July 2019 – Special Educator e-Journal

Table of Contents

• Special Education Legal Alert. By Perry A. Zirkel
• Buzz from the Hub
• Involving Immigrant Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. By Luz Arevalo
• Maternal Asthma vs. Child Autism. By Sydney Eason
• Comparing: The End of Molasses Classes and Leading a Culture of Change. By Amanda A. Fernandez
• Voucher Programs and the Florida McKay Scholarship: Article Review. By Luz Herrera 
• Teaching Advocacy Skills to the Most Disadvantaged Parents of Children with Disabilities: A Literature Review. By Amairany Paniagua 
• A Follow-Up Study of the Graduates of an Urban Teacher Preparation Program: Career Patterns and Perspectives of Elementary and Secondary Mid-Career Special Education Teachers. By Deborah L. Voltz, Tondra Loder-Jackson, and Michele Sims
• Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET
• Acknowledgements

 

­

---

Special Education Legal Alert

By Perry A. Zirkel

© June 2019

This month’s update concerns issues that were subject to recent relevant court decisions and are of general significance: (a) the emerging fourth dimension of FAPE—capability to implement the IEP, and (b) the overlapping issues of the procedural and substantive dimensions of FAPE with LRE.  Publications relating to both of these issues are available on my website perryzirkel.com.

In C.D. v. Natick Public Schools (2019), the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed three claims of parents seeking three years of tuition reimbursement for a child with “borderline intellectual  functioning and significant deficits in language ability.”  For grades 9 and 10, the district’s proposed placement was for regular classes for elective courses and the other subjects in a self-contained special education class at the high school with a significantly modified curriculum.  For grade 11, after two years in a unilateral private placement and a reevaluation, the district’s proposed placement was for (a) a mix of regular education, significantly modified special education, and much less modified “replacement” special education classes—and in response to parent concerns—(b) a formal transition assessment, and (c) an extended day for speech/language therapy and career preparation services.  Having lost at the hearing officer and district court levels, the parents’ appellate challenges focused on the Endrew F. standard, LRE, and the transition services.
For the substantive standard for FAPE, the parents argued that Endrew F. required review of whether the proposed IEP not only was reasonably calculated for appropriate progress but also—as a separate test—contained “ambitious goals” and “challenging objectives.”	Rejecting the parents’ interpretation, the First Circuit concluded that the Endrew F. Court “used terms like … ambitious and challenging to define ‘progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,’ not to announce a separate dimension of the FAPE requirement.”
The parents’ second argument was that the First Circuit should move from its balancing test for LRE to a more nuanced multi-factor analysis, as exemplified by the Fifth Circuit’s Daniel R.R., the Tenth Circuit’s L.B., the Third Circuit’s Oberti, andthe Ninth Circuit’s Rachel H. decisions.	Again rejecting the parents’ contention, the First Circuit confirmed its established approach, which balances the benefits of mainstreaming with the improved progress that could be obtained in a non-mainstreamed setting.  Its  reasoning relied on the complex choices that warrant judicial deference to “the expert decisions of school officials and [hearing officers].”
The parents’ final challenge was to the appropriateness of the transition assessment and transition services in the third IEP, which arose  when the student reached the requisite age for these provisions.	Continuing its affirmation of its previous relatively relaxed approach, the First Circuit concluded that the IDEA does not require a transition plan or specify a particular form for the transition assessment.
Applying these relatively deferential standards, the First Circuit affirmed the rulings in favor of the defendant district.  This officially published decision is binding in its four states (ME, MA, NH, and RI).  It illustrates the courts’ general trend of deferential rather than activist decisionmaking under the IDEA.  Although subject to occasional exceptions, particularly in the relatively few, more parent-friendly circuits, this trend is likely to continue based on the current administration’s record number of federal court appointees generally selected based on non-activist judicial postures.

In R.E. B. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2019), the Ninth Circuit took the relatively unusual step of withdrawing its initial decision (1) and issuing, two years later, a dramatically different ruling.  The case concerned a child with autism who attended pre-K in a specialized private school.  In the proposed IEP for kindergarten, the district sought to move him to a public school.  Disagreeing with the move, the child’s father unilaterally continued the private placement and filed for a due process hearing, seeking tuition reimbursement.  The left-hand column summarizes the original Ninth Circuit decision in 2017, and the right-hand column outlines the superseding decision in 2019.
First, in the original decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the father’s claim that the district violated the IDEA procedurally by refusing to address his concerns about the transition of his son from the private to the public placement, such as the class size and the daily routines.  The court concluded that transition services between schools or programs qualify as “supplementary aids and services” in an IEP where they are necessary for the child’s education and participation in the new environment.	In its replacement decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the IEP team sufficiently considered and addressed the parent’s transition-related concerns, including a transfer meeting and a resulting plan for the child’s gradual transition in small classes without mainstreaming during the initial summer.  In so ruling, the court did not address whether transition services between schools fits under the IEP requirement for supplementary aids and services.
Second, the original decision also ruled in favor of the parent on LRE grounds, concluding that the IEP’s statement that the child would be mainstreamed for Science and Social Studies activities “as deemed appropriate by his Special Education teacher … and General Education teacher” was both an improper delegation beyond the IEP process and too vague to serve as a blueprint for enforcement.  Moreover, the court concluded that the district did not sufficiently consider the Rachel H. factors for LRE, resulting in serious infringement of the parent’s opportunity for participation in the IEP process.	In the new decision, the Ninth Circuit clarified that Science and Social Studies were among the various subjects that the IEP specified for the self-contained special education class, with the cited provision reserved for teacher-designated activities.  The court concluded that “this nuanced determination was reasonable” in light of (a) the nature of these curricula, such as experiments and field trips, and (b) the nature of the child’s disability and her transitional adjustment to the public school environment.  In a footnote, the court concluded that the district sufficiently considered the LRE factors.
Finally, the original decision contained a potentially major crack in the long-standing judicial view that methodology is a matter of district discretion.  The court concluded that the district violated the IDEA by failing to specify a particular methodology (in this case, ABA) in the IEP where it played a “critical role” in the child’s education.	Given the teachers’ judgment that multiple methodologies, rather than one single method, was appropriate for the child and, as a result, that flexibility was warranted, the superseding Ninth Circuit decision relied on precedent and deference to rule that the IEP did not need to specify ABA methodology.
The details of the case warrant more in-depth review and analysis, including the judicial proclivities of the retired judge and his replacement, the role of the judge who dissented in the original decision, and the officially unpublished status of the new decision.  Nevertheless, this unusual reversal of position between the first decision and, after rehearing by a reconstituted panel, the superseding rulings illustrates the prevailing gravitational resistance to moving IDEA jurisprudence from the district-deferential status quo to elevated and nuanced rigor.[1]

[1] In 2018, after one of the three judges in the original panel retired and replaced for this case, the reconstituted panel voted to grant the defendant’s motion for a panel rehearing. The ultimate decision agreed with the original on a fourth issue, which was that the IEP need not include staff qualifications.

[1] Incidentally, the odds of the a rehearing by the full membership of the Ninth Circuit or of the granting of review by the Supreme Court are very remote.

To top

---

Buzz from the Hub

All articles below can be accessed through the following link:

 

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-june2019-issue1/

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-may2019-issue2/

 

Intervening to Prevent a Dropout | Video
Research has shown that middle school is the key moment when, absent effective intervention, students can fall into the patterns that lead them to drop out during high school. Identifying the risk factors associated with students who drop out of high school is featured in this 6-minute video excerpt from FRONTLINE: “Middle School Moment.”

Young Children Exposed Prenatally to Substances
This new ECTA web page provides key research, policy, state guidance and examples, and evidence-based practices for supporting families and young children exposed prenatally to substances.

Federal Data and Resources on Restraint and Seclusion
This 12-page report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) discusses (a) how the Department of Education collects data on the use of restraint and seclusion, (b) what the Department’s data tell us about the use of restraint and seclusion in public schools, and (c) resources and initiatives at the federal level to address the use of restraint and seclusion. A 1-page Highlights is also available, as is an accessible PDF version.

Students Most at Risk of Getting Spanked at School Are Black or Disabled, Data Show
Nineteen states, the vast majority in the South, permit school personnel to strike students with belts, rulers, homemade wooden paddles, or bare hands in the name of discipline. Whether a student is actually at risk of physical punishment often depends on race, geography or disability status, according to a new analysis of 2013-14 federal education data by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Improving Federal Programs that Serve Tribes and Their Members: High Risk Issue
Concerns about ineffective federal administration of Indian education and health care programs and federal mismanagement of energy resources held in trust for tribes and their members have resulted in the designation of federal management of these programs as “high risk.” The link above takes you to the GAO report on this issue. There’s also a 2-minute video summary available, High Risk: Programs That Serve Tribes and Their Members.

A Year in the Life 2018: Parent Centers in Action | Here’s the infographic CPIR produced after the data were in and crunched. It’s 2 pages (designed to be printed front/back to become a 1-page handout or mini-poster), in PDF format (1 MB), in full color. It’s a stunning portrait of what can be achieved by a few, extremely dedicated people for the benefit of so many.

Adaptable Infographic for Parent Centers to Use | This infographic is designed so it can be easily changed, inserting your Center’s numbers and data results into key blocks of information. It’s provided as a PowerPoint file and results in an infographic that’s 1-page long. Easy to insert your Center-specific accomplishments, and add your logo and contact information.

Quick Guide to Adapting the Infographic | Also download this 2-page guide that will show you, with screenshots, where your Center-specific information needs to be inserted. We provide this guide just in case having such a “checklist” would be helpful.

Reinforcing Your Child’s IEP Goals Over the Summer
If your child has an IEP, it may or may not cover summer. Some kids get extended school year services built into their IEPs, but many don’t. If your child isn’t attending a summer learning program, you may worry about how she’ll keep up while school’s out. But you can help reinforce her goals, even if she doesn’t have school services in the summer. This article offers how-to’s. And it’s available in Spanish, too (Reforzar los objetivos del IEP de su hijo durante el verano).

Living with Spina Bifida: Series
Here’s an article series from eparent.com on living with spina bifida, with separate articles on infants | toddlers and preschoolers | school-aged children | and young adults.

To top

---

Involving Immigrant Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

By Luz Arevalo

Abstract

This is a review of the literature of five articles that includes information about immigrant families of children with disabilities. The researcher discussed ways to involve immigrant families to advocate for their child with disability using strategies. Along with an explanation on why it is vital to involve immigrant families in their child’s special educational life.  

Involving Immigrant Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

The United States is flourishing with immigrants nowadays. Many of these immigrants are families to children with disabilities. All families with children with disabilities require support and quality services. Many families have a challenging time receiving the best resources, but nonetheless it is reached through the collaboration from teachers, physicians, and anyone else in the community there to lend a guiding hand. However, an immigrant family have further challenges, due to the various barriers that coincide with being new to the country. Due to these challenges and the increase in immigrants to our country, it is imperative to examine this topic and to learn various strategies to support these families that have children with disabilities.

