Preparing preservice teachers for inclusion in secondary classrooms

In the last fifteen years, federal legislation and the Regular Education Initiative (REI) have prompted a reconceptualization in the way that students with disabilities are educated; many schools in the country are moving towards a fully inclusive model where students with disabilities are educated with their nondisabled peers. This movement has vast implications for both practicing and preservice teachers, as they need to acquire the knowledge, dispositions, and performances required to successfully manage an inclusive classroom. Teacher education programs, in the unique position of preparing future teachers for this challenge, are changing in a variety of ways. It appears that most of these changes have focused on programs for those pursuing elementary certification; secondary classrooms have unique issues which must also be addressed. The Campus Friends program, a field study component of a course for future secondary teachers at Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana, is described as an example of one way to address the understandings of this audience.

In 1975, PL 94-142, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act paved the way for students with disabilities between the ages of 5 and 21 to be educated whenever possible with students without disabilities. The subsequent amendments to this law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 and then of 1997, continued this mandate while making refinements in areas such as due process, categories served, and discipline. These pieces of legislation, together with the Regular Education Initiative (REI) movement of the 1980s, have resulted in the current programming model in many areas of the country - full inclusion of students with disabilities. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Education indicated that 95% of students with disabilities are educated in regular schools (cited in Lewis & Doorlag, 1999).

The implications for practicing teachers have been vast. The role of special educators has changed dramatically, with a shift from direct provider of instruction to facilitator and consultant. This change has resulted in increasing concern among teachers in this group. A study by Schroth (1997) found high levels of concern among special educators in two districts moving toward inclusion regarding information issues, personal demands of inclusion, and also how inclusion would be managed. One district implemented a plan for training teachers, providing opportunities for visitations of inclusive schools, and sharing information; a post survey indicated that the levels of concern in this group had decreased while those of the control group remained the same.

Similarly, the new, more direct role of the general education teacher has demanded an increased understanding of various types of disabilities, types of appropriate curricular and instructional modifications, and interactions with the students with disabilities in the classroom (Sabornie & deBettencourt, 1997). Collegial coaching and staff development programs in these areas are vital and must be implemented as secondary schools move to an inclusive model (Ruder, 2000). Teachers have a right and a responsibility to be prepared for the task at hand.

Teacher education programs are in a position to ensure that preservice teachers acquire the knowledge, dispositions, and performances required to succeed in educating students with disabilities before they get to the classroom. Moreover, special education standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) state that "professional education programs should prepare all school personnel to contribute to the education of exceptional learners" (cited in Connard, 1984, p.1). This, together with the Regular Education Initiative, has resulted in "many states requiring introductory level special education coursework for all preservice teachers and inservice teacher recertification" (Powers, 1992, p.1). However, requirements for coursework in special education for those planning to teach in general education varies by state, and sometimes within states for elementary vs. secondary programs. The good news is that even one required course appears to yield significant differences in attitudes and instructional competencies among preservice teachers (Powers, 1992). It cannot be concluded however, that these changes necessarily manifest in satisfactory instruction once the teacher is practicing. Hopefully, this caution can be avoided with a variety of teacher preparation models that are becoming more and more common.

What are some of these models? In addition to enriched models alluded to above, where students take perhaps one course which introduces them to special education issues, there are several others. One option which has been developed in several areas of the country involves merging regular and special education into a unified program of study, such that issues discussed in courses focus on all children, including those with disabilities (Kemple, Hartle, Correa, & Fox, 1994). Slightly different is the idea of an embedded or infused model. Campbell (1995) differentiates between these two in her description of undergraduate and graduate programming at Webster University, an independent liberal arts university in the midwest. According to Campbell, embedded programs at the graduate level create "opportunities for graduate students to learn about inclusive education practices at the same time they are concentrating in a specialized area of study" (p. 9). Thus, strategies for dealing with diverse learners are a part of those courses specific to a particular content strand proficiency. She goes on to describe infused programs as those which "infuse the content of the professional education program to include instructional and curricular techniques appropriate for the developmental, cognitive, social, cultural, and physical needs of diverse learners." (p. 10). A final option which is becoming more prevalent is that of mandatory dual certification; students take coursework which prepares them for certification in regular elementary (or early childhood) and special education.

These reconceptualizations of teacher education appear to focus more on the elementary, rather than secondary level. This is unfortunate, since inclusion practices affect those at this level as well. According to Connard and Dill (1984), who studied perceptions of secondary educators regarding their role in understand PL 94-142, university teacher preparation faculty and public school administrators need to address jointly the unique needs of inclusive classrooms at the secondary level. Some of these unique needs include collaborative consultation, cooperative teaching, and teaming. Strategies in dealing with behavior and discipline issues may differ from those utilized at the elementary level. An additional area of understanding is that of transition services for secondary students. According to Repetto (1995):

Teacher education programs must incorporate leadership, public relations, change agent, collaboration, communication, and time management skills into existing programs if future secondary special and regular educators (transition providers) are to be prepared to meet the demands of their jobs and to provide transition services to students to assist them in meeting their futures. One crucial component that should be infused into secondary special and regular education programs is the philosophy that education takes place in all types of settings in and out of school, and that education should be outcome-oriented to the future needs of students in their community and work settings. (p. 136)

One sample model of meeting the unique needs of inclusive secondary classrooms can be found in a course and correlated field study which was developed at Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Description of the Course and Field Component

Indiana is one state, as described above, which has varying requirements for students in elementary and secondary education programs. While both programs are transitioning to a more standards-based approach which will soon demand course work in differentiated instruction, to date students who are pursuing a secondary teaching certificate have few requirements in this area. Prior to 1998, the teacher education program at Saint Mary's offered one course for elementary majors, while those in the secondary program received some information in various other courses (e.g., Reading in the Content Area). There was no one course devoted to special education issues relevant at the secondary level.

