Lidia Lentz

The Different Perspectives on Job Responsibilities between Resource and Self-Contained

Teachers: A Qualitative Study

There is so much paperwork between IEPs and parents and meetings. I feel like I do not

get enough time to actually plan for my lessons…... [lesson plans] (announcement being

made about turning in timesheets) is a never-ending process. I literally change either how

I plan or my actually schedule, I feel, like, weekly. It is seriously annoying.”

Contained within Tracy's words, a 5th-year teacher of a self-contained special education

classroom is a specific perspective on her ability to meet her job responsibilities regarding lesson

planning, offered in response to her paperwork Individual Education Plans (IEP) responsibilities.

Job duties related to academic instruction such as lesson planning and IEP paperwork are set for

special education teachers. As you will see in the following pages, Tracy and the other

participant provide their perspective with paperwork, lesson planning, resources available, and

other nonrelated classroom duties due to the time and continuous changes.

Previous research has been done on the need for inclusion and co-teaching and the effects

on special education teachers' perspectives. To understand special education efficacy, we first

need to understand the scope of responsibilities, support, and perspective. Four special education

teachers who taught kindergarten to 2nd grade in the same building were interview. Each teacher

was asked to turn in their lesson plans for a week to give evidence and a clear look at their

weekly responsibilities. This topic is significant to examine the different workloads and support

given to special education teachers in various settings to prevent burn out rates in special

education teachers (De Stasio, 2017).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative study was to discover the perspective of special education

teachers on their ability to meet job requirements among kindergarten and 2nd-grade resource
 2

push-in model and self-contained teachers at Lincoln Elementary school at Belvidere District

100. At this stage. This research can help administrators adjust work practices, education

policies, and work environments to provided teachers with the proper supports they need to

service their students.

Literature Review

Special education philosophical and ideological theories on education instruction and

delivery methods have shifted over time. In the past, inclusion was for students with mild

disabilities and did not always include students with significant cognitive, or physical disabilities

such as blind and deaf/hard of hearing (Kurth et al., 2014). To stop separation between

individuals from continuing, least restrictive environment (LRE) was set into law.

McGovern (2015) defined LRE as federal law that states that students should be in the

educational environment with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent unless the general

education setting cannot provide supplementary services and aid.LRE created a shift in schools

to started implementing different types of practices which one is inclusion. Inclusion is when

students with special education needs are included in the general education setting instead of a

separate classroom.

Inclusion looks different depending on the school. It can consist of co-teaching,

modifying assignments, and having additional staff members in the classroom (Winn & Blanton,

2005). The shift towards inclusion provides students with disabilities exposure to the general

education curriculum and their peers. These shifts towards full inclusion require schools to shift

their practices, ideals, and their training procedures.

One belief is that teachers can design instructional planning and instruction delivery for

students with disabilities from the same framework as students from the general education

classroom, such as universal learning design (ULD) (Lowrey et al., 2017). Since inclusion can

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 3

create more collaboration between special education and general education teachers, teachers

may have to pull their resources to design instruction for all students. Using ULD will create a

unified framework for all students and staff. Adequate time for collaboration between special

education teachers and general education teachers and resources are needed to provide a strength

and need-based approach. According to McQuarrie and Zarry (1999), time allocation needs to be

used for collaboration and consultation for these new practices to be in place.

On the other hand, some believe special education teachers still need to collaborate with

other special education staff and continuing education (Draper, 2019). Considering both beliefs,

they create double the amount of collaboration time a special education teacher need. In some

cases, professional development is done separately for special education teachers and general

education teachers (Draper, 2019). Separate professional development is seen as best practice

because special education and general education teachers had slightly different focuses to get

their degrees and their focus as educators. Special education teachers focus on behavior and

learning difficulties and how to meet those needs. General education teachers focus on the

pedagogy of teaching each subject matter and essential classroom management.

Even further, sometimes training is done separately for the different types of special

education settings. Training for the special education teacher population tends to be basic and

generic training, covering numerous topics. According to De Stasio et al. (2017), "focused

teacher training is critical to prompting teachers' well-being and longevity" (p. 484). Many times,

teachers attend training that focuses on special education as a broad term. Training on writing

IEP goals for a resource teacher will differ from IEP goal writing for a multi-needs' student.