In continuation, as defined by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an immigrant is an alien who was given the right by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to live in the United States and to work without restrictions (Lee, Dillon, French, & Kim, 2018). The population of immigrants are increasing steadily every year, in the United States. Additionally, the Hispanic and Asian populations have grown quicker than any other ethnic groups in the United States, starting from 45.5 million in 2000, up to 65.2 million in 2010, expanding to 43% during one decade (Lee, Dillon, French, & Kim, 2018). The immigrant population is becoming prominent in our society and it’s important to understand how to collaborate with such population. Mainstream families in the United States, want to pursue appropriate special educational services for their child with disabilities. Immigrant families are no different. However there are clear barriers within these families and they require different and possibly more support than mainstream families. As stated in the Individual with Disability Education Act Amendment (IDEA) of 2004, it is a must to collaborate with all families during the educational process of a child with disability and parents are equal compared to the special education team when making decisions about the special educational services. According to Lee, Dillon, French, and Kim (2018), there are numerous barriers for immigrant families, such as culture and language, and this can lead upon discriminatory barriers by the school staff.  Due to these barriers, families have trouble collaborating and building a relationship that will help further the needs of their children with disabilities. This lack of support, inhibits the family from reaching the quality services to help their children. Language is another huge barrier because due to the lack of English proficiency the immigrant families lack advocacy for their child. This develops a receiver parental involvement in the educational process for their child, instead of collaborating and brainstorming best solutions and services for their child with disability. Immigrant families also have difficulty understanding the special educational system and services in the United States. These factors can be frustrating to the immigrant families and can create a feeling of hopelessness. Thus why, it is crucial to use strategies that involve immigrant parents in the process of meeting the needs of their child with disability.

According to the article by Lin, Yu and Harwood (2012), children with immigrant families live in low-income households, have parents with low educational levels, and use fewer public benefits. When working with immigrant families it is important to consider this and to be willing to provide ample amount of support and resources to guide parents to learn to advocate for their child. Many immigrant families come from countries that do not have several resources or guidance for their child with disability. In the United States, various special educational services exist, so it’s vital to keep families informed of all the opportunities, benefits and services that are readily available to them. These challenges create less opportunity for family to professional collaboration. Immigrant families with children with disabilities comprise of socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic challenges that result in worsened access to health care, medical home, insurance and communication of correct medical information. Due to these difficulties, immigrant families are twice as likely to report physicians are not spending enough time with them and almost twice as likely to express the need for extra guidance for health care coordination and more than three times as likely to lack any type of health care coverage. (Lin, Yu, & Harwood, 2012).  As a professional in the special education community, it is a duty to provide access to all the benefits and services out there for parents. Informing a parent about opportunities allows for success in the lives of children with disabilities. It is completely unethical to not provide the same opportunities to immigrant families, in the same way mainstream families would have access too. Working with immigrant families may require extra input and different supports than mainstream families, however it is vital to involve them, in order to have success with their child with disability.

As new people in a foreign country, such as the United States, families may feel hopeless, and frustrated. Some barriers that immigrant families mostly have in common include: different language, lack of being informed, teacher’s unfamiliarity with their culture, negative educational experiences, unfamiliarity with U.S. educational practices, and differing views regarding involvement in schools (Hassan& Gardner, 2002). Despite various barriers, there are solutions for every challenge. Learning how to use different strategies for distinct ethnic groups is essential.  Just like a teacher never gives on a child, a teacher or anyone collaborating with a parent, must also not give up on them. Being culturally and linguistically aware of differences and various expectations of a family is a crucial part in advocating and seeking success and supports for a child with a disability.

Implications for practice will be discussed further to alleviate barriers with immigrant parents. First, including translators at any meetings with parents and giving the parents the opportunity to pick whom they are comfortable with is essential to reduce language barriers. Also, collaborating with other families from the school with similar cultures with the immigrant family is important so they can assist in communication. It’s also essential to provide the immigrant families the opportunity to learn the English language by providing them the tools and services in the community to expand their language. According to Hassan and Gardner (2002), the Center for Applied Linguistics offers online language and academic programs for recent immigrants (www.cal.org/crede/newcomers).  For parents that lack information, it’s important to provide them with oral and written information in their designated language. The Regional Resource and Federal Centers (RRFC) Network is composed of the Federal Resource Center and the six regional resource centers for special education (http://www.dssc.org/frc/index.htm). (Hassan & Gardner, 2002). Additionally, it’s important to use positive, direct and simple language when speaking to an immigrant parents. The use of visuals is crucial for parents to understand their child’s data. Furthermore, a teacher working with immigrant families must become familiar with their culture. Teachers must actively learn their culture, so they can become familiar with the different cultural traditions and practices. When a teacher learns about other cultures, they are able to collaborate with the family better and be understanding of their position. Some immigrant families did not have similar experiences with the education system in their native country. Knowing what immigrant families have experienced, allows the teacher the ability to explain to them what can be expected and what resources and benefits are available to them. Immigrant families often do not understand their legal rights and are not familiar with the educational practices in the United States (Hassan & Gardner, 2002). Due to this, it’s important that educators fully inform their rights and roles in their child with disability education, through brochures in their native language and through meetings with an interpreter.  The teacher must not assume things from the families because not one are the same and they are all trying to achieve the quality services and guidance from the U.S. Certain families, unfortunately may have had bad experiences with the education system, prior. Therefore, communication with the families is an important step for building rapport. Also, including special cultural and religious holidays on the school calendar provides for an inclusive environment. Moreover, educators, along with anyone working with immigrant families, must remember to build a positive relationship between school and home. The positive results from involving immigrant families include improving student achievement, increased knowledge about different cultures, and the parents have better understanding of their rights and responsibilities (Hassan & Gardner, 2002).

Along with educators, any person providing services to immigrant families of children with disabilities requires the practice of culturally sensitive care. Having culturally sensitive care refers to having understanding and empathy for a family’s values, beliefs and goals. It involves being aware of the cultural differences in beliefs that coincide with health, causes of disability, child-development and parenting roles (King, Demarais, Lindsay, Pierart, & Tetreault, 2015). Immigrants are in great need of rehabilitation care, however they are often least likely to get this care because of social, economic, and political barriers. Not being able to provide culturally sensitive care allows members of ethnic minority groups to have poorer rehabilitations outcomes compared to Caucasian clients. In order to provide the most beneficial healthcare and community services to immigrant families, it’s essential that the healthcare providers are trained in providing culturally sensitive care, appropriate language and communication, build rapport, help families advocate for their children and inform the immigrant families about the disability (Lindsay, King, Klassen, Esses, & Stachel, 2012). Spending more time with immigrant families and building trust and rapport is essential for providing the appropriate care for the child. Due to the various cultural values and perception of disability from the immigrant families, this influences approach. Some cultures are distrustful of the medical community, thus why it is important for health care providers to help clients become aware of the resources available to them in the hospital and in the community (Lindsay, King, Klassen, Esses, & Stachel, 2012). Being linguistically and culturally diverse allows for the finest services to be provided to the child with disability.  Those who practice culturally sensitive care among immigrant families will alleviate family stress, allow the family to feel supported and able to access services, enhance family outcomes and satisfaction with the service process (King, Demarais, Lindsay, Pierart, & Tetreault, 2015). To accomplish this, it’s essential to understand the family’s situations, to ensure parents understand the procedures, to evolve a collaborative relationship, and to tailor the practice based on the client’s situation. Effective communication and meaningful listening are fundamental when working with immigrant families. All strategies on providing culturally sensitive care will show as beneficial when communication is purposeful and interpersonal relationships are shaped. Immigrant families of children with disabilities must be able to talk about their experiences with someone that does not judge, values their input, and understand their desires and life situations. As a result, the providers of services will be able to provide authentic guidance and recommendations based on the unique family circumstances (King, Demarais, Lindsay, Pierart, & Tetreault, 2015).

Overall, involving immigrant families of children with disabilities is crucial for success in the life of a child with a disability. It is essential for educators and service providers to provide quality interaction with immigrant families. Immigrant families require extra and different support, compared to mainstream families. Providing culturally sensitive care, allows immigrant families to feel involved, supported and satisfied with the services being provided with their child. Many immigrant families lack the knowledge of what resources are available to them and relationships with individuals willing to help the transition to a new country. There are various stressors that can come in from being new to a country, however supporting a student with a disability and their family should be of great importance. Alleviating social-economic, cultural, and linguistic challenges can allow for successful access to the special educational services, healthcare and best care for the child with disability. It may seem like extra work, but it’s what is ethically correct to be advocates for immigrant families that are unaware of what they can learn and gain from the services in the United States. Barriers within immigrant families are apparent but are not impossible to overcome.

References

Al-Hassan, S., & Gardner III, R. (2002). Involving Immigrant Parents of Students with Disabilities in the Educational Process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(5), 52.

King, G., Desmarais, C., Lindsay, S., Piérart, G., & Tétreault, S. (2015). The roles of effective communication and client engagement in delivering culturally sensitive care to immigrant parents of children with disabilities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 37(15), 1372–1381.

Lin, S. C., Yu, S. M., & Harwood, R. L. (2012). Autism Spectrum Disorders and Developmental Disabilities in Children from Immigrant Families in the United States. Pediatrics, 130, S191–S197.

Lindsay, S., King, G., Klassen, A. F., Esses, V., & Stachel, M. (2012). Working with immigrant families raising a child with a disability: challenges and recommendations for healthcare and community service providers. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(23), 2007–2017.

Seo Hee Lee, Rocco Dillon, S., French, R., & Kyungjin Kim. (2018). Advocacy for Immigrant Parents of Children with Disabilities. Palaestra, 32(2), 23–28.

To top

---

---

Comparing: The End of Molasses Classes and Leading a Culture of Change

By Amanda A. Fernandez

Abstract

Children with special needs are unique, curious, creative, and many more adjectives in the English language. Parents are to children with special needs carry a huge burden when helping to raise their child. Not only do they have to learn how to care for them but they also need to learn to be an advocate for their child as they move through the education system. Parents need to be aware of their students’ rights and what they can do to help them have a successful school experience.

Keywords:  advocacy, special needs, student’s, involvement

Comparing: The End of Molasses Classes and Leading a Culture of Change

What does it mean to be involved? Merriam Webster Dictionary defines involvement as the state, act, or fact of being involved. Too many times in education we see a downfall in a parent’s involvement in their child’s education; especially when it comes to those parents of special needs. Parents of children with special needs often feel lost and sometimes unknowledgeable about their student’s educational needs and therefore don’t know how to get involved.

 

Literature Review

Parental involvement is very important when it comes to a child’s education. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 states that parent involvement includes playing an essential part in helping their children learn and being full partners in their child’s education. Therefore, parents are included, if necessary, in decision making and educational committees regarding their child’s education. (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). Many parents by law don’t realize how important their input is in decision making. Bases on a study conducted by Burke in 2013, parental involvement also influences other, more indirect factors, which in turn improve student academic achievement.