Faculty in the Education Department agreed that such a course was integral to the full preparation of secondary teachers and this became the impetus for development of Educating Exceptional Learners in Middle School, Junior High, and Secondary Classrooms. The course provides basic information on special education models, programming at different levels, legislation relevant to both special education in general and secondary special education in particular, cross-categorical perspectives, curricular and instructional modifications in areas such as reading and writing, discipline issues, transitioning, and post-secondary options. A variety of speakers enhance the experience and include a special education teacher participating in team planning, individuals who have various disabilities, and a director of special education who tells of her involvement with manifestation determination conferences and other discipline issues. Students take a field trip to a local sheltered workshop where they hear a presentation on transition services in the schools, client-centered programming, and community-based employment. Assignments in the course include preparing a micro-teaching lesson in the student's content area with modification apparent; another is a child advocacy project where students interview an outside agency about a particular disability and then prepare a product aimed at advocacy for that particular disability.

Most of the courses at Saint Mary's College, including this one, have a field study component which is vital in connecting the theory of the course to practice. The field experience which is a part of this course is entitled "Campus Friends;" once a week, young adult students (aged 18-21) with disabilities come to campus from the young adult services program at a local public school to interact with the college students on social skills. Using the Skillstreaming the Adolescent program (Goldstein, Sprafkin, Gershaw, & Klein, 1980), students practice social skills application exercises in a "structured learning" environment. Skillstreaming consists of teaching prosocial behaviors through (1) modeling, (2) role-playing, (3) performance feedback, and (4) transfer of training. As described by Sabornie and deBettencourt (1997, p. 250), "Students observe models performing the exact skill to be learned, rehearse individual behaviors, and receive feedback from other students and trainers. Procedures are selected that increase the likelihood of demonstrating the social skill in real-life situations." For the Campus Friends program, groups of students come in four-week sessions which focus on prosocial behaviors such as beginning social skills (e.g., asking a question, making introductions), skills for dealing with feelings, skill alternatives to aggression, and skills for dealing with stress. During the first three sessions, groups of students watch videos about appropriate and inappropriate social skills (modeling), apply what they observed in role-play situations, and receive feedback on their behaviors. On the final day, the students with disabilities and their college friends go out into the campus environment (e.g., the bookstore, professors' offices) and attempt to transfer skills learned in the first three sessions. College students record information about the success of the students as they transferred their learning and/or obstacles encountered.

The Campus Friends program has been successful for both parties involved. Students with disabilities can experience learning and involvement with age-appropriate peers. The benefits for college students are threefold: (1) students become more comfortable in dealing with students with disabilities-hopefully understanding increases while the fear factor decreases; (2) although it is at a post-secondary level, students are directly immersed in a type of inclusion setting similar to one they could be teaching in the future, and (3) an understanding of the importance of transitioning for secondary students with disabilities should be highlighted as the college students witness first hand the varying levels of social skill functioning. Students commented on each of these points in journal entries that were required for each session of Campus Friends.

Conclusion

As schools across the country move toward more inclusive models of education, both preservice and inservice teachers must be prepared to meet this challenge through a sound knowledge base and development of appropriate dispositions and performances. These three aspects of successful teaching can best be encouraged through experiences which connect theoretical information to practical issues in the classroom. School administrators and teacher education personnel must search for new avenues to pursue this goal and establish field study or practica situations which meet the needs of the teacher, whether elementary or secondary in focus. The Campus Friends program at Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana, is an example of a program attempting to meet the needs of future secondary teachers.

References

Campbell, D.M., & Fyfe, B. (1995). Reforming teacher education: The challenge of inclusive education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 386 439).

Connard, P.J., & Dill, C.F. (1984). Secondary education teachers' perceptions of their professional role regarding implications of Public Law 94-142. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 245 439).

Goldstein, A.P., Sprafkin, R.P., Gershaw, N.J., & Klein, P. (1980). Skillstreaming the adolescent. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Kemple, K.M., Hartle, L.C., Correa, V.I., & Fox, L. (1994). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: The development of a unified teacher education program in early childhood and early childhood special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 38-51.

Lewis, R.B., & Doorlag, D.H., (1999). Teaching special students in general education classrooms. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.

Powers, P.J. (1992). The effect of special education coursework upon the preparation of preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 377 183).

Repetto, J.B. (1995). Curriculum beyond school walls: Implications of transition education. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(3), 125-140.

Ruder, S. (2000). We teach all. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 49-51.

Sabornie, E.J., & deBettencourt, L.U. (1997). Teaching students with mild disabilities at the secondary level. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Merrill.

Schroth, G. (1997). Effects of training on teacher's stages of concern regarding inclusion (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 406 091).

Williams, E.U. (1993). Collaboration: A potential solution in teacher education for addressing at-risk and special education students in today's schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 355 220).

NANCY D. TURNER

Saint Mary's College

Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-5001

Copyright Project Innovation Spring 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved