NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
Osigian Office Centre
101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E
Warner Robins, GA 31088
Subscribe to the
Journal of Special Education Leadership
Photocopy and mail to:
CASE
Osigian Office Centre
101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E
Warner Robins, GA 31088
If you are already a member of CASE,
you will automatically receive the
Journal of Special Education Leadership
as part of your membership.
However, you can subscribe if you
are not a member of CASE.
Subscription Notes:
• The Journal of Special Education
Leadership is published by the
Council of Administrators of
Special Education.
• Copy requests should be made to
CASE at the address above.
• Single copies may be purchased.
Orders in multiples of 10 per
issue can be purchased at a
reduced rate.
• Call CASE for membership
information: (478) 333-6892
Or visit our website at
http://www.casecec.org.
PAID
PERMIT NO. 116
Journal of
Special
Education
Leadership
The Journal of the Council of Administrators of Special Education
❑ Yes, I want to subscribe to the
Journal of Special Education Leadership!
❑ Single Issue: $25
Articles
❑ Full Subscription: $40 (includes two journals)
❑ Institution/Library Subscription: $60 (includes two journals)
Payment Information:
❑ Check/Money Order (payable to CASE, in U.S. dollars)
❑ Please bill my credit card: ❑ MasterCard ❑ VISA
Card Number___________________________ Exp. Date_ _______
Cardholder Signature_ _____________________________________
Ship to:
Name_ ______________________________________________________
Address_ ____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Phone_______________________________________________________
Volume 24, Number 1
March 2011
A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
Special Issue: Improving Teacher Induction in Special Education:
Considerations for Leaders and Policy-Makers
Exploring the Relationship Between Special Education Teachers and
Professional Learning Communities: Implications of Research for
Administrators ............................................................................................................. 6
—Linda P. Blanton, Ed.D. and Yvette Perez, M.S.
Principals’ Roles in Supporting the Induction of Special Education Teachers........... 17
—Vivian I. Correa, Ph.D. and Jennifer Y. Wagner, M.Ed.
Supporting Improved Practice for Special Education Teachers:
The Importance of Learner-Centered Professional Development................................ 26
—James McLeskey, Ph.D.
Research on Co-teaching and Teaming: An Untapped Resource for Induction.......... 36
— Marleen C. Pugach, Ph.D., and Judith A. Winn, Ph.D.
The Role of Leaders in Forming School-University Partnerships for
Special Education Teacher Preparation....................................................................... 47
—Erica D. McCray, Ph.D., Michael S. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D.,
Laurie U. deBettencourt, Ph.D., Melinda M. Leko, Ph.D., and Susanne K. Long, M.Ed.
Case in Point: Providing a Full Circle of Support to Teachers in an
Inclusive Elementary School........................................................................................ 59
— Nancy L. Waldron, Ph.D. and Lacy Redd, Ed.S.
Case in Point: Induction at the Secondary Level: A Focus on Content,
Pedagogy, and a School’s Best Teachers....................................................................... 62
—Daniel J. Donder, Ph.D.
Journal Guidelines....................................................................................................... 65
 ISSN 1525-1810