 

Parental Involvement 1

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law that mandates services to children with disabilities in every state. Services such as early intervention, special education, and in-school accommodations must be accessible to eligible infants, children and youth from birth to age 21 (IDEA, 2004). These laws were created to protect a child or adult with a disability. Becoming familiar with these laws is a crucial part for being involved; the other most crucial part is becoming familiar with their child’s disability. A study conducted by Wei-be Chen and Anne Gregory requoted stating parental advocacy has been integral to the development of special education services, thus including the involvement of parents in the education of children with disabilities (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Howland et al., 2006). Parents are the key to helping their child receive the best possible services. These services are developed and defined through Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings given to the child. The purpose of the IEP is to create a written educational program for each child with a disability that is established, reviewed, and revised in a meeting with team members composed of the special education teacher, the regular education teacher, an educational agency representative, the child if appropriate, an individual who can interpret evaluation results, and the parent (IDEA, 2004). Parent’s voices are to be listened and treated equal at these meeting. Unfortunately, as witnessed firsthand too many parents do not show up for these meetings and therefore do not the full benefit of meeting about their child are letting their concerns be heard.

 

Early Intervention

Parental involvement needs to start from the beginning. Chen and Gregory’s study of parent involvement from the Prereferral Process showed there was a correlation to parent’s early intervention presence. They gathered cases involved with Prereferral Intervention Team (PIT) to establish a baseline of parental involvement.  The results of this study demonstrates that parental involvement in the PIT process has the potential to have a significant influence on both the quality of the PIT proceedings and on eventual student outcome (Chen, Gregory, 2011). When parents are kept informed and are made aware early of their child’s needs they are willing to help. The parental participation was quite high for this study; majority of parents (over 85%) attended at least one of the first two PIT meetings, and almost half (44%) were involved in implementing PIT interventions (Chen, Gregory, 2011).

 

Bridging the gap.

“Support and understanding is beneficial not only for the child but also for the collaborative relationship between home and school” (Starr, Foy, 2010). This was a quote was taken from a study conducted by Elizabeth M. Starr and Janis B. Foy about behaviors of their child with ASD and school partnership. Working together is key to building parent involvement. The whole process of developing a student’s IEP is based on a “team” structure. All who are involved with that child should be present supporting that child’s best interest’ parents included. Working for a common goal will help to achieve better success for all. My recent findings have shown that about 30% of parents from multicultural or lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not attend their child’s IEP meeting. When the parent participation form (PPF) comes back it is often checked with unable to attend or yet do not come back at all. One study found that special education teachers, like other teachers, need more training in understanding how semantics, accents, dialect, and discussion mods manifest themselves when they communicate with their diverse students and their families (Irvine, 2012).

There are several other factors that contribute to lack d parental involvement. Parental feelings of inadequacy, feelings unable to express their discontent with educational services, and s inaccessible procedural safeguards (Burke, 2013). In another study conducted on the procedural safeguards, more than half of state procedural safeguard documents scored in the college reading level range for readability, and almost 40% scored in the range considered graduate or professional (Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, and Acevado-Garcia, 2010). These parental thoughts and feeling should challenge the IEP team and school to change the cultural. Being more simplistic in explaining to parents help to create less alienation among them and the support; to wanting to be more involved because they understand what is going on. Creating a space to collaborate harmoniously needs to be the focus in special education. Special education teachers, like other teachers, need more training in understanding how semantics, accents, dialect, and discussion mods manifest themselves when they communicate with their diverse students and their families (Irvine, 2012).

 

In Conclusion: Providing help

How do we get parents involved in their child’s educational process? There a settle ways to keep in contact such as emails, phone calls, notes and although some may feel this is basic and insignificant it still makes a difference in building that involvement of parents. Teachers and support member can also take it a step further and even introduce parents to a special needs advocate. Special education advocates are individuals with knowledge of both special education law and advocacy skills to assist parents in working with the school system (Burke, 2013). Much of the special education is about law and high level terminology that is often hard for parents to process especially when they are not native to this country. Having someone in their side guiding them makes them feel a relief is that there is someone looking out for their child. Teachers can organize “get to know the family” where parents can come in and meet the teacher see the classroom and grow a relationship. Teachers also need to maintain high standards and respect for their students with disabilities. Classroom interactions between teacher and student should be respectful and reflect genuine warmth and caring (Irvine, 2013). When teachers create environments like this parents are willing to be more opened to communicate with the teacher and feel comfortable in asking question about their student allowing the parent to be more involved.

 

References

A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — TOC. (2011, May 27). Retrieved April 25, 2019, from www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publicationtoc.html

About IDEA. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2019, from sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/

Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234. doi:10.1177/1044207311424910

Chen, W., & Gregory, A. (2010). Parental Involvement in the Prereferral Process. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 447-457. doi:10.1177/0741932510362490 urnal Title, Pages From – To.

Gomez Mandic, C., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevdo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of Special Education Procedural Safeguards. The Journal of Special Eduction,45(195), 196-203. doi:10.1177/0022466910362774

Involvement. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2019, from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/involvement

Irvine, J. J. (2012). Complex Relationships Between Multicultural Education and Special Education: An African American Perspective. Journal of Teacher Education,63(4), 268-274. doi:10.1177/0022487112447113

Starr, E. M., & Foy, J. B. (2010). In Parents’ Voices: The Education of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 33(4), 207-216. doi:10.1177/0741932510383161.

To top

---

---

Teaching Advocacy Skills to the Most Disadvantaged Parents of Children with Disabilities: A Literature Review

By Amairany Paniagua

Abstract

Every parent wants what is best for their child. Parents are often encouraged to participate in their child’s education, and while some parents are happy to help their child, others struggle to help their child due to their disadvantaged backgrounds. Moreover, in the world of special education, parents must work with teachers, and other stakeholders to ensure that their child is receiving the appropriate services that they qualify for under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). However, we must not think of parents as a project that we can fix, we need to think of them as valued members of a team. And instead of focusing on fixing parents, we as educators, administrators, and policy makers should focus on fixing a system that oppresses those that come from a disadvantaged background.

Teaching Advocacy Skills to the Most Disadvantaged Parents of Children with Disabilities: A Literature Review

Research suggests that when parents are involved in their child’s education, their child is less likely to encounter adverse educational, social, and employment outcomes throughout their life (Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, Garcia, 2012). However, research has also shown that parents of children with disabilities, who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, are less likely to participate in their child’s educational services. In the article, Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates, Megan Burke states that parent participation rates in special education are lower than parent participation rates in programs such as Head Start or other compensatory programs. Thus, children with disabilities who have parents that come from a disadvantaged background, are more likely to be the recipient of poor educational services that do not meet their academic or social needs. For this reason, it is critical to find ways to help the most disadvantaged parents actively advocate for their child’s rights.

Literacy-Related Barriers

Procedural safeguards are documents that provide parents with a list of their child’s educational rights under the IDEA act of 2004. Schools are legally required to provide a parent with a copy of these safeguards during every IEP meeting that is held; however, studies have found that the literacy skills required to read and comprehend these legal documents are too high for some parents to understand, especially those that come from a disadvantaged background.  Even though the law demands that these safeguards be written in a language understandable to the general public, a study by Mandic et al., (2012), found that out of the fifty states, only 6% of the safeguards were written at a high school level; 55% were written at a college level; and 39% were written at a graduate school level. This study also suggests that parents of students with disabilities are more likely to have limited literacy skills as compared to the general population. This, in turn, causes parents who come from a disadvantaged background and who have students with disabilities to shut down during an IEP meeting, which may cause their child’s educational services and rights to be compromised.

In addition, procedural safeguards are by law required to be given to parents in their native language and should be explained to them in any way necessary, whether it be in another language or via the use of sign language during an IEP meeting, but this does not always occur. In the article written by, Mandic et al., they explain how low-income Hispanic parents who have a child with a disability are less likely to have their educational rights explained to them, and are also less likely to be asked by staff if they understand the information on their child’s IEP. These are not the only parents or demographics at risk of having their child’s educational rights compromised, in the article: Complex Relationships Between Multicultural Education and Special Education: An African-American Perspective, the author Jacqueline Irvine states that sometimes, African-American parents feel that their child is not held at a high standard when compared to their white classmates. They think that teachers look for any reason to place them in special education so that they are not a burden in their class.

A way to help these parents is to write the documents that are given to them in plain English. Plain English is defined as “language that is easy to read, understand and use.” However, critics of this plan state that it is difficult to put complex ideas into simple everyday words, and that the meaning of these words and phrases can be misconstructed and misunderstood leading to the legal rights of students being compromised.

Parent-School Collaboration

Parental feelings of inadequacy constitute a tremendous obstacle to facilitating parent-school collaboration (Burke, 2013). Parents who come from a disadvantaged background are often afraid of the school system and will accept what they are given without asking for what they want. Parents fear the money and power the school system has and for this reason, remain quiet about their child’s education. Parents also feel that their role in their child’s education is minimalized; they think that they are looked down upon due to their limited education and comprehension of various things related to their child’s disability (Burke, 2013).

If and when parents advocate for their child’s rights, and try to fight something that they do not like about their child’s educational plan, they may go through “due process.” Due process, is the process where parents can dispute anything related to their child’s special education, as depicted in IDEA 2004; however, parents very rarely win their hearing. According to (Burke, 2013), parents only prevail in 28.6% of due process hearings. Meaning that the majority of the time, parents do not win and for this reason are afraid to fight for their child’s needs. Due process can be a lengthy and very costly process. Parents have to take off from work, find lawyers or advocates that could help them in their battle against the school district. In the majority of cases with disadvantaged parents, sometimes the lack of knowing their right to due process can harm their child. Parents, especially disadvantaged parents,  do not know that they can go to due process and dispute something relating to their child’s education; and if they do go to due process, they often lack the appropriate materials or people on their side.

Lack of Advocates

An advocate in special education is a person, who alongside parents, fight for the educational services a student with disabilities requires. Advocates can attend IEP meetings with parents and review the services and goals that are being written for the child. As stated by Burke (2013), advocates must be able to provide high-quality services to students with disabilities and their families; they must help ensure that a student’s educational rights are being followed and that they are receiving a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). However, there can be a low number of advocates available for parents, especially in rural or underserved areas of the country.

While many individuals would like to become advocates (Burke 2013), there is currently not a specific curriculum that trainees can follow to become advocates who know the rights of students with disabilities and can fight for them. Based on the article by Meghan M. Burke (2013), there are currently two programs that are training people who would like to become advocates, the rules and laws regarding advocacy. The two training programs are called: Special Advocacy Training and The Volunteer Advocacy Project. These programs are expanding and helping more people; both of these programs have the same goal: to train advocates that can help fight for a child’s educational rights. The problem that arises then is: which program is better and helps better prepare people advocate for children with disabilities.

Parents need to know that they can have an advocate at their meeting, and they must know where to go to find one. Parents who come from a disadvantaged background may not have the resources necessary to find an advocacy group that will work with them. Another issue that may arise is the fact that laws regarding special education are constantly changing, and what an advocate knows today, they may not know tomorrow.

Cultural Differences and Misunderstandings

Schools often do not take into account the cultural beliefs and values that parents have, but it is essential to remember that there are many powerful variables in a culture that are sometimes dismissed or overlooked. In today’s ever-changing society, not every person has the same views or beliefs as them. It is crucial for parents of different backgrounds to become active participants in their child’s education. As stated by Burke (2013) when parents and teachers work together, there are immediate positive results in a child’s education, regardless of parents’ socioeconomic levels or educational background.

