Educated Teachers to Fulfill the Promise of Special Education Law

| 431

PowerPlay

5(1)

Educating Teachers to Fulfill the Promise of Special Education Law

Chris Hale*

College of Staten Island

City University of New York

* Address correspondence to: [email protected]

E d u c a t i n g T e a c h e r s t o F u l f i l l t h e P r o m i s e | 432

PowerPlay

5(1)

Abstract

In this article, I apply a critical lens to the nexus of ethics, teacher education, and special

education law and practice. I argue that, despite its flaws and failures, American special

education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has, at its core, a civil-

rights inspired emancipatory spirit, which special education teachers must be prepared and

inspired to realize. Accordingly, teacher educators must dedicate and organize themselves to this

purpose. Because special education (nearly 40 years after the law’s enactment) continues to fail

in realizing many of IDEA’s promises, it is up to teachers to do at the local level what the system

cannot. They must resist oppressive institutional practices and advocate for true inclusion and

empowerment of children with disabilities. In this spirit, I discuss ways in which teacher

education can prepare and inspire them to do this.

433 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

Educating Teachers to Fulfill the Promise of Special Education Law

In this article, I apply a critical lens to the nexus of ethics, teacher education, and special

education law and practice. I argue that, despite its flaws and failures, American special

education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has, at its core, a civil-

rights inspired emancipatory spirit, which special education teachers (SETs) must be prepared

and inspired to realize. Accordingly, teacher educators must dedicate and organize themselves to

this purpose. Because special education (nearly 40 years after the law’s enactment) continues to

fail in realizing many of IDEA’s promises, it is up to teachers to do at the local level what the

system cannot. To this end, they must be able and willing to exercise ethically inspired agency,

to recognize oppressive institutional structures, to resist unjust practices, and to advocate for true

inclusion and empowerment of children with disabilities. In this spirit, it is the responsibility of

SET educators to prepare teachers to embrace the ethical mission that inspired the conception of

IDEA and to enact that mission in their daily practice. Teacher candidates must be prepared to

critically evaluate special education structures and practices. They must be inspired to place the

needs and interests of individual children over institutional needs and technical compliance with

regulatory standards. Yet, as a SET educator, I can affirm teacher candidates are rarely prepared

to take this role and we as teacher educators generally fail to meet our ethical obligations to

prepare them to do so. I offer this paper in the spirit of addressing this failure.

In the first section of this paper I emphasize the emancipatory purpose and ethical

underpinnings of IDEA. Next, I discuss the limits of the law and their consequences. The third

section focuses on teacher beliefs and attitudes relative to disability, special education, and

relationships with parents. In the final section, I consider implications for teacher education.

The Emancipatory Promise of IDEA


PowerPlay

5(1)

Despite what many consider IDEA’s weaknesses: its unclear language, internal contradictions,

and oppressive structures (discussed below), I wish to emphasize its emancipatory potential here

and argue it is that potential that must become a moral compass, an ethical framework, for SETs

if children with disabilities are to receive the justice and equality promised by the IDEA’s

authors and advocates.

IDEA’s Civil Rights Bona Fides

The Brown v. Board of Education decision provided disability advocates with both a

legal and ethical basis for their arguments and a model for the litigation strategies they used to

establishment legal precedents for educational rights for children with disabilities (Kraft, 2004).

As a result of advocates’ successes at winning favorable court decisions, school districts faced

with the considerable expense of accommodating a population with diverse educational needs

were forced to lobby Congress for financial support (Beratan, 2006). In response, Congress

passed the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975. But EAHCA did not

simply pass. It inspired such strong commitment to the principle of equal educational access for

children with disabilities that it passed with near unanimity. Proponents of the new law argued it

would achieve broad social goals including: educating children with disabilities in regular

classrooms, improving the quality of their education, empowering parents as their advocates, and

eliminating racial bias in special education placement (Ong-Dean, 2009). The Senate report on

the EAHCA debate articulated the philosophical standpoint it represented:

This Nation has long embraced a philosophy that the right to a free appropriate public

education is basic to equal opportunity and is vital to secure the future prosperity of our

people. It is contradictory to that philosophy when that right is not assured equally to all

435 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

groups of people within the Nation. Certainly the failure to provide a right to education to

handicapped children cannot be allowed to continue. (Jones, 1995, p. 3)

Ethics and IDEA

The civil rights context of the passage EAHCA and the apparent strength of

Congressional commitment to its principles endow IDEA (its legislative descendant) with a

strong moral purpose. Thus, IDEA’s substantive provisions collectively and individually embody

certain ethical prescriptions and promises of ethical treatment of children with disabilities.

IDEA’s guarantee of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) represents a baseline promise

that children with disabilities receive, at no cost to parents, appropriate educational services in a

public setting. In order to receive federal funding, IDEA mandates public schools guarantee “a

free appropriate public education is available for all children with disabilities residing in the

State…” and consequently “full educational opportunity” (IDEA, 2004, p. 35). With these

words, the law declares children with disabilities may not be excluded from the communal good

of public education and this education must result in parity of opportunity to advance in society.