Editorial Board
Editor Dr. Preston Greene Dr. James Shriner
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin Pennsylvania State University University of Illinois
University of Massachusetts University Park, PA Urbana-Champaign, IL
at Amherst Dr. Thomas Hehir Dr. Thomas M. Skrtic
Harvard University • Cambridge, MA University of Kansas • Lawrence, KS
Assistant to the Editor Dr. William Swan
Dr. Robert Henderson
Mr. Jeffrey Taylor University of Illinois University of Georgia • Athens, GA
University of Massachusetts Urbana-Champaign, IL Dr. George Theoharis
at Amherst Dr. Dawn L. Hunter Syracuse University • Syracuse, NY
Board of Associate Editors Chapman University • Orange, CA Dr. Martha Thurlow
Dr. Shirley R. McBride National Center on Educational
Dr. Jean Crockett
McBride Management, Ltd. Outcomes, University of Minnesota
University of Florida
Victoria, BC Minneapolis, MN
Gainesville, FL
Dr. Harold McGrady Dr. Edward Lee Vargas
Dr. Susan Hasazi Hacienda La Puente
The University of Ohio • Athens, OH
University of Vermont • Burlington, VT Unified School District
Dr. Jonathan McIntire
Ms. Charlene Green City of Industry, CA
Orange County Public Schools
Clark County School District Dr. Deborah A. Verstegen
Orlando, FL
Las Vegas, NV University of Nevada
Dr. Margaret J. McLaughlin
Dr. William Hickey Las Vegas, NV
University of Maryland
Avon Public Schools • Avon, CT College Park, MD Dr. Christine Walther-Thomas
Review Board University of Kansas
Dr. James McLeskey
Lawrence, KS
Dr. Bonnie Billingsley University of Florida • Gainesville, FL
Dr. Wilfred Wienke
Virginia Tech • Blacksburg, VA Dr. Judy Montgomery
University of Central Florida
Dr. Kenneth M. Bird Chapman University
Orlando, FL
Westside Community Schools Orange, CA
Lakeland, FL
Omaha, NE Dr. Festus Obiakor
Dr. Jim Yates
Dr. Rachel Brown-Chidsey University of Wisconsin
University of Texas at Austin
University of Southern Maine Milwaukee, WI
Dr. Mitchell Yell
Gorham, ME Dr. Tom Parrish University of South Carolina
Dr. Leonard C. Burrello American Institutes For Research Columbia, SC
Indiana University • Bloomington, IN Palo Alto, CA
Dr. James C. Chalfant Dr. Barbara Pazey
University of Arizona • Tucson, AZ University of Texas at Austin
Dr. Margaret Pysh CASE Executive Committee 2010–2012
Mr. James W. Chapple Dr. Mary V. Kealy, President
University of Arizona • Tucson, AZ
Ashland University • Elyria, OH Dr. Laurie VanderPloeg, President Elect
Dr. David P. Riley Dr. Emily Collins, Past President
Dr. Gary Collings
The Urban Special Education Ms. Laural Jackson, Secretary
ISEAS • Carmel, IN Leadership Collaborative Mr. Tom Adams, Finance Committee Chair
Dr. Pia Durkin Newton, MA Ms. Greta Stanfield, CASE Units
Brown University • Providence, RI Dr. Sharon Raimonde Representative
Dr. William East State University of New York Ms. Emilie Anderson, Membership Chair
NASDSE • Washington, DC Buffalo, NY Ms. Christina Lebo, Policy and Legislation
Mr. Cal Evans Dr. Kenneth E. Schneider Chair
Jordan County Public Schools Orange County Public Schools Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Journal Editor
Sandy, UT Orlando, FL Mr. Gary Myrah, Professional Development
Dr. Susan Faircloth Chair
Dr. Stan Shaw Dr. Gina Scala, Research Liaison
Pennsylvania State University University of Connecticut Mr. David Grapka, Publications and
University Park, PA Storrs, CT Products Review Chair
Dr. Elise Frattura Dr. Katherine Shepherd Dr. Luann Purcell, Executive Director
University of Wisconsin University of Vermont Ms. Robin S. Smith, Administrative
Milwaukee, WI Montpelier, VT Assistant

The Editorial Mission

The primary goal of the Journal of Special Education Leadership is to provide both practicing administrators and researchers of
special education administration and policy with relevant tools and sources of information based on recent advances
in administrative theory, research, and practice. The Journal of Special Education Leadership is a journal dedicated to issues
in special education administration, leadership, and policy. It is refereed journal that directly supports CASE’s main
objectives, which are to foster research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education administration
and to encourage the extension of special education administration knowledge to other fields. Articles for the Journal
of Special Education Leadership should enhance knowledge about the process of managing special education service
delivery systems, as well as reflect on significant techniques, trends, and issues growing out of research on special
education. Preference will be given to articles that have a broad appeal, wide applicability, and immediate usefulness to
administrators, other practitioners, and researchers.
 Journal of Special Education Leadership
N Volume 24, Number 1 N

Subscriptions
The Journal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education.
Copy requests should be made to CASE, Osigian Office Centre, 101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E, Warner Robins,
GA 31088. Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at a reduced
rate. Members receive a copy of the Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of their membership fee.
See back cover for subscription form.

Advertising
The Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conference
announcements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products,
materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates.