However, parents sometimes feel that the educational system views minority, undereducated parents and students as a burden. Because of the overrepresentation of African-American and Hispanic students in special education, African-American and Hispanic parents sometimes feel that the educational system is looking for any reason to place their child in special education environment (Irvine 2012). Irvine also states that parents that come from a disadvantaged background are often confused by the ever-changing labels of classification in the educational system which then leaves them unable to advocate for their child.

A way to take into account the cultural differences that teachers and administrators may experience when working with families with varying backgrounds is for them to engage in culturally responsive practices that take into account a family’s background. However, one must take caution against the use of culturally responsive teaching as a “quick fix” approach to addressing the complex issues of the achievement gap and disproportionality that exists in special education (Griner & Stewart, 2012).

Conclusion

While there are many ways to help parents become active participants in their child’s education, it is sometimes difficult for parents to adopt these practices due to various reasons including cultural differences, low literacy ability, and having a disadvantaged background along with the systematic oppression that exists in the education system.  Teachers and administrators can help parents by making them feel welcomed and a part of the team. However, feeling part of a team is not enough. Documents presented to parents must be at their literacy level. Parents should be able to read and sign paperwork that they can understand, but the complex messages when translated should read the same in “plain English.” Moreover, as stated by Griner and Stewart:  “there must be collaboration across the three domains of policy, practice, and people.”

In order for parents to fully embrace their right to be educational partners, they must first have working knowledge of how IDEA works and what FAPE means for their child (Valle, 2011).  However, in most instances, parents who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are not involved in any political group the lobbies for their child’s educational rights. And not knowing is a parent’s worst enemy in special education. In her commentary, Valle (2011) states that throughout the literature there is a common thread of helping people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The solution that is in much literature is to “fix them” to “teach them” how to be better parents or more involved parents. When in fact, it is the system that is broken, which ties into all of the articles used in this review. In order to better help disadvantage parents advocate for their child, is to fix that system that oppresses them.

References

Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234. doi:10.1177/1044207311424910

Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. L. (2012). Addressing the Achievement Gap and Disproportionality Through the Use of Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices. Urban Education, 48(4), 585-621. doi:10.1177/0042085912456847

Irvine, J. J. (2012). Complex relationships between multicultural education and special education: An African-American Perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 268-274. doi:10.1177/0022487112447113

Mandic, C., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45(4), 195-203. doi:10.1177/0022466910362774

Valle, J. W. (2011). Down the rabbit hole: A commentary about research on parents and special education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 183-190. doi:10.1177/0731948711417555.

To top

---

A Follow-Up Study of the Graduates of an Urban Teacher Preparation Program: Career Patterns and Perspectives of Elementary and Secondary Mid-Career Special Education Teachers

By

Deborah L. Voltz

Tondra Loder-Jackson

Michele Sims

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Abstract

Teacher attrition is a commonly cited challenge in high-poverty, urban schools.  Teacher preparation programs may have an important role to play in addressing this challenge.  This paper presents the results of a follow-up study of the special education graduates of a teacher preparation program designed to recruit and prepare teachers for urban schools.  The career patterns of these graduates over time, as well as their perspectives regarding urban teaching are examined.  Differences with respect to those teaching in elementary versus secondary settings are explored.  Findings indicated that the retention rate of study participants exceeded that of the teaching population in general.  The interview responses of study participants were examined to determine their perspectives regarding their teacher preparation program and factors that they felt contributed to their longevity in urban teaching.

A Follow-Up Study of the Graduates of an Urban Teacher Preparation Program:

Career Patterns and Perspectives of Elementary and Secondary

Mid-Career Special Education Teachers

 

Higher teacher turnover has been found to be one of the challenges associated with high-poverty urban schools.  A national survey of public school teachers found that while 6% of teachers in low-poverty schools moved to a different school within a given year, 12% of teachers in high-poverty schools did so (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016).  There is a significant financial cost associated with teacher replacement.  According to Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2017), these costs can approach $20,000 per teacher in some urban districts.  Costs associated with teacher replacement detract from the funds that districts have available to meet other needs.  However, there is a more significant cost that high teacher attrition can exact:  that being its deleterious effects on student achievement.  Teacher impact on student learning has been shown to increase each year for the first five to seven years of teaching (Carroll & Foster, 2010).  This means that schools that have a higher teacher attrition rate may not obtain the higher student achievement associated with more experienced teachers.

 

Special education and secondary education also have been associated with higher teacher turnover.  Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2017) found that special education was among the teaching areas with the highest likelihood of teachers “moving schools or leaving teaching entirely” (p 17), in comparison to elementary education, where teachers were found to be among the least likely to move or leave.  In a national study of public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years of teaching, it was found that 86% of elementary teachers persisted through the fifth year, while 78% of secondary teachers did so (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).  These findings taken together suggest that secondary special education teachers, particularly those teaching in high-poverty urban schools, may be among the most vulnerable to attrition.

 

Evidence has suggested that teacher perceptions of preparedness influence new teacher satisfaction in urban schools (Green & Munoz, 2016).  Job satisfaction has been associated with retention (Major, 2012).  A national survey of first-year public school teachers revealed that beginning teachers in urban schools reported lower levels of perceived preparedness for various roles associated with their positions than did beginning teachers in rural or suburban contexts.  Likewise, beginning teachers in high-poverty schools reported lower levels of perceived preparedness for various roles associated with their positions than did beginning teachers in low-poverty schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018).  These findings do not bode well for teacher retention in these settings.

 

Given the need to better prepare teachers for high-poverty, urban settings, a number of teacher preparation programs have been designed expressly for that purpose.  The Urban Teacher Enhancement Program (UTEP) is an example of such a program.  UTEP’s goal was to recruit and prepare teachers for high-poverty urban schools who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to promote high student achievement, and who are committed to remaining in those schools.  UTEP coursework included cohort courses which were grounded in competencies related to urban teaching.  Program candidates were required to demonstrate the ability to meet these competencies, in addition to the competencies associated with the traditional special education program.  The UTEP competencies were organized into four strands:  sociocultural competence; affirming attitude; pedagogy for diversity; and collaborative skills.  These strands were derived from the literature on successful urban teaching, and were refined and substantiated through a national validation process (Voltz, Collins, Patterson, & Sims, 2008).  Additional information regarding UTEP can be found in Table 1.  Table 2 presents a matrix illustrating how the program competencies were distributed across core program coursework.

 

Table 1

UTEP Components

 

UTEP Component	Description
Recruitment and Screening Strategies	Recruitment efforts included partnerships with a local historically black college and a community college for the purpose of sharing program information and hosting recruitment events.  Recruitment events also were held at school sites in partnering districts, and paraprofessionals within these districts were targeted for recruitment.  Master teachers and administrators within the partnering districts served on admission screening committees, alongside university faculty.   The first phase of screening UTEP applicants involved traditional factors such as grade point average, entrance examination scores, and completion of prerequisite coursework.  In addition to these traditional factors, UTEP applicants were screened via interviews conducted by admission committees.  These interviews focused on assessing candidate aptitude in terms of criteria found to be critical to successful urban teaching:  persistence/commitment; organization and planning; valuing of student learning; ability to connect with diverse groups; attribution for success; fallibility; and ability to navigate bureaucracy.
Candidate Support	A variety of types of support were provided to UTEP candidates.  The UTEP network of support began even before candidates were admitted into the program.  When individuals indicated intent to apply, UTEP faculty liaisons contacted them to assist in completing the application process.  Faculty liaisons continued to serve as ombudsmen to candidates after they were admitted to the program by assisting them in negotiating any challenges, academic or non-academic, that they may have encountered in working towards program completion.  UTEP candidates also received scholarship support through federal grants.  Based on the source of funding used for tuition support, candidates were required to complete a three-year service obligation upon program completion in either a high-poverty school, or as a special education teacher in any public school.
Program Competencies	In addition to the traditional program competencies, UTEP candidates were required to master additional competencies associated with urban teaching.  These competencies are grounded in the research base in urban teaching, and have undergone a two-step national validation process involving expert panel review and practitioner interviews.  These competencies are organized in four strands:  a) sociocultural competence, which focuses on helping candidates to better understand the students and families with whom they will work, and the communities in which they will teach; b) affirming attitude, which focuses on developing the expectations, optimism, caring, and resilience that are needed to foster high student achievement; c) collaborative skills, which focuses on strategies for building effective relationships with the variety of persons with whom urban teachers must work in order to be effective, including those within schools (e.g., administrators, counselors, other teachers), as well as those external to schools (e.g., parents, social service agencies); and d) pedagogy for diversity, which focuses on strategies for accelerating diverse student achievement, including culturally and linguistically diverse learners, as well as students with disabilities.
Semi-Cohort Structure	Both the elementary and secondary courses of study required 36 semester hours.  UTEP candidates completed this coursework through a semi-cohort structure, which required them to take 12 of the 36 semester hours as a UTEP cohort group.  These 12 semester hours included the following courses:  Curriculum Methods and Instruction, Classroom Management, Assessment, and Survey of Special Education.  The UTEP competencies were infused into these courses.  In delivering these core courses, teams of university faculty and exemplary practitioners from the participating districts co-taught the content.  Often, these courses were taught on site at participating schools.
Enhanced Fieldwork Experiences	Program candidates completed extensive fieldwork in urban schools that were involved in ongoing professional development associated with the program.  This facilitates continuity between the nature of program coursework and the nature of instruction in the classrooms in which candidates completed fieldwork.  It also provides an opportunity for program candidates to be included as a part of the school’s community of learners by participating in professional development alongside practicing urban teachers.
Candidate Assessment Strategies	Candidate mastery of UTEP competencies was assessed throughout the program by course assignments and by performance in the field.  Case-based exams, problem-solving scenarios, and other application activities were used in order to evaluate candidate competency mastery.  An observation protocol including specific teaching behaviors grounded in the UTEP competencies was used to evaluate candidate competency mastery in field settings.  All program competencies were assessed at least twice during the course of the program.  As a requirement of completion, all candidates had to demonstrate proficiency on each competency at least once, both within the context of coursework as well as within the context of fieldwork.
Mentoring and Other Induction Support	Trained mentors were provided to UTEP participants during their first three years of teaching.  Where possible, mentors were master teachers who taught the same subject in the same school as their mentees.  Mentors spent a minimum of 54 hours per year working directly with beginning UTEP teachers through activities such as observing and coaching, collaborative planning and problem-solving, and sharing resources.  In addition to mentors, beginning UTEP teachers received other induction services, such as seminars in reported areas of need, and release time to observe master teachers  (other than their mentors) who had particular expertise in an area of challenge.