Have training specific to a teacher's needs will ensure that their time is spent in the most

productive way possible.

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 4

Not all believe that training, just like collaboration, needs to be separate for special and

general education. According to Asby (2017), the separation of education and special and

general education training is unnecessary. The focus should be on all students and how to

address students of all academic and social needs. Students' disabilities should not be the drive of

their instruction to provide them with a high-quality education. Ashby (2017) found, "they

should reflect strengths and needs-based approach to determining supports and useful teaching

strategies" (p. 96). This belief reflects on students' strengths and needs to benefit students with

and without disabilities.

Inclusion, like all models of teaching, is continually being developed and expanded.

Shepard et al. (2016) found new approaches to collaborate on planning and instruction. However,

the study found this causes more confusion with teachers who are not trained or consistently and

correctly using the approaches. Co-teaching is a method for general, and special education

teachers can work together to promote inclusion. Co-teaching is when a general education

classroom has two teachers: general and special education classroom. A co-taught classroom has

students of all levels. A productive and effective way to provide instruction to a large classroom

while provided differentiated instruction (Winn & Blanton, 2005). Co-teaching can be

implemented in many ways. Proper training on how to implement co-teaching in the classroom is

essential.

Co-teachers can change structures depending on the lesson, skill levels of the students,

skill levels of the teachers, and personalities. Friend et al. (1993) outlined the co-teaching

structures. The structures are one, teach one assist. One, teach one assist is when one teacher

instructs, and the other teacher supervises the students and aid as needed. The second structure is

station training. Station training is when each teacher has their station and students rotate. The

third structure of co-teaching is parallel teaching. The parallel teaching allows both teachers to

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 5

plan instruction together, but each delivers to half the class. The fourth structure for co-teaching

is alternative teaching. Alternative teaching is when one teacher works in a small group to pre-

teach or re-teach while the other teacher instructs the whole class. The last structure is team

teaching. Teachers share the responsibilities and delivery of instruction (Friend et al., 1993). All

structures are recommended by experts besides one teach, one assist. These methods can be used

by resource or self-contained teachers.

Co-teaching provides students with the most effective teaching practices while including

students with various abilities (Draper, 2019). Sharing responsibilities and resources could

potentially decrease non-instruction job responsibilities for special education teachers. Some

special education teachers develop and create their materials to provide meaningful and

individualized instruction for their students. Urback et al. (2015) found "resourcefulness, while a

characteristic trait, was viewed by the teachers as an important aspect of being a special

education teacher" (p. 329). Special education teachers spent a large part of their day creating

materials. Special education teachers could spend the time spent on reinventing the wheel in

collaboration with general education teachers.

In addition to training, special education teachers have a broad description of job

requirements that do not always match their work system. Special education teachers are licensed

to work with students with a disability to help them either close academic gaps, functional gaps

or access the general education curriculum. According to Bettini et al. (2015), special education

teachers' responsibilities are split between instructing students and other commitments such as

meetings, paperwork, planning and preparing, consultation, supervision, and discipline.

Furthermore, there are many roles expected of a special education teacher other than closing the

achievement gap, such as creating individualized lesson plans, behavior plans tailored to a

student, consulting, and developing individualized education plans (IEP).

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 6

Teachers' perception of their roles and the ability to complete those roles will affect a

persons' fulfillment of a job. Urbach et al. (2015) found that the perception of a teacher's role and

responsibilities may play how they interact with students, general educators, and parents as well

as perform their job performance. If a teacher believes they have the support, time, and ability to

do their job, they tend to enjoy their work and interacting others. If a teacher feels overwhelmed,

unsupported, overworked, these feelings could negatively affect their relationships and

responsibilities.

Teacher self-efficacy and self-esteem are closely tied to their work environment.

According to Billingsley (2004), the work environment plays a part in teacher's feeling of

fulfillment and retention. Salary, positive work climate, administrative support, caseloads, and

established roles are the most significant variables. People tend to work harder when they feel

valued. A fair salary has been shown to increase teachers' feelings of value. Positive energy can

be seen in the classroom by any bystander.