Permissions
The Journal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes without
permission or charge by the publisher. For information on permission to quote, reprint, or translate material,
please write or email the editor.
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
Journal of Special Education Leadership
175 Hills South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
E-mail: jsel@educ.umass.edu

Copyright
The Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education
administration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education to foster the general
advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education administration. The
Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copyrighted articles. Any
signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is the responsibility of the
advertiser. Neither necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution.
Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution without permission from the
publisher.

N N
N
Letter From the Editor N
Volume 24, number 1 of the Journal of Special Education Leadership (JSEL), is a special issue, titled Improving
Teacher Induction in Special Education: Considerations for Leaders and Policy-Makers, guest edited by Drs. James
McLeskey, Erica McCray, and Marleen Pugach. This issue explores different levels of support that is intended
to guide leaders and administrators of special education in their efforts to retain a highly qualified workforce.
Different forms of collaborative leadership are explored through articles that review the relationship between
special educators and professional learning communities (Blanton & Perez, this issue) and co-teaching and
teaming as it is related to the induction of special educators (Pugach & Winn, this issue). Principals play
important roles in supporting the induction of special educators (Correa & Wagner, this issue). Important to
these efforts is the bridging that occurs between schools and universities and colleges. This bridging is
relational and depends on the willingness of leaders to build enduring partnerships. It is not the edifices that
create relationships; rather, district, school, and university leaders are pivotal to the carving out of the
structures that will support school-university partnerships important to special educator preparation (McCray,
Rosenberg, Brownell, deBettencourt, Leko, & Long, this issue). Beyond preparation is the need to support the
continued improved practices of special educators. The importance of school leaders implementing
professional development that is learner centered and in close proximity to the need is critical if the practices
are to be long lasting (McLeskey, this issue). Whether providing a full circle of support to teachers (Waldron &
Redd, this issue) or focusing on content, pedagogy, and student outcomes (Donder, this issue), leaders are
responsible for providing students with disabilities the very best.

These articles originated as part of the National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education
Professional Development, a project funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, and directed by Drs. Mary Brownell and Paul Sindelar at the University of Florida, which explores
issues of training, recruitment, and retention.

CASE is very appreciative of the time, effort, and excellent contributions made to this issue of JSEL by Drs.
McLeskey, McCray, and Pugach and the cadre of authors. The collection of articles in this issue of JSEL
highlights the attention and work required to promote, support, and develop special education teachers by
leaders and administrators of special education who are invested in improving the educational outcomes of
students with disabilities. On behalf of the CASE Executive Committee, we hope you enjoy this issue of JSEL.

Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., Editor

mlbosco@educ.umass.edu

NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

3 N
N
Letter to the Readers of the Journal of Special
Education Leadership N
We have been pleased to edit this special issue of the Journal of Special Education Leadership, which
addresses issues related to ensuring that every special education teacher is well supported and highly
qualified for the roles they fill. We have long taken the perspective that local administrators, in particular
building principals and directors of special education services, are critical to ensuring the quality of special
education teachers and the services they deliver in local schools. As readers of this journal will readily
recognize, the roles played by local administrators have become more important over the past 10 years, as the
retention of special education teachers has become an increasingly important issue and as the context within
which students with disabilities are educated has changed substantially. Most important among these
changes in school context are the increasing number of students with disabilities who are included in general
education classrooms, changes in accountability standards that have resulted in higher standards for all
students, and the shared responsibility of general and special educators to ensure that students with
disabilities meet these standards.

In this special issue, we have selected several critical issues that are dealt with in local schools at the
intersection of special and general education. The special issue begins with an article by Linda Blanton and
Yvette Perez that addresses research on professional learning communities. The purpose of this article is to
examine the implications of this research in relation to improving the practice of special education teachers and
their participation in school-based professional learning communities, enhancing learning opportunities for
students, and supporting administrators in their efforts to accomplish school improvement goals. The next
article is by Vivian Correa and Jennifer Wagner and explores the principal’s role in supporting special
education teachers, especially new teachers. The implications of the research on the importance of the
principal’s role are discussed in relation to the strategies principals use in supporting and mentoring novice
special education teachers as they begin their professional careers.