 

 

Table 2

UTEP Competency Matrix

 

X=Major Emphasis        X=Minor Emphasis

 

Competencies	New Scholar Seminar	Curr. & Instruct.	Class. Manage.	Assess.	Excep. Lrner	Intern- ship
Sociocultural Competence
SC1: Understands the influences of culture on learning and behavior, as well as how culture influences teaching.	X	X	X	X	X
SC2: Is knowledgeable about the local community in which he or she teaches, and is aware of the educational assets of that community (e.g., schools, parks, speakers on specific topics, neighborhood leaders, social service agencies, students’ families).		X			X	X
SC3: Understands that education includes the intellectual, social-emotional, physical, and ethical development of students; and occurs both inside and outside of schools (e.g., neighborhoods, families, and peer groups).		X	X
SC4: Recognizes that the context of schooling is complex and reflects historical, political, social, and economic influences; and that teachers must consider these issues in their teaching.	X	X		X	X
Affirming Attitude
AA1: Exhibits a strong belief in the capacity of urban students to achieve at high levels and communicates this belief to students.	X	X	X	X	X	X
AA2: Demonstrates and engages in systematic and continuous inquiry that promotes teacher reflection, especially in regard to teacher attitudes and beliefs.	X	X	X	X
AA3:  Exhibits resiliency and a sense of self-efficacy with respect to educational challenges, and promotes similar resiliency and self-efficacy in his or her students.	X		X		X
AA4: Exhibits and encourages respect for students’ home community, language, and culture.	X	X	X	X	X	X
AA5: Models and demonstrates the ability to teach conflict resolution skills.		X	X
AA6: Is a reflective, responsive teacher-leader who recognizes and addresses inequities in education related to aspects of student diversity such as race, class, disability, gender, linguistic difference, and sexual orientation.	X		X	X	X
Collaborative Skills
CS1: Demonstrates the ability to plan and problem-solve with other education and social service professionals in order to promote student success.					X
CS2: Engages in collaborative efforts/activities with other teachers that promote mutual respect and high student achievement.					X	X
CS3: Demonstrates ability to work effectively with diverse parents and families in order to promote the educational success of students.			X	X	X
CS4: Demonstrates knowledge of effective ways to send and receive information to students in order to foster inquiry, collaboration, and engagement in learning environments.					X	X
CS5: Recognizes the importance of being a student advocate and works effectively with others within and outside of school environments.			X		X
CS6: Promotes personal and professional resiliency in self and other colleagues.	X		X		X
Pedagogy for Diversity
PD1: Plans and implements a variety of developmentally appropriate and culturally responsive instructional strategies that respond to diverse learning styles.	X	X			X	X
PD2: Demonstrates competence in universal design, and accommodation/modification strategies for students with special needs and students receiving ELL services.			X	X	X	X
PD3: Uses classroom management strategies that respect cultural differences and establish a classroom climate that promotes positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.			X		X	X
PD4: Demonstrates competence in the use of community resources to meet the needs of diverse students.		X			X	X
PD5: Demonstrates competence in alternative assessment strategies that can help identify diverse student strengths as well as ways of learning.				X	X	X
PD6: Demonstrates competence in incorporating students’ experiences, cultures, and community resources into instruction.		X	X		X	X
PD7: Demonstrates competence in his or her teaching field, including the ability to present multiple perspectives in the discussion of subject matter.						X

 

 

This study sought to examine the career patterns of UTEP special education graduates teaching in high-poverty urban schools.  This study also explored what differences, if any, exist between the perceptions and career patterns of special education program graduates teaching in urban, high-poverty elementary versus urban, high-poverty secondary settings.  As noted above, evidence has suggested that teacher turnover is greater in secondary schools.  Evidence has also suggested that key differences exist between elementary and secondary school environments related to issues such as parental involvement (Hirano, Garbacz, Shanley, & Rowe, 2016; Hurley, Lambert, January, & D’Angelo, 2017) the nature of collaborative roles (Rimpola, 2014; Simmons, Carpenter, Dyal, Austin, & Shumack, 2012), and curricular focus (Bouck, 2009; Jones, Zirkel, & Barrack, 2008).  These differences may have an impact on the perceptions of secondary special educators with respect to their teacher preparation and experiences in urban teaching.  As such, this study sought to explore the following questions:

• What are the career paths of special education UTEP graduates teaching in urban high-poverty schools?  What differences, if any, exist between those teaching in elementary versus secondary settings?  How do the fifth-year retention rates of special education UTEP graduates compare with other teachers?
• What factors influenced special education UTEP graduates to begin teaching in urban high-poverty schools?  To continue teaching in high-poverty schools?  What differences, if any, exist between the perceptions of those teaching in elementary versus secondary settings?
• What do UTEP special education graduates who began teaching in urban high-poverty schools see as the greatest challenges and rewards of their work?  What differences, if any, exist between the perceptions of those teaching in elementary versus secondary settings?
• How well do UTEP special education graduates who began teaching in urban high-poverty schools feel that their teacher preparation program prepared them to teach in these schools?  What aspects of their teacher preparation program do they feel were most helpful?  Least helpful? What differences, if any, exist between the perceptions of those teaching in elementary versus secondary settings?

 

 Method

Participants

This study targeted UTEP completers who graduated between 2007 and 2012, and who began their teaching careers as special educators in high-poverty urban schools.  There were a total of 34 individuals who completed UTEP initial certification special education programs within the targeted timeframe.  Of these 34 individuals, 18 (53%) returned usable survey instruments.  An analysis of these survey instruments revealed that 16 of the 18 survey participants (88.9%) began their teaching careers in high-poverty schools.  Of these 16 individuals, 11 (69%) agreed to participate in follow-up interviews.   These 11 individuals are the focus of this study.   Of these 11 individuals, six teach in secondary settings; 5 teach in elementary settings.  Additional demographic information for these 11 individuals is shown in Table 3.

 

Table 3

Demographics

 

	Elementary	Secondary	Total
African American	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	5 (45%)
White	4 (36%)	2 (18%)	6 (55%)
Total	5 (45%)	6 (55%)	11 (100%)

 

	Elementary	Secondary	Total
Female	4 (36%)	6 (55%)	10 (91%)
Male	1 (9%)	0	1 (9%)
Total	5 (45%)	6 (55%)	11 (100%)

 

 

Procedure

Qualtrics was used to send electronic survey instruments to the last known email addresses of the individuals targeted.  Survey instruments asked participants to provide a listing of their teaching positions since program completion, including names of school districts, names of schools, grade levels taught, areas of teaching, and duration of employment.  Survey respondents also were asked to indicate how well their initial preparation programs prepared them for these teaching positions, and whether or not they began teaching in a high-poverty urban school after program completion.   The following definition was provided for the term “high-poverty urban school”:  a school located in a metropolitan area with a population of 250,000 or more (including schools in surrounding suburbs) where student participation in the free/reduced price lunch program was 40% or higher”.  Poverty status of schools listed was independently verified by the researchers.  If respondents indicated that they began teaching in a high-poverty urban school, they were asked to indicate if they would be willing to participate in twenty-minute follow-up interviews.  If so, they were asked to provide a preferred telephone number and timeframe.

A reminder email was sent two weeks after the deadline in the initial email to those not responding.  If a response still was not received after the reminder email, hardcopies of the survey instrument were sent to the last known mailing address.  A postage-paid return envelope was included to return completed survey instruments.  Survey instruments were coded to track returns.  Data from completed survey instruments was compiled and analyzed.

Survey participants who indicated that they had taught in high-poverty urban schools, and who expressed a willingness to be interviewed, were contacted by phone to conduct telephone interviews of approximately 20 minutes in length.  Interview questions solicited the perceptions of participants regarding:  a) factors that they felt contributed most to their decision to begin teaching in a high-poverty urban school; b) the greatest rewards of urban teaching; c) the greatest challenges of urban teaching; d) factors that contributed to them staying in (or leaving) urban teaching; e) the impact of their teacher preparation program on their decision to enter, stay in, or leave urban teaching; f) most and least helpful aspects of their teacher preparation program with respect to preparing them for urban teaching; g) additional training they needed after program completion; and h) any additional thoughts.  Telephone interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. 

Design and Analysis

This non-experimental research study employed mixed methods that included survey and interview approaches.  Survey data was analyzed to determine participants’ perspectives regarding the efficacy of their teacher preparation program in preparing them to teach in the schools where they worked.  Survey data was also analyzed to determine teacher longevity in urban settings, as well as the nature and level of movement from school to school. 

Interview data was analyzed to determine themes in the responses of participants.  After the transcription process, the interview data was analyzed independently by two researchers, who then conferred for intercoder agreement, i.e., to determine similarities and dissimilarities between their themes and concur on final main themes (Creswell, 2014).

Both survey and interview data was analyzed to compare the responses of those teaching in elementary settings to those teaching in secondary settings.  Teacher turnover patterns were analyzed and compared, as were the perceptions of these educators with respect to the interview questions posed.

Findings

Survey

Each of the 11 participants had been teaching a minimum of five years at the time that the study was conducted.  Elementary participants had taught an average of 8.4 years since program completion; secondary participants, an average of 8.1 years. Both groups of teachers enjoyed relatively stable teaching experiences during the first five years, averaging less than one change in school during this period.  The secondary special education teachers were slightly more likely to leave urban teaching than their elementary counterparts.  One secondary special educator moved to a more affluent school for a year and then returned to a high-poverty school within the first five years of teaching.  Another secondary special educator left urban teaching and had not returned by the fifth year of teaching.  None of the elementary special educators left high-poverty urban schools at any point during the first five years of teaching.  Despite some movement away from urban teaching with respect to secondary special educators, it is important to note that all participating teachers—elementary and secondary—remained in special education teaching throughout the first five years of teaching.  No teachers moved to non-special education teaching positions, or left teaching altogether.

After the first five years of teaching, several participants did leave K-12 classroom teaching positions, but remained in the field of education.  One elementary special educator left classroom teaching and became a school psychometrist.  One secondary special educator left classroom teaching and became a central office district administrator.  Another secondary special educator left K-12 classrooms and began teaching at a community college.  The balance of the participants were continuing to teach in high-poverty, urban K-12 special education classrooms at the time that the study was conducted.

Both groups of teachers gave their initial teacher preparation programs favorable reviews.  Using a 1-5 scale ranging from “not well at all” (1) to “extremely well” (5), elementary special educators rated their programs an average of 4.4; secondary special educators rated their programs an average of 4.2.  Three elementary special educators (60%) and six secondary special educators (100%) chose to make follow-up comments about their ratings in the space provided on the survey instrument.  When asked to share their comments, including suggestions for improvement, the majority of those commenting indicated that the program had prepared them well, which was consistent with the ratings provided.  For example, one elementary special educator noted, “The program did well to prepare me for teaching, while providing basic information about the field”.  Likewise, a secondary special educator reported, “Participating in the UTEP program prepared me for successful interactions with various cultures that I would encounter as a teacher.  It also helped me to understand the background of the families that I would service”.

Of the nine teachers who chose to make follow-up comments, two elementary special educators and three secondary special educators provided suggestions for improving the program.  Issues raised by both groups of educators included more emphasis on developing specific skills such as writing IEPs for particular types of students and pedagogy for teaching particular skills.  An elementary special educator noted, “I did feel like I lacked some of the actual ‘teaching’ skills (i.e. how to teach phonics)”.  A secondary special educator reported, “The program…could improve on how to thrive in schools where teachers and administrators have limited vision on how to reach students”.

