| 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
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 | 434
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
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 | 436
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
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 | 438
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
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 | 440
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
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 | 442
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
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 | 444
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
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 | 446
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
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 | 448
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,
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 | 450
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
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 | 452
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
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 | 454
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
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 | 456
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.
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 | 458
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.
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 | 460
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.
Top Related