From this, Weber (2009) infers, given the logistical challenges of preparing schools to

accommodate a population with such highly diverse educational needs, FAPE represents

society’s obligation to adapt public education to accommodate the needs of children with

disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment . As a core principle of IDEA, Least Restrictive

Environment (LRE) requires that:

[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities… are educated with

children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of

children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the

nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with


PowerPlay

5(1)

the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (IDEA,

2004, p. 36).

The word “only” strongly implies that the education of children with disabilities in the company

of nondisabled peers should be considered the default mode, only to be violated under

extraordinary circumstances.

LRE represents IDEA’s embrace of the concept of integration, signifying an affirmation

of the ethical principle of community. LRE also embodies the concept of antidiscrimination.

Affording children with disabilities membership without discrimination is an affirmation of their

humanity and inherent worth. Discriminatory segregation and/or exclusion of people with

disabilities are in direct conflict with the ethics of community. Yet, the principle of community

goes beyond interdiction against exclusion. It represents the belief that the broader society

benefits from the inclusion of all, irrespective of the nature or scope of their divergence from

societal norms. Thus, LRE implies not only do children with disabilities benefit from inclusion,

but inclusion of children with disabilities benefits greater society (Turnbull & Stowe, 2001).

EAHCA’s inclusion of parental due process provisions held the promise of

democratization. Framers of the law sought to reverse special education’s history of professional

dominance and parental disenfranchisement that had estranged parents from participating in

decisions about their children's education (Ong-Dean, 2009). IDEA explicitly articulates

procedural safeguards meant to support the delivery of this promise by giving parents of children

with disabilities the rights to have access to all records, participate in all decisions, and initiate

requests for or refuse any placement or service (IDEA, 2004). By guaranteeing parents due

process rights, IDEA promotes the ethical principle of family as foundation, acknowledging

family as the core unit of society and demanding respect for family integrity, unity, and

437 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

autonomy in making all decisions concerning the well-being of a child (Turnbull & Stowe,

2001).

Addressing the historical injustice of the disproportionate identification of children of

disadvantaged social groups as disabled and the subsequent placement in these children in the

most segregated educational settings, IDEA requires that evaluation procedures and materials

“be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory” (2004, p. 36).

This provision represents the constitutional guarantee of equality as well as the ethical principles

of dignity and antidiscrimination. This requirement also expresses a dictum against the

determination of an individual’s worth based on race, ethnicity, and/or disability status (Turnbull

& Stowe, 2001).

The Individualized Education Program IEP is a specific statement of educational needs

and prescriptions for each child with a disability. IEPs are tailored to individual children’s needs

by an interdisciplinary team in which parents have broad discretion. This document determines a

child’s educational placement and the services and accommodations she or he will receive

(IDEA, 2004). The IEP formalizes the provision of individualized and appropriate services (a

core concept of ethical institutional behavior), which reflect the substantive due process and

equal protection clauses of the Constitution (Turnbull, Wilcox, Stowe, & Umbarger, 2001).

IDEA’s Unfulfilled Promises

IDEA has delivered on its most fundamental promise of guaranteeing a free public

education to children with disabilities yet, after nearly 40 years, many of the injustices it sought

to eliminate persist. Segregated special education settings remain a significant feature of

America’s education systems. The disproportionate placement of students of color in special

education continues unabated. Though parental engagement has increased since the law’s


PowerPlay

5(1)

inception, parents continue to experience alienation and intimidation and are rarely full partners

with professionals in educational decision-making (Ong-Dean, 2009). While there are many

problematic features of IDEA, I focus on two here. They are the structure of the procedural

guarantees meant to empower parents of children with disabilities, and the law's lack of clear

language expressing the statutory requirements for determining FAPE and LRE. These two

aspects present opportunities for ethically informed interpretation and action by education

professionals, aligning daily practice with the emancipatory intentions of IDEA. Of course, these

are not the only aspects of the law contradicting IDEA’s philosophical underpinnings and ethical

intents. The law’s most fundamental structures of attaching stigmatizing disability labels to

children and relegating them to a separate and, often, unequal education system are not addressed

here. These are highly problematic aspects of IDEA but are beyond the scope of this article.

Contradictory Structures

The ethical thrust of the 94th Congress' establishment of elaborate procedural protections

was grounded in respect for family and a desire to empower parents. It was also hoped that

increased or improved services won by individual parents would generalize into system wide

reforms that would benefit all. Yet, IDEA’s emphasis on individual advocacy and the

complexities of its procedural requirements prevent realization of broader social change and

assurance of equal protection for all children with disabilities (Ong-Dean, 2009). The

contradictory effects of these features have been further aggravated by subsequent legal

decisions. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley reinforced IDEA’s

emphasis on individual advocacy and increased deference to professional expertise. Ruling that

parental claims must be based on the individualized requirements of IEPs discouraged class

action suits, reducing the likelihood of addressing system wide inequities (Palley, 2006) and

439 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

increasing deference to professional expertise further decreased the likelihood that poorer parents

would have adequate procedural knowhow and money for lawyers and outside experts to

successfully contest school authorities (Phillips, 2008).