Table 4 

Themes in Interview Responses

 

What factors contributed most to your decision to begin teaching in a high-poverty urban school? (n=11)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Desire to work where most needed	40	33
Desire to give back	20	33
Desire to be a change agent	0	33
Job availability	0	33
What do you see as the greatest rewards of urban teaching? (n=11)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Seeing student progress	40	50
Meeting the challenge of urban teaching	20	17
Connecting with students	20	17
Collaborating with parents	20	33
What do you see as the greatest challenges of urban teaching? (n=11)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Lack of resources	60	17
Collaborating with parents/families	40	50
Student concerns	20	33
What factors contributed most to your staying in urban teaching? (n=10)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Passion for the work	40	20
Perception of making a difference	20	40
Factors associated with teacher preparation program	40	20
Reflecting on your initial certification program, would you say that it contributed in any way to your decision to enter, remain in, or leave urban teaching?  If so, in what way? (n=10)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Created heightened awareness of the importance of cultural issues and their implications for teaching	20	60
Change perspectives about urban education	40	20
What aspects of your initial teacher preparation program do you feel were most helpful in preparing you for urban teaching? (n=11)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Factors related to understanding the urban context and the importance of cultural issues	40	67
Special education courses	20	17
What aspects of your initial teacher preparation program do you feel were least helpful in preparing you for urban teaching? (n=11)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Coursework that was too theoretical	40	50
Needed more special education training	20	33
What additional training do you feel was needed after you entered teaching? (n=11)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Additional training in special education	40	50
Non-teaching support skills	40	33
Are there any additional thoughts you’d like to share? (n=10)
Theme	Percentage of Respondents
	Elementary	Secondary
Appreciation for program	75	100

Interviews

Table 4 presents the themes that emerged in the interview responses.  When asked what factors contributed most to their decision to begin teaching in a high-poverty urban school, the participating educators most commonly mentioned the desire to work where they felt that they were most needed.  Two of the five elementary special educators (40%) and two of the six secondary special educators (33%) made such responses.  An elementary special educator noted, “I was always from more of a wealthier area. So I wanted to reach out to a different community and just see how I can help more there.”  Likewise, a secondary special educator had this to say: 

 

I know those students don’t have a lot of the actual materials and resources that other schools have that are well-funded and have better support from parents, and a lot of times those kids end up with not as much technology as what some of the other kids do….  So I always felt like kids in those high-poverty areas needed a teacher who understood where they were coming from and that could help them reach their highest potential, even without all of the resources and technology that the other schools have… 

 

Some respondents also mentioned the desire to give back.  One elementary special educator (20%) and two secondary special educators (33%) made comments that fell in this category.  The elementary special educator noted:  “Well, I was a product of [urban school district] and my children were also in [urban school district] and so that was just my way of giving back to a school system that was responsible for so many of us”.  On this issue, a secondary special educator reported:  “You know, it’s not just about race.  It’s about culture and a mindset, which fostered me wanting to give back more.”
 

In addition to the themes of “working where most needed” and “giving back”, two other themes emerged in the responses of secondary special educators.  Two secondary special educators (33%) mentioned desire to make a difference/be a change agent as a factor driving their decision to begin teaching in a high-poverty urban school.  One secondary special educator simply said, “I wanted to be, I guess, an agent of change in those particular settings”.  Two secondary special educators (33%) also noted as a primary driver of their decision the fact that a position in high-poverty urban schools was what was available to them at the time.  In the words of one secondary special educator, “I think I just went where the job was”.   No elementary special educators mentioned “desire to be a change agent” or “job availability” as drivers of their decision to teach in high-poverty urban schools.  

 

When asked about what they saw as the greatest rewards of urban teaching, a common theme that emerged in the responses of participants was seeing student progress.  Two elementary special educators (40%) and three secondary special educators (50%) noted responses that fell in this category.  One elementary special educator said, “seeing them bloom…seeing them when it really starts clicking”.  Likewise, a secondary special educator noted, “Oh, to see the growth of students, even though we might not see it immediately”.

 

In addition to “seeing student growth”, “supporting and assisting parents” also emerged in the responses of one elementary and two secondary special educators as aspects of their job that they found most rewarding.  With respect to that issue, a secondary special educator noted:

 

And, you know, that to me was one of the things that I really felt like was rewarding.  That I could give these parents the resources…Because, you know, middle class families, they’re very resourceful.  They know where to find stuff.  They have the money to take them to the private therapies.  And, you know, when you have the inner city parents that are working two and three jobs and sometimes single parents and, you know, they’re just trying to put food on the table.  But it doesn’t mean that they don’t want to help their kid.  It just means they don’t have the time or the energy or the money to really search things out for their child.  They want to help them.  They just don’t know what to do to help them. 

 

In terms of relationships with parents, an elementary special educator reported:

 

You are able to see a difference, not only with the student, but with the parent.  It may not always be education-related as much as it is working on that home life, or that sense of hope…You work on those relationships…It’s rewarding when you find ways to connect with so many different people from so many places and you can see that positive change.

 

A couple of participants cited the challenge of urban teaching itself as the reward.  One elementary and one secondary special educator noted this.  According to the elementary special educator, “Pretty much anything in this life worth doing doesn’t come easy.  Well, I mean I find it challenging but also very rewarding, if that makes sense.”  Likewise, when asked about rewards of urban teaching, a secondary special educator indicated:  “…it was a huge challenge for me…”, referring to her starting a new program as a novice teacher.  For these educators, the challenge was the reward.

 

Connecting with students was an additional area cited by a couple of participants as one that they saw as rewarding.  An elementary special educator had this to say: 

 

…a lot of our students don’t trust very openly. There are times that if you can build a relationship with your students that they get to where they trust you and then you can see a difference.  And then you look back and realize that you probably were…it’s kinda like you look back and realize that the student probably didn’t have anybody else in their lives that could have helped make that positive difference at that time.

 

A secondary special educator stated it this way: “I guess, seeing the students connect…being able to connect to, you know, ideas, to standards…being able to present them in a different way that they can connect to.”

 

Respondents also were asked to identify what they saw as the greatest challenges of urban teaching.  Lack of resources was a commonly cited challenge.  Three elementary special educators (60%) and one secondary special educator (17%) noted factors regarding resources.  Most of these responses involved limitations in areas such as curriculum (the arts, etc.), textbook availability, technology availability, and school supplies.  In this regard, one elementary special educator simply commented:  “The greatest challenge is that schools do not have enough money”.  Likewise, a secondary special educator noted:  “It was a lack of resources…”. 

 

Factors associated with families and the home were also a common theme in the responses of the participating educators with respect to challenges.  Two elementary special educators (40%) and three secondary educators (50%) made comments related to this theme.  An elementary special educator reported:  “Parent involvement is probably one of the things I struggle with most…getting parents involved at other times other than at IEP meetings or things like that”.  A secondary special educator commented:  “just their environments are very challenging”.   

 

 

Student related concerns, such as level of need, skill deficits, and transiency, were an additional theme noted in the responses regarding challenges.  One elementary special educator (20%) and two secondary special educators (33%) made responses in this category.  According to an elementary special educator: 

 

You don’t always know what shape your students are going to be in when they get to school…you’re going to have to meet some more of those basic living needs…all of your students have challenges they are facing, and it means as a teacher you are always having to grow and learn new strategies.

 

A secondary special educator cited as her biggest challenge:

 

Transient students who are constantly moving… they bebop all over the system, you know, sometimes two or three times in a year, and you are trying to keep up with their paperwork, and by the time you figure out what their IEP is, they’re moving…

 

Despite these challenges, each of the five elementary and five of the six secondary special educators continued to teach in high-poverty schools through their fifth year of teaching.  When asked what factors contributed to their staying, 40% of elementary special educators and 20% of the five persisting secondary special educators cited their passion for their work.  An elementary special educator had this to say: 

 

It’s my heart, it’s my passion.  And I had a chance to go to a wealthier school or private school and I turned it down because I feel like my passion is for these students.  They don’t have what my kids got.  So I want them to have a chance just like my personal kids have that chance.  So even though I’ve had opportunities in the last 12 years to leave a Title I school, I choose to stay there. 

 

Likewise, a secondary special educator simply noted:  “This is rewarding. I enjoy it.”

 

Others cited the perception that they were “making a difference” or “meeting a need” as the reason that they stayed in urban teaching.  Twenty percent of elementary special educators and 40% of continuing secondary special educators made responses in this category.  A secondary special educator noted:  “I feel like I’m making a difference with our children and that is why I started and I have that same goal…I want to make a difference and I am making a difference”.  Similarly, an elementary special educator reported:  “Well, I mean it’s the same reason that I was drawn to this urban setting…it’s the need.”

 

Still others—20% of persisting secondary special educators and 40% of elementary special educators—mentioned aspects associated with UTEP, such the service obligation or the program competencies.  A secondary special educator noted:  “Believing that I could make a difference.  We talked about it… especially when we did that conference last year…just about the UTEP competencies.  You have to believe that children can and they deserve that”.  An elementary special educator mentioned the service obligation to teach in high-poverty schools that some UTEP participants acquired as a condition of receiving scholarship support:  “I know at the beginning, through UTEP, I was obligated to teach so many years in a Title I school.  So, at first, it was like, okay I’m just going to do this because I’m obligated to…”

 

The one individual—a secondary special educator—who did leave teaching in high-poverty schools by her fifth year and did not return, cited lack of administrative support as being pivotal to the decision to leave.  Of the 11 study participants, this was the only individual who did not remain in urban teaching for at least five years.

 

When the 10 interview participants who had remained in urban teaching for at least five years were directly asked about whether they felt their teacher preparation program had contributed in any way to their decision to remain in urban teaching, each of these individuals indicated that it had.  When asked in what ways the program had influenced their decision, 60% of the persisting secondary special educators and 20% of the elementary special educators indicated that the program had created heightened awareness of the importance of cultural issues and their implications for teaching.   For example, one secondary special educator noted:

 

Yes, it has helped me stay.  I’m surprised at how I continue to revert back to those competencies because it was really life-changing for me to really come into that information.  When I talk about it a lot, I talk about that it is the culture, it’s the difference in the culture.  And a lot of times people think because you’re black, you can deal with inner-city or urban, or like you should know.  But I come from a different culture and so to be exposed to what I’ve been exposed to over this time, it has really helped me to understand a little better the culture and the mindset of the people that I serve.

 

Likewise, an elementary special educator stated: 

 

…I had never been in a Title I school.  I wasn’t raised in one.  You know, my kids didn’t go to one.  I didn’t go to one.  I didn’t really understand.  And then we went to classes like on Saturday.  They taught us all about different ways and it started making me think differently about how I picture things…

 

Another theme that emerged in the responses of participants was that the program changed their thinking related to urban education and their role in it.  Forty percent of elementary special educators and 20% of persisting secondary special educators made comments of this nature.  According to one elementary special educator:

 

…You look back and see that you’ve been provided with the skills and training to meet that need.  You look back and say I do have the skills that it will take to make a difference.  …It is helpful with the confidence.