A positive work environment is essential to fostering an honest, trustworthy relationship

between special and general education teachers. Vannest et al. (2010) states, "Because of the

constraints of the school setting in which teachers work, much is let to understand about the

degree to which teachers can implement change in their instructional behavior" (p. 96). The shift

in education is promoting inclusion. However, research showed that the practices, processes, and

procedures for collaboration between teachers do not exist.

Limitations

The limitations found throughout all the research is the widespread use of special

education teachers. Most of the research available did not specify the level of special education.

There were only two studies that defined between resource and self-contained. There was more

information on inclusion with resource than self-contained settings. The lack of distinguishment

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 7

between resource and self-contained should be noted and considered. Some districts have

different definitions of what is viewed as a resource and self-contained. Other districts have

multiple programs on a continuum from general education with support to entirely in a special

education class all day.

Another limitation of the research presented here is the assessing tools were not authentic

qualitative data collections. Many of the studies used self-assessing tools such as surveys.

Teachers answered questions on a rating scale. These were done on a computer or a form. Some

of the studies, required teachers to assess their responsibilities and time management throughout

the day. With their other responsibilities and performing the tasks daily, teachers could have

missed or forgot to track every activity.

Methodology

The data collected was from face-to-face interviews and artifacts such as lesson plans from four

special education teachers. The information was coded and analyzed to find common themes

related to their ability to meet their job responsibilities concerning their position and resources

available based on their educational settings.

Research Questions

• How does the participant describe their work setting?

• How do the participants describe their roles in providing services to students?

• How do the participants describe their non-instructional duties and the amount of

planning time available to them? According to the participants, how does this affect their

ability to serve students?

• How do the participants describe the resources and training available to them?

Description of site and participants

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 8

The sample consisted of teachers who serve students through a resource push-in method

as well as self-contained teachers. The resource push-in model (inclusion) is when students have

a homeroom in a general education classroom. These students receive academic support from a

special education teacher in the classroom and a general education teacher. The students are not

pulled out of the general education setting unless they receive related services such as speech,

occupational therapy, or physical therapy. Self-contained teachers have their classroom separate

from the general education classrooms. Students in self-contained classrooms may push into a

general education classroom for specials and limited exposure to the general education

curriculum. Self-contained teachers typically have less than 13 students. Resource teachers and

self-contained teachers are required to work at grade level common core standards. Resource

teachers generally have 10 to 20 students on their caseload.

The sample comprises two self-contained teachers and two resource teachers who serve

students in grades kindergarten through 2nd. One self-contained teacher is a white male about 50

years old. The other self-contained teacher is a white female about 30 years old. Both resource

teachers are white, females about 35 years old. The teachers will be from Lincoln Elementary

School in the Belvidere School District 100.

Belvidere is a farming community in Boone County. The town has about 25,000

residents. It is one of the largest farming towns in the surrounding area when comparing

population size. Most of the residents are in the working class. Belvidere has many factories like

the Chrysler plant.

Lincoln Elementary is one of seven schools. According to the Illinois School Report Card

and US Census (2018), 59% of students come from low-income families. Lincoln Elementary

School is a Title I school (Illinois 2018). The population of the school is Hispanic (50%), White

(43%), and Other (7%). 29% of the Lincoln Elementary school students are English language

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 9

learners (Illinois School Report Card and US Census, 2018). Lincoln Elementary has two self-

contained programs housed at the school. Students from across the district are placed at Lincoln

for these programs. Test scores are low at Lincoln, with only 19% of the population showing

proficiency in all three areas: composite, mathematics, and reading. The school will possibly be

rated underperforming this year.

Data collection procedures

For this research study, I conducted 1:1 interview with all participants. Four participants

were interviewed in one session during the school week. The fourth participant required three

sessions due to interruptions, unexpected meetings, and illnesses. The participant and I were

interrupted a total of six times throughout the interviews. The interruptions were due to teachers

sharing classrooms and materials, questions that a teacher needed to ask, and other teachers

coming into the room to vent. This similar situation happened during each interview with all the

teachers interviewed for this study. The interviews were significantly longer than expected. The

interruptions were a look into a typical day of these teachers.