Ambiguous Language

In contrast with IDEA’s detailed procedural provisions, statutory requirements for the

establishment of FAPE and LRE are vague and therefore open to interpretation, further

contributing to special education’s failure to realize the law’s ideals. IDEA states that “[t]o the

maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities… are educated with children who are not

disabled” (2004, p. 36) but how or by whom should “the maximum extent appropriate” be

determined? IDEA’s failure to articulate clear parameters for ascertaining an “appropriate”

public education has made the determination of FAPE and LRE a complicated and contentious

process. It is a process which places local fiscal and political considerations, as well as individual

and institutional ontological and epistemological orientations, in competition with the

emancipatory and inclusive spirit of the law (Palley, 2006). Parent-professional collaboration is

often undermined and appropriate educational placements are considered more restrictive when

stakeholders’ values and beliefs are rooted in deficit perspectives of disability and deference to

professional authority. Parent participation in the IEP process becomes an empty compliance

ritual and unnecessarily restrictive placements go unchallenged (Ramanathan, 2008).

Interpretations of appropriate educational placements are also susceptible to local

politics, informed by historical contexts. For example, historical context have influenced states’

implementations of LRE. States that had developed highly segregated special education systems

prior to the implementation of EAHCA tended to maintain higher levels of segregation. Officials

in states that depended less on separate special education facilities saw special education as more


PowerPlay

5(1)

of a service than a place, and tended to treat LRE as an ideological mandate (Brody, Johnston,

Liggett, & Schattman, 1994).

While the ambiguities and contradictions of IDEA discussed above have contributed to

thwarting the law's original mission, this process has not occurred independent of human agency.

Structure and agency are dialectically intertwined. Individuals employ cultural schema to

interpret and/or reinterpret structures (Sewell, 1992). Whether teachers construe a segregated

class (structure) as appropriate or too restrictive depends on whether they conceptualize

disability (schema) in terms of pathology or difference. Whether teachers truly commit to

supporting parental participation (structure) depends on their conception of professional

authority (schema). Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are indicative of the schemas they bring to the

interpretation of legally mandated special education structures. Whether IDEA’s ethical promises

are realized and children with disabilities are afforded truly equal educational experiences is, in

many ways, dependent on the dispositions special educators bring to their practice.

Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes

SETs, especially in elementary school, are the most centrally located professionals in the

lives of children with disabilities. By default, SETs are responsible for delivering or supervising

most educational services and contribute to the determination of LRE. SETs are often the

primary authors of IEPs and are the principal contact for parents. Therefore, SETs are

strategically placed to advocate for special education students by mediating (and even

subverting) oppressive institutional practices. The degree to which teachers are prepared and/or

willing to take up this challenge depends on their perceptions of the nature of disability, their

understanding of the impact of special education structures and practices, and their attitudes

relative to collaboration with parents.

441 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

Conceptions of Disability

Teachers’ notions of disability play a key role in forming personal beliefs about the

potentialities of students with disabilities and, consequently, influence judgments about students’

abilities to succeed in less restrictive educational settings and/or to participate in rich and

engaging curricula. If SETs subscribe to a medical model of disability, seeing disability as a

fixed, intrinsic condition, independent of social context (instructional setting, teacher quality,

etc,), they are more likely to view children with disabilities through a deficit lens and less

inclined to advocate for a less restrictive school placement or participation in mainstream

curricula (Dudley-Marling & Paugh, 2010). Conversely, if teachers acknowledge the influence of

context on learning, viewing disability as situated and plastic (commonly refer to as a social

model of disability), they are more prone to recommend a less restrictive, more inclusive setting

and are more likely to believe in special education students’ ability to rise to educational

challenges (Connor, Gabel, Gallagher, & Morton, 2008; Jordan, Glenna, & McGhie-Richmond,

2010). Unfortunately, the former deficit perspective is more common than the latter. Educators

(including SETs) generally subscribe to a medical model of disability and express deficit-based

perceptions of children with disabilities (Jordan, Glenna, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010; Jordan,

Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009; Pearson, 2009; Young, 2008). When general educators in

inclusive settings view disability through a medical model lens, they assume disability to be the

sole explanation for underachievement (Jordan et al., 2010). In addition, deficit assumptions

cause teachers to feel unprepared to teach children with disabilities, and to view doing so as

someone else's job (Cook, 2001; Jordan et al., 2010). Given that scientific, psychological, and

medical discourses underlie special education, as an institution and a body of scholarship, it is


PowerPlay

5(1)

not surprising many educators subscribe to a pathological/medical model of disability (Reid &

Valle, 2004).

Perceptions of Special Education

How SETs perceive special education, as an institution and a set of practices, impacts

both the choices they make (curricular, placement, etc.) and their relationships with children and

parents. Ware (2002) argues that special educators normatively see special education as

incontestably benign and fail to recognize its objectifying and stigmatizing potential. The roots

of this uncomplicated and uncritical perception of the field can be traced to SETs’

understandings of their roles as special educators who typically subscribe to an ideology of

benevolent humanitarianism. It is this assumption of benevolent purpose that obfuscates the

impact of educational context on children’s performance. When children’s performance and/or

behavior do not meet expected norms, SETs generally fail to acknowledge the contributions of

setting and practices, instead attributing sole blame for academic failure and problematic

behaviors to student characteristics (Darling-Marling & Paugh, 2010). Moreover, in interactions

with parents, SETs usually do not question the validity of disability identification, instead seeing

parents who resist labels as “in denial” (Trainor, 2010). When SETs accept special education

practices and structures uncritically, their critical gaze is likely to rest on children and their

parents. When problems arise, the cause is usually assigned to the individual, while the context is

rarely interrogated.

Attitudes towards Parental Participation

Teachers' beliefs and attitudes relative to the place of parents in the education of their

children strongly influence the quality of parent-professional relationships. In a special education

context, where IDEA mandates that parents be full partners with veto power in all decisions

443 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

relative to their children's education, SETs' attitudes and beliefs can determine whether parents

attain that status and whether the law's statutes are satisfied. Unfortunately, rather than assuming

an advocacy role supporting parental empowerment, deficit perspectives may often undermine

such roles (Trainor, 2010). SETs and teacher candidates often fail to recognize the struggles

parents of children with disabilities face, instead questioning their commitment to their children's

education and criticizing their parenting (Brantlinger, 1996; Trainor, 2010). SETs also express

skepticism about parents' positive assessments of their children's abilities (Young, 2007). When

special educators fail to respect parents, they are unlikely to treat them as partners or act as

advocates.

Developing a Special Education Teacher Education Program Imbued with the Spirit of

IDEA

If deficit perspectives contradicting and subverting the spirit and the letter of IDEA are

common among special educators, then teacher educators must be proactive in developing

dispositions that support law’s promises. As professionals charged with preparing SETs, teacher

educators play a significant role in ensuring that special education fulfills its legally mandated

mission to protect, include, and empower children with disabilities. Accordingly, teacher

educators must organize teacher preparation programs to proactively address contradictory

beliefs and attitudes and develop dispositional orientations, understandings, and skills that are

consistent with that mission. Teacher educators must go beyond imparting foundational,

curricular, and pedagogical knowledge and skills and address dispositional characteristics of

teacher candidates. This is not a radical position. In fact, this perspective is clearly supported by

one of the largest and most respected special education advocacy groups and teacher education


PowerPlay

5(1)

accrediting organizations, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). This position is easily

inferred from the ethical comportment CEC expects of special education professionals.

As professionals serving individuals with exceptionalities, special educators possess a special

trust endowed by the community and recognized by professional licensure. As such, special

educators have a responsibility to be guided by their ethical principles and professional practice

standards (Council for Exceptional Children, 2009, p. 1).

Many of the ethical principles referenced in this statement are aligned with the ethical

prescriptions embodied by IDEA’s legal provisions. These principles include: the promotion of

“meaningful and inclusive participation” of children with disabilities (LRE); “[d]eveloping

relationships with families based on mutual respect and actively involving” them in their

children's education (procedural safeguards); “[p]rotecting… the physical and psychological

safety” of and not “tolerating any practice that harms” children with disabilities (FAPE, LRE,

and IEP); and “upholding laws, regulations, and policies that influence professional practice and

advocating” for their improvement (CEC, 2010, p. 1).

In the following section an action plan, grounded in the relevant literature, is proposed

for developing a SET education program focused on preparing teacher candidates to embrace the

spirit of IDEA, to engage in critical scrutiny of special education structures and practices, and to

repurpose them to realize that spirit.

Program Integrity

1. The organization of teacher education programs needs to reflect a unity of purpose that

supports a focused mission with a clear theoretical and philosophical orientation.

SET preparation programs can be a major source of beliefs and attitudes undermining

IDEA’s emancipatory message by contributing to the medical model-based deficit perspectives

445 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

and uncritical views of special education novice teachers bring with them to the field. Often, the

more special education training teachers have, the more reductionist and medical model-based

their orientations (Wong, 2010).

For a preparation program to effectively influence the beliefs and attitudes of teacher

candidates, teacher educators must be unified in supporting a focused mission with a clear

theoretical and philosophical orientation. Yet, even when programs are conceived with a stated

commitment to promoting inclusive and non-deficit-based perspectives, teacher candidates

receive conflicting messages and program goals are undermined, when teacher educators do not

share those perspectives (Lambe, 2011). Clearly development of faculty consensus is essential to

establishing a SET program with a unity of purpose.

While discursive alignment among faculty is fundamental to building unity of purpose,

curricular alignment is also essential. If SET educators wish to affect dispositions that support

the emancipatory purpose of IDEA, they cannot allow special education textbooks to dominate

the discourse and dilute their message. One common factor contributing to the development of

deficit-based perspectives among teacher candidates in SET education programs is the effect that

textbooks have on the organization and content of special education courses. It is common

practice among teacher educators for textbooks to become the central organizing feature and a

major source of legitimized knowledge in their courses. It is common practice (and somewhat

convenient) for professors to align their syllabi (content and even topic sequence) to conform to

textbooks. Deficit-based medicalized perspectives on children with disabilities dominate these

textbooks and their third-person voice lends them an authoritative voice of

objective/uncontestable knowledge. These textbooks are commonly organized in ways that

reinforce disability labeling, “diagnosis” criteria, and other special education structures. For SET


PowerPlay

5(1)

candidates, the organization and apparent authority of these texts present a source of legitimized

knowledge that is rarely contested (Brantlinger, 2006).