 

On this same issue, a secondary special educator noted:

 

The UTEP program really opened my eyes to the challenges that the urban children face, because, you know, I didn’t think about all that kind of stuff until we read a book…about what [the student’s] priority is versus the educator’s priority.

 

In delving deeper into the perceptions of participants regarding their teacher preparation program, participants were asked to note program aspects that they found most and least helpful in preparing them for urban teaching.  In terms of the most helpful, many secondary special educators (67%) and some elementary special educators (40%) cited factors related to understanding the urban context and the importance of cultural issues.  In the words of one secondary special educator:

 

Just having those real conversations about the urban environment, the urban

setting…because I did not start off in that program. And so starting off in a traditional

type of program and then bridging over to the UTEP program. Really, I was able to make

the connections and see the differences in the traditional versus being more focused on

the UTEP content…and mindset.

 

Regarding the most helpful aspects of the program, an elementary special educator commented:

 

I was raised in a military school so I’ve always thought everybody viewed things military-wise.  And I was thinking to myself, you know, I worked in [urban school district] for two years, and I was the only White person in the entire school and that’s when I was like ‘Okay, I need to remember back and think how was it [discussed in UTEP classes]’.  There’s a different way to approach this than how I’m approaching this.  And once I remembered some of the things that I’ve learned, I could approach it that way and it worked.  It was a culture difference in the way I was going after it…And that really helped me.

 

An elementary special educator and a secondary special educator also noted special education courses as being particularly helpful.  An elementary special educator noted:  “Well, I think more so my courses in special education because it kind of like hit the brain cell that just, you know, kept going.  It just made me want to learn”.  In reference to her special education coursework related to differentiation, a secondary special educator responded:  “I’ve had teachers tell me, ‘Well, I didn’t study that. I don’t know.  I teach twelfth grade.  How can I go back and teach, differentiate?’ …then I get a chance to teach my teachers how to differentiate instruction.”

 

In terms of the least helpful elements of the program, some secondary special educators (50%) and some elementary special educators (40%) thought some aspects of program coursework were not reflective of everyday issues in real classrooms, or were too theoretical (in the words of one participant, not “nitty gritty”).  On this issue, an elementary special educator noted:  “…some of it was, I used the word ‘surfacey’, but it was kind of surfacey in a sense”. 

A secondary special educator reported:  “I felt like, ‘Oh my gosh!’ you know, I have to write this huge long lesson plan for every single day…And I just thought, this is not real teaching.  This is not the real world of ‘in the trenches’…”

 

One elementary special educator and two secondary special educators also felt the need for more special education training (i.e., pedagogical skills, IEPs, collaboration, setting up new programs).  For example, one secondary special educator reported that she did not feel well-prepared in terms of “how to get the program started and how to keep it going, even when you are facing different issues that typically arise with urban schools”.  An elementary special educator noted:  “I really didn’t know how to [use the state’s electronic IEP system]”.  

 

In an effort to learn more about potential gaps in the program, participants were asked to identify any additional training that they felt that they needed after they entered teaching.  Many again mentioned additional training in special education (i.e., IEP development, behavior management, pedagogy).  Forty percent of elementary special educators and 50% of secondary special educators made responses of this nature.  One elementary special educator noted:  “I get the self-contained class too, so I have to teach all academics. And so when I took over, I felt kind of overwhelmed because I really didn’t know how to do it”.  Likewise, a secondary special educator reported:  “Well, I’m sure you know a lot of the behavioral stuff…I really, really felt like it was on the job training…”.

 

Another theme that emerged in the responses of participants with respect to needed additional training focused on support skills that are not directly related to teaching (i.e., paperwork, grant writing, team-building/collaboration, maintaining supportive networks, taking care of one’s self).   Forty percent of elementary special educators and 33% of secondary special educators cited items in this area.  In terms of caring for one’s self, an elementary special educator shared:

 

…I found that [urban teaching] is extremely challenging and rewarding.  But I think learning how to pace yourself and maybe a little bit about making sure that you take care of yourself to the point where you can continue to do what you do at a high level…This is what you need to do mentally, physically, emotionally.

 

In terms of maintaining supportive networks, a secondary special educator commented: 

I think just continuing to network or having that  network, not as frequently, but even if it were twice a year, just some type of connection to be able to see ‘How is it working over there?  What are you doing?  This is what I’m facing over here.  Can you all help me think through this?’           

 

To conclude the interviews, an open-ended question asking for any additional thoughts was used to provide an opportunity for participants to share any other information they felt relevant.  Each of the six secondary special educators and four of the five (80%) elementary special educators provided additional thoughts.  The prevailing theme in the responses of these 10 individuals was one of general appreciation for UTEP or otherwise positive views of the program.  All of the secondary participants and three of the four (75%) responding elementary participants made comments of this nature.  A secondary participant reported: 

 

I think that honestly [UTEP] was an invaluable tool. And I know that’s really what formed the teacher that I am. I don’t want to sound boastful but people compliment me a lot for my teaching abilities. It has a lot to do with opening your eyes to culture and to diversity and diversified instruction and all those things. I mean they were just [a] wonderful tool.

 

Similarly, an elementary special educator noted:

I am certainly grateful that there was an opportunity out there to be a part of the program…You know, through observation, if others are around and they see you, things that you learn through UTEP, others pick up on that quickly.  I definitely noticed a difference with that and I also see some of the other people that I graduated with, whether they work at the high school or different places, seeing them be successful as well.

 

Discussion

In reviewing the career paths of the participating educators, the inclination to remain in urban teaching appeared higher than among the teaching population in general.  Of the 11 study participants, 89% remained in urban teaching positions at the fifth year mark, with none having left special education teaching altogether.  This means that 100% of the participating teachers remained in special education teaching.  In comparison, a national survey of teachers (inclusive of all grade levels/subject areas), indicated that by the fifth year mark, only 83% continued to teach, with 17% having left the teaching profession altogether (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). 

In comparing the retention rates of the participating elementary and secondary special educators, some small differences emerged. Two of the secondary participants (33%) left urban teaching at some point during the first five years of teaching.  One of these individuals (17%) had not returned to urban teaching by the fifth year.  This means that at the fifth year mark, 100% the elementary participants remained in urban special education, while 83% of the secondary participants did so.   Similar gaps in the five-year retention rate of general education urban elementary and secondary educators have been found in other studies (Burstein, Czech, Kretschmer, Lombardi, & Smith, 2009).

Although the urban teaching retention rates of the study participants outstrip national averages, they are more similar to studies of the graduates of other general education urban teacher preparation programs (Freedman & Appleman, 2009).  This suggests that teacher preparation programs designed with urban schools in mind may impact the career paths of educators in urban schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).

The perspectives of the participating elementary and secondary special educators with respect to their reasons for entering and remaining in urban teaching are, in most regards, very similar.  The majority of the responses of both groups of educators cluster around altruistic purposes (i.e., desire to work where most needed, desire to give back, desire to make a difference, etc.).  However, in terms of factors influencing their decision to enter urban teaching, some secondary special educators (33%) did mention other practical factors, such as the increased availability of jobs in urban schools.  Elementary special educators did not mention such factors as influencing their decision to enter urban teaching.  On the other hand, an elementary special educator did mention practical factors, such as the service obligation associated with the tuition support that they had received, as influencing her decision to remain in urban teaching.  No secondary special educators mentioned such factors in response to this question.

The nature of the responses of the participating special educators regarding their reasons for entering and remaining in urban teaching are similar to those cited in other studies focusing on general educators (Knell & Castro, 2014; Olsen & Anderson, 2007).  These findings underscore the need to highlight opportunities to make a difference and impact young lives in the recruitment of individuals into urban teaching, but not to the exclusion of other factors, such as the enhanced availability of tuition support, and the enhanced job placement opportunities that are often associated with teaching in high-poverty urban schools.

 

Consistent with other studies including general educators (Voltz, 1998), the rewards and challenges of urban teaching cited by the participating special educators primarily clustered in three domains:  factors associated with students (i.e., student progress, connecting with students, student concerns); factors associated with parents/families (i.e., collaborating with parents); and factors associated with the school/school system (i.e., funding issues, starting new program, process of labelling students).  Both elementary (60%) and secondary (50%) special educators largely saw the rewards as being focused on the students.  However, challenges were more often framed in terms of parents/families or schools/school systems.  Forty percent of the elementary participants and 50% of secondary participants framed challenges in terms of parent/family issues.  It is interesting to note, however, that while 80% of elementary participants framed challenges in terms of school-related issues (lack of funding, starting new program, process of labelling students), only 33% of secondary participants did so.  This was one of the few areas in which the perceptions of elementary participants differed substantially from those of secondary participants.  These differences may have been grounded in differing perceptions regarding the relative impact of funding issues, as elementary participants were far more likely to cite this as a challenge than was the case for secondary participants.  On this note, a secondary educator had this to say: 

 

But I think the biggest obstacle…I think a lot of times we focus on resources that the school districts don’t have and things of that nature, but honestly, like now where I sit…and I swear I was going to write a book about this…it’s the mindset of some parents and people.  They are not even valuing education. 

 

This educator went on to discuss her frustrations with a system that she saw as inappropriately trying to “label another African American male as intellectually disabled or emotionally disabled”. She saw parents as being complicit in this process.          

 

The responses of the participating special educators with respect to rewards of urban teaching highlight the importance of making sure that teacher preparation programs provide opportunities for prospective urban special educators to routinely see urban learners thrive.  On this issue, Delpit (1992, p. 241) noted: 

 

Teacher education usually focuses on research that links failure and socioeconomic status, failure and cultural difference, and failure and single-parent households. It is hard to believe that these children can possibly be successful after their teachers have been so thoroughly exposed to so much negative indoctrination.

 

The teachers in this study seemed to have drawn inspiration and satisfaction from the success of their students.  In order to bring about such success, one must first believe that it is possible, and further, that one possesses the skills to make it happen. Teachers need to be aware of instances and conditions under which urban learners have been and can be successful.  Given the inclination of elementary participants in particular to site lack of resources as a great challenge, it seems especially important that teacher candidates have opportunities to see urban learners succeed in schools that are less well-resourced.  They need the opportunity to see it happen firsthand, even when resources are not optimal.  In the words of Delpit, teachers need “visions for success”.

 

Parents and families also played a dominant role in the challenges cited by the participating special educators.  Despite studies indicating that parental involvement is more of a challenge at the secondary level (Hirano et al, 2016; Hurley et. al, 2016), there was little difference in the responses of the elementary versus secondary special educators participating in this study.  The frequency with which both groups of participants noted challenges associated with parents and families suggests that there may be a need for a strong focus on this area in preservice and inservice teacher education.  Allen and Migliore (2005) described an urban school-university partnership that provides a helpful example of how a parent-family focus can be integrated into existing partnerships for the preparation of teachers who can effectively engage diverse parents as partners in the education of their children. 

 

The perspectives of participants with respect to their teacher preparation program were largely positive.  This was evident through both the survey and interview responses.  One aspect of the program that the participants found particularly helpful was its inclusion of cultural issues.  This perception was common to both groups of special educators, with 60% of elementary participants and 67% of secondary participants mentioning the value of this emphasis at some point during the interview.  This finding, along with those of other studies of general educators (i.e., Matsko & Hammerness, 2014), suggests the need to include such an emphasis in the preparation of urban teachers.