Each length of the interview was 45 minutes to 90 minutes. Interviews were held in the

teacher's classroom. Interviews were audiotaped from on my cellphone and recorded through

google speech on a Chromebook. I transcribed the audio recordings using Google's text to speech

in a document. The interview covered all research questions. The participants were asked to

describe their setting and job responsibilities, training, resources, paperwork load, and planning

time. Teachers shared their concerns and solutions to remediate their issues.

Lesson plans and team notes were also collected as artifacts. Teachers were asked to keep

all paper and electronic forms of notes and lessons. These artifacts give an in-depth and precise

look at each teacher's resources, materials, planning time, and daily procedures in their setting. I

collected these artifacts for one week at random times.

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 10

Data analysis

Interviews were analyzed by open coding after the interview. While I read the transcript,

I created a list of codes. First, I wrote the different types of codes, so I could group them in an

organized way to find common categories. The codes I created were descriptive, process, activity

events, and in vivo coding. I had an extensive list of codes. From those codes and subcodes, I

created overarching topics. After developing the overarching topics, I went through the data to

narrow the themes down further. I used these codes to see comparisons and differences between

each teacher and each setting.

Lesson plans and team notes were analyzed by analytical memo. Each artifact had its

own analytical memo. After looking over the artifact, I developed two themes that pertained to

my research questions. These were used as additional data to support themes and concepts found

in the interview.

Researcher Role and Background

Gatekeepers were the assistant principals at Lincoln Elementary as well as the Special

Education Director. I have a good relationship with the assistant principal and the Special

Education Director. When it comes to conducting research, the school district allows interviews

to be completed during planning time, after school, or out of contractual hours. A disadvantage

that could have occurred was teachers unwilling to share information with me in fear of me

sharing it with our superiors. I have a great relationship with the teachers at Lincoln Elementary,

and I did not have a struggle in order to obtain participants.

When I conducted this study, I was aware of my assumptions about the amount of

support given to teachers and the resources available. I knew that the special education team was

given a lot of responsibilities with minimal time, support, and resources. These assumptions

could assist in the findings and conclusion of the data but could also add biases.

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 11

I was a resource teacher for three years and a self-contained teacher for two years. Due to

personal experiences in both settings, this makes me an insider as well as an outsider. I am an

insider because I have performed both jobs in this district. Being an insider allowed me to

interact and understand the participants based on my personal experiences in each setting. I am

an outsider because I no longer teach in a resource class. Additionally, my self-contained

classroom is changing, and my students are being exposed to the general education classroom

more than a typical self-contained classroom. Being an insider and outsider in this study

balanced my assumptions and biases from altering my research.

Findings

A review of the data showed that resource teachers' job responsibilities and self-

contained teachers are significantly different. Self-contained teachers have their own classrooms

and provide all academic instruction as well as functional behavior. Resource teachers do not

have their own classrooms and provided instruction in one or more subject areas, reading, math,

and writing instruction, depending on students' needs. The class management and procedures in

each setting are vastly different due to the different cognitive levels and needs of the students.

Conversely, the teachers' expectations, the time allotted for planning, and the resources available

to them are identical.

A common theme in the interviews' data is special education teachers feel they meet their

job responsibilities when they have adequate planning time. Planning time allows teachers to

create lessons, assessments, review data, create interventions, print and prepare lessons and

activities, collaborate with other teachers and service providers, and provide parent

communication. According to the data collected from the interviews, teachers in Belvidere

District 100 are given 225 minutes per week during school hours for planning time and an hour

after school per teacher contracts.

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 12

Through the interviews and lesson plans, I found that resource teachers were more

consistent with receiving all their planning time. Receiving the allotted planning time for

resource teachers supported this data through their lesson plans. I found that some resource

teachers received additional planning times. Alexis, a 12th-year teacher in a second-grade

resource setting, provided an example of the advantage of being a resource teacher, "Today I got

lucky. They're having a fall parties. So, I got a little extra time to plan. So that kind of is a benefit

of not being the classroom, the classroom teacher". Since resource teachers do not have a

classroom, their schedules are very flexible. One resource teacher had free time throughout the

day due to her minimal special education service minutes. She pushed into the general education

classroom to co-teach during those times when she did not have any direct minutes. The

additional time available was evident in her lesson plans. The lesson plans state, "assist in the

classroom." Nevertheless, she has that ability on days that she needs to work on IEP paperwork.

