interest and disseminate those findings. Although calls to reform teacher education and P-12 instruction for children with exceptionalities are not new (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), it is clear that new thinking is needed to overcome traditional barriers to academic and social success for individuals with exceptionalities. However, despite the critical need for improvement, teacher preparation models within special and general education largely remain fixed to traditional methods that reflect the status quo as opposed to evidence-based practice (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wycoff, 2009; Brownell, Griffin, Leko, & Stephens, 2011; Sykes et al., 2010).

Generalization Training in Special Education Teacher Preparation: Does It Exist?

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Markelz ◽  
Benjamin Riden ◽  
Mary Catherine Scheeler
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Teacher Preparation ◽  
Student Teaching ◽  
Teacher Candidates ◽  
Special Education Teacher ◽  
Teaching Skills ◽  
Preparation Programs ◽  
Education Teacher ◽  
Course Syllabi ◽  
K 12

Enormous resources are committed by universities to prepare special educators to impact student outcomes of our most vulnerable and neediest learners. Generalizing teaching skills from university to K-12 classrooms must be a component of teacher preparation curriculum; otherwise, we continue to merely train our teacher candidates and hope they sustain and generalize their newly acquired skills. Through self-reported surveys and extant data analysis, we identify the extent to which our sample of special education teacher preparation programs are teaching their teacher candidates to generalize newly acquired teaching skills to in-service settings in K-12 classrooms. Results indicate ambiguity with familiarity of generalization techniques and fidelity of implementation. Programming for generalization is absent in reviewed course syllabi, and student teaching supervisors report a disconnect between university and classroom realities. We recommend a systematic approach to programming for generalization by increasing awareness of generalization techniques through professional development, including accountability measures in course syllabi, focusing on high-leverage practices to create more cohesive preparation programs, and improving communication between instructors and student teaching supervisors. Limitations and future research recommendations are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document