 

In terms of aspects of their teacher preparation program that they found least helpful, or areas where they felt they needed additional training, some elementary participants (40%) and many secondary participants (67%) cited factors related to the need for more special education training.  These educators expressed a need for more training specific to the age/grade level, disabilities areas, and curricular focus associated with the students they served.  Reflecting the teacher certification structure in the state, the teacher preparation program that participants completed was designed to prepare them to teach students from all disability areas (with exception of sensory disabilities and speech/language impairments), at all levels of severity, and in all settings, from self-contained to general education classrooms.  Thus, the program provided more breadth than depth with respect to its focus on special education populations.  Since this more generic certification structure is not uncommon (Blanton, Boveda, Munoz, & Pugach, 2017), many special education teacher preparation programs will need to be prepared to rise to this challenge.   This need may be especially acute in secondary special education, as curricular demands typically increase in these environments (Jones, Zirkel, & Barrack, 2008).  This factor may underlie the increased percentage of participating secondary special educators versus elementary special educators who indicated a need in this area.

 

Though the challenge of preparing special educators to serve a broad range of students with disabilities is not particular to the urban environment, the responses of participants of this study did shed light on some things teacher educators might do to address this challenge.  A number of elementary (40%) and secondary (50%) participants indicated that they felt some coursework was too theoretical.   This suggests a need for better integration of theory and practice.  While understanding theory is an important aspect of professionalism, such understandings can best be enhanced in the context of authentic environments.  Making sure that coursework has a rich field component, and making sure that field component reflects the theories and concepts that are the focus of the course, would go a long way in providing the coherence that is needed to deliver a robust teacher preparation program.  The study participants also voiced the need to “keep it real” with respect to the focus of instruction and the assignments that we require, in order to maximize the time that we do have in preservice program.   However, despite our best efforts, it may well be impossible to completely get the job done inside of a preservice program.  This circumstance underscores the importance of collaborating with local school districts in training strong mentors who have the expertise to provide context-specific coaching to beginning teachers once they are out in the field.  This component was a critical aspect of UTEP. 

 

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study lies in the nature of its design.  Rather than collecting a limited amount of data on a large, representative sample, more in-depth, one-on-one interviews were conducted with a small sample of individuals who graduated from a particular program, within a particular timeframe.  While this design limits the generalizability of the results, it does provide for the collection of more detailed, context-specific information that could inform other teacher education programs.

 

Another important limitation of this study is related to the demographics of the sample.  As noted in Table 3, only one male participated.  This significantly limits the voice of male teachers in this study.  It should also be noted that the elementary participants were majority White, while the secondary participants were majority African American.  It is possible that these demographic differences could have confounded any observed differences between elementary and secondary participants. 

 

Conclusion

The findings of this study provide additional support for the notion that teacher preparation programs can impact the career paths of educators in urban schools.  The inclination of both the elementary and secondary participants to persist in urban settings at higher rates than is typically the case, coupled with the participants’ own perceptions regarding their teacher education program’s impact on their retention in urban schools, offers some validity to this argument, and provides supporting evidence particular to special educators. 

 

Despite the differences in elementary and secondary school settings, the perceptions of both groups of participants in this study were very similar with respect to the majority of issues addressed by the interview questions.  However, elementary participants were much more likely to ground their greatest challenges in issues related to lack of funding than was the case for secondary participants.  This study did not yield information regarding factors that may contribute to these differences.   Further study may assist in determining whether such differences persist in other groups of elementary and secondary special educators, and if so, what factors may underlie these differences. 

 

The voices of the teachers participating in this study have provided some guidance with respect to program characteristics that might enhance teacher longevity in urban schools.  Given that more experienced teachers have been found to produce better learning outcomes than inexperienced teachers, the importance of special education teacher educators working to continuously refine our programs to support teacher longevity is highlighted.  This study, like others, has shown the integral role that teacher educators can play in enhancing the learning outcomes for students in high-poverty schools. 

 

References

Allen, L.V. & Migliore, E.T. (2005) Supporting students and parents through a school-university Partnership. Middle School Journal, 36(3), 17-23,

Blanton, L.P., Boveda, M., Munoz, L.R. & Pugach, M.C. (2017).  The affordances and constraints of special education initial teacher licensure policy for teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(1), 77-91.

Bouck, E.C.  (2009). No Child Left Behind, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and functional curricula:  A conflict of interest?  Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(1), 3-13.

Burstein, N., Czech, M., Kretschmer, D., Lombardi, J, & Smith C.  (2009). Providing qualified teachers for urban schools:  The effectiveness of the Accelerated Collaborative Teacher Preparation Program in recruiting, preparing, and retaining teachers.  Action in Teacher Education, 31(1), 24-37.

Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L.  (2017). Teacher turnover:  Why it matters and what we can do about it.  Palo Alto, CA:  Learning Policy Institute.

Carroll, T.G., & Foster, E.  (2010). Who will teach?: Experience matters.  Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delpit, L.D.  (1992). Education in a multicultural society:  Our future’s greatest challenge. Journal of Negro Education, 61, 237-249.

Freedman, S.W., & Appleman, D.  (2009). “In it for the long haul”:  How teacher education can contribute to teacher retention in high-poverty, urban schools.  Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 323-337.

Green, A.M., & Munoz, M.A.  (2016). Predictors of new teacher satisfaction in urban schools: 

Effects of personal characteristics, general job facets, and teacher-specific job facets.  Journal of School Leadership, 26(1), 92-123.

Hirano, K.A., Garbacz, S.A., Shanley, L., Rowe, D.A.  (2016). Parent involvement in secondary special education and transition:  An exploratory psychometric study.  Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3537-3553.

Hurley, K.D., Lambert, M.C., January, S.A., D’Angelo, J.H.  (2017). Confirmatory factor analyses comparing parental involvement frameworks for secondary students.  Psychology in the Schools, 54, 947-964

Jones, R.E., Zirkel, P.A., & Barrack, R.D.  (2008). Special education and regular education: Achieving high school success with the NCLB and the IDEA.  Catalyst for Change, 35(2), 19-24.

Knell, P.F. & Castro, A.J.   (2014). Why people choose to teach in urban schools: The case for a push–pull factor analysis. The Educational Forum, 78(2), 150-163

Major, A.E.  (2012). Job design for special education teachers.  Current Issues in Education, 15(2), 1-7.

Matsko, K.K., & Hammerness, K.  (2014). Unpacking the “urban” in urban teacher education: 

Making a case for context-specific preparation.  Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 128-144.

National Center for Education Statistics.  (2015). Public school teacher attrition in the first five years:  Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007-08 beginning teacher longitudinal study.  Author:  Washington, D.C.

National Center for Education Statistics.  (2016). The condition of education.  Author: Washington, D.C.

National Center for Education Statistics.  (2018). Preparation and support for teachers in public schools:  Reflections on the first year of teaching. Author:  Washington, D.C.

Olsen, B. & Anderson, L.  (2007). Courses of action:  A qualitative investigation into urban teacher retention and career development.  Urban Education, 41(1), 5-29.

Rimpola, R.C.  (2014). Collaborative planning and teacher efficacy of high school mathematics co-teachers.  Educational Planning, 21(3), 41-53.

Simmons, K.D., Carpenter, L.B., Kyal, Al, Austin, S., Shumack, K.  (2012). Preparing secondary special educators:  four collaborative initiatives.  Education, 132, 754-763.

Voltz, D.L.  (1998). Challenges and choices in urban education:  The perceptions of teachers and principals. Urban Review, 30, 211-228.

Voltz, D.L., Collins, L., Patterson, J., & Sims, M.  (2008). Preparing urban educators for the twenty-first century:  What the research suggests.  In Craig, C.J. & L. Deretchin (Eds.), Teacher Education Yearbook XVI:  Imagining a Renaissance in Teacher Education (pp. 25-40).  Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield Education.

To top

---

---

Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET 

*Learning Specialist – Provides vision and direction for the Educational Support Services (ESS) Program by supporting students with different learning styles; supporting teachers in their efforts to advance students with different learning needs within the classroom; and working with parents, students, and outside professionals in order to better support the needs of the students. To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teacher – Desert Choice Schools is looking for a Special Education Teacher or Teacher Intern at multiple locations including Buckeye, AZ – Tempe, AZ – Phoenix, AZ – San Tan Valley, AZ – Queens Creek, AZ and Yuma, AZ for the 2019/2020 school year.  Being a special educator with Desert Choice Schools is unlike any other opportunity. To learn more – Click here

*Certified Special Education Teacher – Our client is seeking a Certified Special Education Teacher to assist children with special needs throughout several counties in North and South Jersey area schools. In this role you would be responsible to provide care to developmentally disabled children to promote emotional and social growth within a school setting. To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teacher – We work to attract, empower and retain the finest therapists so that every human can manifest their full potential.  We, TherapyTravelers, hold our (4) core values at high esteem, those being: Integrity, Being Exceptional, Teamwork, and Acknowledgement and Appreciation for great work. To learn more – Click here 

*Special Education Teacher – Philadelphia, PA – The Invo-Progressus Team has incredible opportunities for Special Education Teachers…or, as we like to call them, Superheroes.  If you use your super powers to help ensure that children have access to the best education possible in the least restrictive environment, we would love for you to join the Invo-Progressus team! To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teacher – Chicago, IL – The Invo-Progressus team is comprised of some of the nation’s most talented and influential education and therapy leaders all of whom have a keen understanding of how to meet the unique needs of school districts, children and families and help them succeed. We are currently seeking full and part-time Special Education Teachers in Chicago, IL to provide services in Chicago area schools. To learn more – Click here 

*Chief Clinical Officer – Criterion Child Enrichment is conducting a search for a Chief Clinical Officer (CCO).  Founded in 1985 as a not-for-profit organization, Criterion has served families for over 30 years and is a leading provider of early childhood education and early intervention services in Massachusetts. The Chief Clinical Officer will work in partnership with the agency’s Chief Administrative Officer to oversee operation of programs fulfilling Criterion’s Mission and Strategic Plans. To learn more – Click here

*Student Services Administrator – Monitors compliance with IDEA, ADA, OCR, CRDC, and other relevant Special Education and/or English learner regulations for the purpose of ensuring ECS schools are in compliance with federal and state regulations. Assist in the updating of all policies and procedures for ECS that adheres to mandates pertaining to English learners and students with disabilities. To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teachers – Responsible for providing an educational atmosphere where students have the opportunity to fulfill their potential for intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual and psychological growth. This person is responsible for organizing and implementing an instructional program that will maximize the learning experience of students with special needs. To learn more – Click here

To top

Acknowledgements

Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:

• Center for Parent Information and Resources
• Committee on Education and the Workforce
• FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
• Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
• National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
• National Institute of Health
• National Organization on Disability
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
• U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• U.S. Office of Special Education

The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal

---

To top

Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal

To View or Download a PDF file for this issue of the Special Educator e-Journal  –  CLICK HERE

To top