Despite the obvious need for high levels of consensus among faculty, it must be

acknowledged that development of a coherent and focused teacher education program faces

obstacles presented by fundamental university structures. It is difficult to align purposes and

practices when attempts at coordination and consistency are challenged by the deeply ingrained

principle of academic freedom. Also, developing a sense of collective purpose among faculty is

challenging when numbers of itinerant adjunct faculty are ever increasing. Therefore the

development of consensus among faculty (full time and adjunct) can only result from a focused

and sustained commitment to processes that build community by encouraging reflection,

exchange, and compromise.

Addressing Occupational Socialization

2. Proactively address the challenge of occupational socialization

The most intransigent challenge faced by teacher educators wishing to significantly

influence the beliefs, attitudes, and practices of novice teachers is the overwhelming power of

occupational socialization. Occupational socialization is the dominating influence of the school

context on teacher behavior (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005). Teacher educators assume that

knowledge, skills, and dispositions imparted to teacher candidates will provide them with tools

to guide their practice in ways that will enhance their abilities to become responsible

professionals and effective teachers. Teacher educators believe that their professionalization

efforts will directly translate into robust professional behaviors in the classroom. Yet there is

strong evidence that these assumptions are not reflective of reality. Skrtic (1991) argues against

this myth of professional continuity. The normative view is that the professional culture of

447 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

teaching is a continuum of professional experiences that encompasses the applied science

subculture (teacher education) and the occupational subcultures (schools). Accordingly, teachers

learn a repertoire of practices and understandings for future application on the job. Once teachers

leave graduate school, the site of their professionalization; the culture of schools becomes the

dominant influence on their professional lives. Thus, professional culture and occupational

culture are decoupled. Novice teachers leave educational programs with a collection of

professional practices reflecting the conventions and traditions of the teacher education

subculture. As teachers, they become part of the practitioner subculture, where professional

behavior is influenced by the cultural norms of local institutions rather than by rational,

knowledge-based teachings in schools of education.

Tactics can be drawn from the literature that may help teacher educators effectively

compete with the power of occupational socialization. Fieldwork and student teaching are often

where the school socialization process begins therefore teacher education programs must be

purposefully organized to provide field experiences addressing this.

2.1. Bracket field experiences with opportunities for reflection, critical analysis, and

learning about alternative perspectives and approaches.

The process of occupational socialization begins when teacher candidates are assigned

their first field experiences. Hence, providing integrated field experiences alternating briefer

practicum experiences with courses that provide periods of theoretical immersion and critical

exploration can be an effective way of addressing the challenges presented by occupational

socialization. Usually, schools of education require a semester or year-long practicum/student

teaching experience toward the end of the program. This period of supervised field application is

usually accompanied by a weekly seminar. By sandwiching relatively brief and varied practicum


PowerPlay

5(1)

experiences between opportunities to prepare for, reflect on, and contextualize experiences in the

field, teacher candidates are more likely to apply and retain theoretical and philosophical

perspectives developed in their teacher education programs (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005).

2.2. Enlist cooperating teachers whose beliefs and practices align with program goals.

Another way teacher educators can influence the socialization process is to exercise some

control over the choice of cooperating teachers under whom student teachers work. For novice

teachers to develop inclusive propensities, they must work with cooperating teachers who are

successful at and dedicated to inclusion. Inclusion-oriented cooperating teachers are able to

inspire student teachers to recognize the value of inclusion and the negative effects of

segregation. Placing student teachers with cooperating instructors who advocate for, practice,

and are able to articulate their perspectives on differentiated instruction is essential to inspiring

beginning teachers to effectively accommodate academic diversity (Brantlinger, 1996)

2.3. Be influential by being helpful. Offer professional development and other services with

the underlying purpose of influencing school culture.

Beyond efforts to compete with occupational socialization through preemptive

organization of teacher candidates’ fieldwork and practicum experiences, teacher educators must

also attempt to directly engage the culture of schools, the engine of enculturation. Changes in

individual teachers' beliefs must be accompanied by changes in collective beliefs within schools

(Jordan et al., 2010). To affect broader changes in school culture, schools of education must be

actively engaged with schools. To this end, teacher educators should develop relationships with

schools based on the provision of professional development. Inclusive perspectives can be

bundled with instructional methods and other forms of expertise. The extent of change teacher

educators can expect to affect in school cultures depends on the quantity and forms of assistance

449 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

and cooperation they offer. Maintaining long-term engagements and being sensitive to school

cultures is key. Enlisting SETs working in the schools and teaching similar populations to assist

in the professional development is important for developing credibility. In this way, school

personnel can trust the source of and be more engaged and open to new ideas (Ruiz et al., 1995).

Developing Critically Reflective Teacher Candidates

3. Support teacher candidates in critically reflecting on their beliefs about disability, special

education, and working with parents.