The data found that resource teachers are satisfied with the planning time provided to

them. They can plan their instruction for pull-out instruction and meet their other non-

instructional duties. The resource teachers both stated that they wished they had more time to

plan and collaborate with the general education teacher. Marissa, a 10th-year teacher in a

kindergarten and first-grade resource setting, expressed the importance of collaboration and

feeling prepared when working with other teachers. Both resource teachers felt disconnected and

more of a paraprofessional while in the classroom. I observed Marissa's artifact and lesson plans

covered in handwritten notes expressing her confusion on the general education classroom's

math instruction topic.

Self-contained teachers at Lincoln Elementary school have two to three grades in one

classroom. The students join their same grade peers during specials. During specials, general

education and resource teachers receive their planning time. Since grade levels go to specials at

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 13

different times, self-contained teachers miss out on planning time. Self-contained teachers did

not receive all their contracted planning time. Tracy expressed her appreciation for planning

time:

Well, I get 105 minutes a week. I should get what we all get, which is 225, but that never
happens. Honestly, this is the most planning time I have ever had. I definitely would take
my planning time over the money I get for not getting any planned time. The time I spend
out of here is not worth it.
Tracy voiced that she must do a large portion of her responsibilities at home to meet her job

requirements.

Self-contained teachers are also more likely to miss out on their planning time scheduled

due to behaviors, lack of staff, or student needs. John, a 32-year teacher of a self-contained

classroom, explained how one out of his two paraprofessionals had been gone for the last two

weeks in his class. There has only been a substitute for three days. On the other days, he had to

take the paraprofessional place and missed all his planning time. John expressed frustration in

taking work home or staying late at school to get all his work done.

Furthermore, Tracy explained in handwritten notes on her lesson plans that a student

demonstrated negative behaviors such as hitting, yelling, and refusal. Hence, she was unable to

take her planning time and lunch. Due to the severity of their behaviors, she could not work on

lesson plans or any other duties. Both self-contained teachers stressed the amount of work

needed outside of contractual hours to complete their job responsibilities in their interviews.

Resource teachers did not express concerns or frustrations over the amount of time spent outside

their contractual hours.

Participants in both settings found the best resource to meet their students' needs as their

colleagues. Two of the resource teachers and one self-contained teacher share a room with

another teacher in their grade level. All teachers stated that they share ideas, knowledge, and

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 14

materials with teachers in their room, other special education teachers, or general education

teachers. Sharing resources saved the teacher their time and money.

The data found that participants are not afraid to ask their colleagues for help. John

voiced, "I have a new teammate this year that I go to for help. Having a team that you can work

with makes a big difference". Additionally, Marissa communicated that she counts on her

colleagues for advice and emotional support. Marissa stated, "I don't know what I would do

without my co-teacher and special education partner. They help me out a lot. I can ask them for

help or vent about my day. Sometimes you just need to vent". The research showed that all

teachers believe that close, trusting relationships between teachers are essential to their mental

health and abilities to work to their fullest potential. Close working relationships coincide with

the previous studies that the work environment is vital for teachers to feel fulfilled, which

improves their ability to meet their job responsibilities.

Even though collaboration is an important, significant part of a teacher's day, the data

found that the time demands for collaboration to take place is high. The data found, across all

participants, that a large part of their week includes meetings. Meetings included weekly team

meetings, weekly special education meetings, monthly special education meetings with

administration, special education meetings across the district once or twice a month, monthly

PLC meetings, and impromptu meetings about students with related service providers. Many of

these meetings are after school and go past contractual hours.

Due to many meetings, the collaboration between the special education teacher and the

general education teacher is limited. Marissa expressed her concern about not having time to

collaborate with her general education teacher:

By the time I schedule all my meetings, I am lucky to talk one-on-one with my general
education teacher for 20 minutes a week. She is busy, and I am busy. Half the time, our
meetings do not even line up. I know we could come up with some, like, great lessons
that my students could benefit more from if we had time to talk.