Of course, SET candidates come to schools of education with pre-established beliefs and

attitudes relative to disability, special education, and working with parents. These beliefs are

likely to reflect ableist models of disability and teaching and are frequently deficit based and,

unless addressed, are likely to undermine their ability to realize the spirit of IDEA. Teacher

candidates’ beliefs relative to disability and parenting are based in their own non-inclusive

school experiences and influenced by their own social class positions. Subsequently, many

candidates’ perspectives contradict the principles of inclusion and their class-informed biases

relative to appropriate parenting influenced their judgments of parents (Brantlinger, 1996). Also,

the personal philosophies of justice teachers bring with them to the classrooms form the basis for

their beliefs relative to issues of fairness in inclusive settings. Depending on their orientations

toward justice, teachers see needs-based principles of fairness (i.e., children should have access

to resources based on their needs) as representing either equity for students with disabilities or

unfair advantage. The latter represents the normative view of fairness that all children receive the

same resources (Berry, 2008).

SET educators must engage teacher candidates in critical reflection on their beliefs and

attitudes relative to disability, special education, and relationships with parents. Accordingly,


PowerPlay

5(1)

educators must be taught to be reflective and recognize the effects of their own values and beliefs

on the decision-making process and how those values and beliefs mediate knowledge and

procedures in special education (Trainor, 2010). Teacher educators must engage teacher

candidates in a critical yet constructive examination of the implications of the anti-inclusion

beliefs they express in their written and verbal expressions. Candidates should be encouraged to

develop their own values-oriented philosophy of education (Brantlinger, 1996). To this end,

teacher educators must develop preparation programs in which teacher candidates are initiated

early into a culture of critical self-reflection. The purpose is to provide candidates with

opportunities to expose and challenge their own ableist assumptions and to recognize how these

assumptions support stereotypes and underlie acts of discrimination. This process of critical self-

examination leads to cognitive dissonance, resulting from a clash of internalized beliefs and

developing critical awareness. Cognitive dissonance then creates opportunities for the

development of new beliefs about disability (Peters & Reid, 2009).

4. Engage teacher candidates in intense study and critical analysis of special education law

and practices and the implicit belief systems that inform them.

Teacher educators must engage teacher candidates in intensive study and critical

examination of special education law, regulations, and related institutional practices. Teacher

candidates should be encouraged to examine special education systems in the context of daily

practice. In this way, candidates will see how practitioner attitudes and beliefs influence their

interpretation of laws and regulations and eventually the enactment of institutional structures and

practices (Pearson, 2009). Teacher candidates must be armed with critical theoretical tools to

identify and critique discriminatory and disabling perspectives and practices found in schools

(Broderick et al., 2012; Pearson, 2009). Also, to facilitate the legally mandated empowerment of

451 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

parents, prospective SETs must be encouraged to examine special education policy through a

cultural capital theory lens. Teacher candidates need to think critically about issues of power and

status and how these issues may limit parents’ access to cultural capital (knowledge and

dispositions required to navigate the system (Bourdieu, 1998)). Future SETs must acknowledge

the ethical obligation to assist parents in developing adequate cultural and social capital to

participate meaningfully in their children’s education (Trainor, 2010).

To develop special educators willing and able to interrogate special education practices

for underlying deficit perspectives that undermine IDEA’s original purpose, teacher educators

must facilitate critical analysis of multiple conflicting perspectives on disability and special

education. Failing to use multicultural and critical perspectives to engage teacher candidates in

discussions of discrimination, prejudice, and power in the context of special education leaves

new teachers without needed tools to frame the complexities of daily practice and to address the

dilemmas of power and status that infuse relations with children and parents (De Valenzuela,

Connery, & Musanti, 2000). Providing opportunities for SET candidates to be exposed to

competing discourses on special education is a powerful way to facilitate the development of

critical dispositions and encourage critical analysis of the foundational assumptions underlying

special education. When special education foundation courses begin with study of science-based,

traditional models of disability and special education, SET candidates become aware of the

underlying principles of existing special education systems. Based on societal understanding of

disability, this discourse on special education is familiar to candidates, confirming their

expectations. Then, contrasting discourses problematizing traditional discourses are introduced

through essays, poems, narratives, autobiographies, and other sources. Exposure to these


PowerPlay

5(1)

opposing discourses elicits cognitive dissonance in the candidates, which leads to critical

exploration of dominant practices (Peters & Reid, 2009).

5. Support the establishment of communities that engage in critical exploration and

development of a sense of collective purpose.

Encouraging a culture of critical reflection is important to supporting individuals'

development of critically reflective capacities. As in the case of occupational socialization,

individuals borrow from and are influenced and inspired by the culture that surrounds them. If an

appropriate culture is not developed, teacher educators' efforts are more likely to encounter

individual and collective resistance and are more likely to cast aside beliefs and attitudes

promoted by the University as they enter the working world. It is therefore important that teacher

educators facilitate development of a culture of collective commitment to interrogate oppressive

practices and advocate for social justice. Individual awareness of alternate discourses on

disability and special education should be encouraged and enhanced through discursive dialogue

within a community of learners (Peters & Reid, 2009).

Developing Advocates

6. Teacher candidates must be encouraged and prepared to become advocates.

Because of their central position in the education of children with disabilities and in

parent-school relationships, SETs must be advocates for their students and their families. It is

primarily SETs’ responsibility to advocate for appropriate services and accommodations and

forge true partnerships with parents of students with disabilities. It therefore falls to SET

educators to prepare future educators for these responsibilities and to encourage strong and

engaged advocacy. If social justice for children with disabilities is to be realized, teacher

educators must expose teacher candidates to historical, cultural, legal, economic, and social

453 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

representations of disability. Thus, future teachers will develop awareness of school contexts in

which children with disabilities are oppressed and recognize systemic changes that must occur.

Additionally, teacher educators must encourage community building through outreach to

potential allies such as parents, individuals with disabilities, policymakers, etc. (Peters & Reid,

2009). Effective teacher preparation programs are organized to encourage collective purpose and

action among teacher candidates. As a result, novice teachers are better equipped to develop

likeminded networks that help them sustain their commitment to inclusive education and find

ways to work collectively toward creating more inclusive schools (Broderick et al., 2012).

6.1. Teacher candidates must hear the voices and learn about the life experiences of

individuals with disabilities and their families.

One of the most important qualities a SET can have is compassion for and understanding

of students with disabilities and their parents’ lived experiences of special education and

disability. Teachers must not see special education students as a manifestation of their disability

category or as a conglomerate of weaknesses associated with disability labels. In order to truly

empower and enhance the lives of children with disabilities and their parents, SETs must develop

an understanding of students’ thoughts and feelings about having a disability, special education,

being labeled, and being thought of as “stupid” when they cannot perform as other students do.

SETs also must develop understanding of and compassion for parents. SETs need to imagine

how it must feel to have a child with a disability and what it must be like to deal with the

complexities of special education. To this end, it is up to teacher educators to provide teacher

candidates with access to the actual voices of children with disabilities and their parents. Teacher

candidates must be given information about and direct contact with students with disabilities.

Increased knowledge and appreciation of their experiences will likely promote acceptance of


PowerPlay

5(1)

their inclusion (Berry, 2008). Additionally, recognition of the experiences and desires of those

who are often reduced to the objects of legal and institutional mandates would move teachers to

go beyond simple compliance with legal dictates that govern relationships with parents and

would encourage the development of alternative decision-making structures, where educators,

students, and families would collaborate as a community (Ware, 2002). Also, exposing teacher

candidates to multiple and varied representations of the lived experiences of individuals with

disabilities (e.g., narrative qualitative research, essays, poems, autobiographies, etc. as listed

above) encourages candidates to see beyond the abstracted, institutional version of disability

(Peters & Reid, 2009).

6.2. Disproportionality must be proactively and effectively addressed.

Disproportionality is a persistent source of injustice in special education. It has been

recognized and studied since the 1960s and despite nearly 50 years of research and well-intended

legal, legislative, and administrative efforts, children of color continue to be disproportionately

placed in special education and placed in the most restrictive settings within special education.

Schools of education must address this affront to social justice proactively.

Teacher preparation may contribute to the cultural mismatch phenomenon University

faculty with limited experience teaching students from diverse backgrounds may not be

comfortable addressing diversity issues in classrooms. Also, a shortage of teacher educators from

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds reduces the likelihood that teacher candidates

will be exposed to multicultural understandings and the perspectives of disenfranchised

populations. Of course, this deficit should be addressed through making cultural diversity a clear

priority in new faculty hiring. Nevertheless, whatever the ethnic profile of the faculty, teacher

educators must focus on providing teachers and administrators with culturally responsive

455 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

instruction and classroom management (Albrecht, Skiba, Losen, Chung, & Middelberg, 2011).

To this end, teacher education programs must be designed with curricular elements, which

address issues of diversity and multicultural education. Teachers must be prepared to recognize

how their culture differs from that of their students and understand that differences in cultures

are manifested in differences of values, knowledge, and communication styles. These differences

can exacerbate the likelihood of bias and its consequences (Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Gibb,

Rausch, Cuadrado, & Chung, 2008).

African American students, particularly males, are disproportionately represented in

special education. Accordingly, teacher educators must be accountable for preparing teacher

candidates to examine the racist attitudes that result from persisting negative perception of

Blackness and the sense of entitlement that unexamined experiences of [White] privilege

can bring. Teacher candidates must be prepared not only to recognize their own biases but to

deconstruct institutional structures that reinforce White privilege and racist stereotypes of

Blackness (Blanchett, 2006).

Conclusion

While IDEA has serious limitations that have contributed to its failure to realize much its

emancipatory potential, it is the law that currently exists. Given special education’s size,

complexity, and the depth of its historical and political roots, legal and/or institutional reforms

are slow to come to fruition. Yet, we (the special education community) cannot wait for reform.

Children are being unnecessarily stigmatized and segregated and parents are being marginalized

and alienated on a daily basis. SETs must act individually by taking to heart the original spirit of

the law and exercising agency to include rather than segregate and to empower rather than

marginalize children with disabilities and their parents. For our part, teacher educators must


PowerPlay

5(1)

commit ourselves to preparing and inspiring teacher candidates to hold special education to its

promises through the practice of critical examination of special education policies and practices.

As educators and advocates we need to apply the emancipatory spirit of IDEA to reinterpreting

deficit-based schemas and repurposing oppressive institutional structures.

457 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

References

Albrecht, S. F., Skiba, R., Losen, D., Chung. C-G., & Middelberg, L. (2012). Federal policy on

disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward? Journal of Disability

Policy Studies, 23(1), 14-25.