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 15

Subsequently, all the participants agreed that collaboration between special education teachers is

easier than with a general education due to time constraints. The data found that special

education teachers' schedules align more than with the general education teachers. Tracy

explained that she is not able to meet with the general education teacher. Instead, she looks at

their team notes and adds them to her lesson plans. The lesson plans showed the general

education team notes and Tracy's attempt to connect them to her instruction. However,

information can be subjective, and she expressed doubts if she interrupted the team notes

properly.

With a shift in education to inclusion, collaboration is essential to providing an effective

work environment. Having both teachers work together has shown improvement in instruction,

as shown through collaboration between special education teachers in the data collected. The

participants felt that their students would benefit from the general education teachers'

experiences and skills. The general education teachers have different training and experience that

would benefit their learning. The data showed that the participants believe they could be an asset

to the general education teacher and their students. John stated, "we all have different expertise. I

have a lot of experience thinking outside of the box. I work a lot with behaviors, and I could help

a teacher build a more efficient behavioral system".

All participants stated that resources were the main contributor to fulfilling their job

requirements. The resource participants are often given the same resources and guidance as to

the general education classroom teacher. They have the same materials, such as curriculum and

programs. Special education teachers in both settings are required to teach with a focus on

common core standards. Many times, the general education curriculum is too complicated or

does not provide enough support.

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 16

Curriculum training is not always offered to special education teachers due to budget and

participant size. Alexis explained that she is given all the general education curriculum.

However, she never received training on the materials. Alexis was unaware of any district

provided training on a new reading curriculum provided. She has the materials on the floor and

allows the students to look at the books. Alexis uses the books to supplement a skill during

lessons. Alexis explained that she uses the materials; however, not correctly. To make sure the

academic standards are met, Alexis must create her lessons and supplementary materials.

However, she often uses the provided curriculum, not to the fullest extent that it was

designed. Self-contained teachers are provided with a singular curriculum for reading, writing,

and mathematics. The self-contained teacher explained that the curriculum is repetitive, limited,

and does not match up with the skills and concepts taught in the general education classroom.

Both self-contained teachers must create their lessons and supplementary materials to support

skills that follow common core. Additionally, both special education teachers explained that they

have had no training on common core standards or how to use them.

Training, and the lack of it, was another theme found in the data. The data showed that it

was deficient for teachers in both settings. The training provided was generic with no follow-up.

John described many of the training as chat sessions with no clear focus or agenda. Marissa

expressed the same findings:

Well there are some tech trainings offered and this year some sped ones. I have signed up
for the sped ones. The first one was (laugh) a waste of time….like we literally did
nothing. (laugh) the trainee did not even show up. I swear.
The training encouraged trial and error with minimal direction on implementing strategies,

procedures, or materials in the classroom. All the participants had similar themes that training

was a waste of time, and they benefit more from researching their specific situations.

The three areas of resources discussed by the participants did not meet their expectations.

However, the participants have created ways to improve those areas to meet their

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 17

students' needs best. The lesson plans of Alexis and John are detailed and explains how they use

their planning time. Alexis, on a particular day, had 40 minutes of planning time. She used that

time to make copies, create an assessment for the main idea and details, and talk with an

occupational therapist. She organizes her desk, if time, as well. The data supported the findings

that special education teachers must problem-solve to fulfill their job requirements. The data

showed that they created their resources, confided in colleagues to express concerns, sought

advice, and conducted their research to meet their training needs.

Discussion and conclusion

The most evident theme found through the data collection process was that no matter the

setting and specific job responsibilities of a special education teacher, their main priority is

meeting student needs. All four participants believe they meet their job responsibilities to the

best of their abilities; however, this required many hours outside the contractual times and

resources. Adjustments to the number and quality of meetings, training, and additional resources

to being more efficient and beneficial can allow teachers to complete their job responsibilities

during contractual hours instead of outside contractual hours.

The participants create materials that meet their students' needs to supplement the

resources available to them. Teachers use IEP days or complete paperwork at home. Both types

of teachers believe there are areas for improvement. How the areas improve differ due to the

different needs of the teacher. Self-contained teachers feel there are not enough resources

regarding staff to provide students with the services they need. Resource teachers feel there are

not enough educational resources at their disposal.