Beratan, G. (2006). Institutionalizing inequity: Ableism, racism and IDEA 2004. Disability

Studies Quarterly, 26(2).

Berry, R. A. W. (2008). Novice teachers’ conceptions of fairness in inclusion classrooms.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1149–1159.

Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special

education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 24-28.

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Retreived from: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brantlinger, E. A. (1996). Influence of preservice teachers' believes about pupil achievement on

attitudes toward inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(1), 17-33.

Brantlinger, E. A. (2006). The big glossies: How textbooks structure (special) education. In

Brantlinger, E. A. (Ed.), Who benefits from special education? Remediating (fixing) other

people’s children (pp. 45-76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.

Broderick, A. A., Hawkins, G., Henze, S., Mirasol-Spath, C., Pollack-Berkovits, R., Prozzo

Clune, H., … Steel, C. (2012). Teacher counternarratives: Transgressing and ‘restorying’

disability in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 825–842.


PowerPlay

5(1)

Brody, H. S., Johnston, A. P., Liggett, A. M., & Schattman, R. A. (1994). A qualitative policy

study of the least restrictive environment provision of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act. Exceptional Children, 60(6), 491-510.

Brouwer, N. & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American

Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153-224.

Connor, D. J., Gabel, S. L., Gallagher, D. J., & Morton. M. (2008). Disability studies and

inclusive education—Implications for theory, research, and practice. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(5-6), 441-457.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). What every special educator must know: Ethics,

standards, and guidelines, 6th

Edition Revised. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/News%20and%20Reports/Redbook%2

02009.pdf

Council for Exceptional Children. (2010, January). Council for Exceptional Children Special

education professional ethical principles. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/

Standards/Professional%20Ethics%20and%20Practice%20Standards/Ethics%20Translati

ons/CEC_Ethics_English.pdf

Cook, B. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild

and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203-213.

De Valenzuela, J. S., Connery, M. C., & Musanti, S. I. (2000). The theoretical foundations of

professional development in special education: Is sociocultural theory enough? Remedial

and Special Education, 21(2), 111-120.

459 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

Dudley-Marling, C., & Paugh, P. (2010). Confronting the discourse of deficiencies. Disability

Studies Quarterly, 30(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/ 1241

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 612, 118 Stat. 2676

(2004)

Jones, N. L. (1995). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Congressional intent.

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, The Library of Congress. 95-669.

Jordan, A., Glenna, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The Supporting Effective Teaching

(SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers’ beliefs about

disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,

26(2), 259–266.

Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive

classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535–542.

Kraft, M. (2004). Least restrictive environment: Policy analysis and case study of a high school

art class. Visual Arts Research, 30(1), 22-34.

Lambe, J. (2011). Pre-service education and attitudes towards inclusion: the role of the teacher

educator within a permeated teaching model. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 15(9), 975-999.

Ong-Dean, C. (2009). Distinguishing disability: Parents, privilege, and special education.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Palley, E. (2006). Challenges of rights-based law: Implementing the least restrictive environment

mandate. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(4), 229-335.


PowerPlay

5(1)

Pearson, S. (2009). Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers’ attitudes to and

construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 25(4), 559–568.

Peters, S. & Reid, K. D. (2009). Resistance and discursive practice: Promoting advocacy in

teacher undergraduate and graduate programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4),

551-558.

Phillips, E. (2008). When parents aren't enough: External advocacy in special education. The

Yale Law Journal, 117(8), 1802-1853.

Ramanathan, A. (2008). Paved with good intentions: The federal role in the oversight and

enforcement of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child

Left Behind Act (NCLB). Teachers College Record, 110(2). 278-321.

Reid, K. D. & Valle J. W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability: Implications for

instruction and parent-school relations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 466-481.

Ruiz, N.T., Ruedaa, R., Figueroa, R. A., & Boothroyd, M. (1995). Bilingual special education

teachers' shifting paradigms: Complex responses to educational reform. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 28(10), 622-635.

Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American

Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29.

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C-

G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.

Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.

Skrtic, T. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and

school organization. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

461 | H a l e

PowerPlay

5(1)

Trainor, A. A. (2010). Educators' expectations of parent participation: The role of cultural and

social capital. Multiple Voices For Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 12(2), 33-

50.

Turnbull, H. R. III & Stowe, M. J. (2001). A taxonomy for organizing the core concepts

according to their underlying principles. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(3), 177-

197.

Turnbull, H. R. III, Wilcox, B. L., Stowe, M. J., & Umbarger, G. T. (2001) Matrix of federal

statutes and federal and state court decisions reflecting the core concepts of disability

policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(3), 144–176.

Ware, L. P. (2002). A moral conversation on disability: Risking the personal in educational

contexts. Hypatia, 17(3), 143-172.

Weber, M. C. (2009). Special education law: Challenges old and new. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10),

728-732.

Wong, J. (2010). Exploring the construction/deconstruction of learning disabilities in an urban

school: Revisiting Sleeter's essay. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(2). Retrieved from

http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1242

Young, K. (2008). An alternative model of special education teacher education socialization.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 901-914.

Educated Teachers to Fulfill the Promise of Special Education Law

Documents

Transcript of Educated Teachers to Fulfill the Promise of Special Education Law