The participants tended to feel underprepared and under-supported by the administration.

The common perspective found in this study was that administration at the building level

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 18

provides support as much as they can. The administrators at the central office level are often

disconnected and uninformed on classroom daily experiences.

There are some implications for teachers and administrators that need to be addressed. It

can be determined that additional time to collaborate with general education teachers is needed

through the data collected. More resources such as focused materials and training specific to

student needs would improve teaching practice to meet job requirements. Teachers would also

benefit from administrators observing and spending time in their class.

Further research should be done on the effectiveness of training for instruction and

materials. This future research will give an extensive insight into why training is not meeting

teachers' expectations. Additionally, further research should be conducted on the amount of time

spent out of contractual hours to keep up with the job responsibility's demands. It would also be

beneficial to research the expectations of administrators of quality of meeting job

responsibilities. There is an immense difference between completing job responsibilities and the

quality of the work completed.

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 19

Reference

Ashby, C. (2012). Disability studies and inclusive teacher preparation: A socially just path for

teacher education. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37(2), 89–

99. http://search.ebscohost.com/login. Aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=78362457&

site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bettini, E., Kimerling, J., Park, Y., & Murphy, K. M. (2015). Responsibilities and instructional

time: Relationships identified by teachers in self-contained classes for students with

emotional and behavioral disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 59(3), 121–128.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.859561

Bettini, E., Gilmour, A. F., Williams, T. O., & Billingsley, B. (2020). Predicting special and

general educators’ intent to continue teaching using conservation of resources theory.

Exceptional Children, 86(3), 310–329. https://doi.org.auth.lib.niu.edu/10.1177/00144029

19870464

Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of

the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55. http://search.ebsc

ohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric &AN=EJ 693730&site=ehost-live

De Stasio, S., Fiorilli, C., & Benevene, P. (2017). Burnout in special needs teachers at

kindergarten and primary school: Investigating the role of personal resources and work

wellbeing. Psychology in School, 54(5), 472-486. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pits.22013

Draper, E., A. (2019). Meaningful connections: Making inclusion work. General Music Today,

32(2), 24-26. https://doi.org.auth.lib.niu.edu/10.1177/1048371318809969

Illinois School Report Card. (2018). EReport card public site. Illinois School Report Card and

US Census. https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/School.aspx?schoolid=04004100026

2005

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 20

Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2014). The persistence of highly restrictive

special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research &

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 227–239. https://doi-org.auth.lib.

niu.edu/10.1177/1540796914555580

Lowrey, K. A., Hollingshead, A., Howery, K., & Bishop, J. B. (2017). More than one way:

Stories of UDL and inclusive classrooms. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, 42(4), 225–242. https://doi.org.auth.lib.niu.edu/10.1177/1540796917711668

McGovern, M. (2015). Least restrictive environment: Fulfilling the promises of idea. Widener

Law Review, 21(1), 117–137.

McQuarrie, N. & Zarry, L. (1999). Examining the actual duties of resource teachers. Education,

120(2), 378.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx.direct=true&db=a9h&AN=2809144&site=ehos t-

live&scope=site

Friend, M., Cook, L., & Reising, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at

the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h& AN=9604163694&

site=ehost-live&scope=site

Shepherd, K. G., Fowler, S., McCormick, J., Wilson, C. L., and Morgan, D. (2016). The Search

for Role Clarity: Challenges and Implications for Special Education Teacher Preparation.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 83–97.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637904

Urbach, J., Moore, B. A., Klingner, J. K., Galman, S., Haager, D., Brownell, M. T., & Dingle,

M. (2015). “That’s My Job”: Comparing the beliefs of more and less accomplished

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity
 21

special educators related to their roles and responsibilities. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 38(4), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415591220

Vannest, K. J., Soares, D. A., Harrison, J. R., Brown, L., & Parker, R. I. (2010). Changing

teacher time. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), 86–98. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.

aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=448 67912&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Winn, J. & Blanton, L. (2005). The call for collaboration in teacher education. Focus on

Exceptional Children, 38(2), 1–10. https://doiorg.auth.lib.niu.edu/10.17161/foec

.v38i2.6816

1 All names of participants and site have been changed to protect identity