The third article in this special issue is authored by James McLeskey and addresses the importance of
learner-centered professional development in supporting and improving the practice of special education
teachers. This article provides a summary of research related to the qualities of professional development that
result in changes in teacher practice and discusses the role of administrators in delivering this high-quality
professional development. The fourth article, by Marleen Pugach and Judy Winn, focuses on the role of
teaming and co-teaching in supporting new special education teachers. Although co-teaching and teaming are
well-recognized forms of teacher collaboration, they are not typically thought of in relationship to the induction
and support of teachers. This article reviews the research on co-teaching and teaming and addresses
implications regarding how best to use various collaborative practices to strengthen the early experiences of
novice special educators and contribute to their retention in the schools.

Erica McCray, Michael Rosenberg, Mary Brownell, Laurie deBettencourt, Melinda Leko, and Susanne Long
have authored a final article that addresses school university partnerships. These authors summarize available
literature related to the role of university-school partnerships in preparing preservice special education
teachers. The authors provide an overview of the benefits of partnering, the dimensions of such arrangements,
and the barriers to sustaining partnerships.

These articles are followed by two commentaries that provide perspectives regarding what the information
in the five articles means for local administrators. The first of these articles is by Lacy Redd, principal of an
elementary school in Florida, who has much experience working with a local university, and Nancy Waldron, a
university faculty member who has worked extensively with local schools. This is followed by a commentary

N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
N4
N N
by Dan Donder, principal of a high school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who brings a background in special
education to his daily work leading a large urban high school.

We want to express our appreciation to all of the authors who contributed to this special issue. We also
want to thank the National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional
Development (NCIPP) at the University of Florida and the co-directors of this center, Mary Brownell and Paul
Sindelar, for their support of the five articles that are included in this special issue. These articles are shortened
versions of technical papers that were commissioned by NCIPP. The original papers and authors were as
follows:
N Pugach, M.C., Blanton, L.P., Correa, V.I., McLeskey, J., & Langley, L.K. (2009). The role of collaboration in supporting the
induction and retention of new special education teachers. (NCIPP Doc. No. RS-2). Retrieved November 5, 2010 from http://
www.ncipp.org/reports/re_2.pdf.
N Rosenberg, M.S., Brownell, M.T., McCray, E.D., deBettencourt, L.U., Leko, M., & Long, S. (2009). Development and
sustainability of school-university partnerships in special education teacher preparation: A critical review of the literature. (NCIPP
Doc. No. RS-3). Retrieved November 5, 2010 from http://www.ncipp.org/reports/re_3.pdf.

Although achievement data clearly demonstrate that many students with disabilities continue to lag behind
their grade-level peers, teachers are being held increasingly accountable for improving the achievement of
these students. This has resulted in a significant increase in the need for special education teachers who can
provide students with highly effective instruction and improve student outcomes. To address the need for
these teachers, the roles of school leaders and university faculty cannot be underestimated. We hope that you
find the articles in this special issue to be both informative and useful in addressing this critical need.

James McLeskey, Erica McCray, and Marleen Pugach, co-editors

Note
The original NCIPP papers were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education,
Cooperative Agreement H325Q070002, Bonnie D. Jones Project Officer. However, the content of these papers
(and thus those in this special issue) do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of
Education, nor should readers assume endorsement from the federal government.

NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

5 N
 Exploring the Relationship Between Special
Education Teachers and Professional
N Learning Communities
Implications of Research for Administrators
Linda P. Blanton, Ed.D. Yvette Perez, M.S.
Florida International University Miami-Dade County Public Schools

N School accountability reports reveal that wide achievement gaps exist among different subgroups of
students in PK–12 schools.

N Research findings reveal that general and special education teachers improve their classroom practices
when working in professional learning communities (PLCs). In addition, research shows that special
education teachers may play key roles in PLCs.

N Research has demonstrated that outcomes for students improve when their teachers are part of PLCs,
including those students who struggle most in classrooms.

N Administrators play a key role in supporting and sustaining PLCs and in serving as protectors of a school’s
shared vision and values that anchor PLC work.
N
School Accountability and
Professional Learning Communities
T he accountability requirements of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and The
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) have revealed how
wide the achievement gap is among different
subgroups of students in PK–12 schools. One
subgroup scoring persistently low on state
achievement tests when compared with peers is
students who have disabilities (M.J. McLaughlin,
2010). The consequences for schools when such gaps
are made public, as in reports on adequate yearly
progress (AYP) that are required in NCLB, can result
in a range of actions from funding cuts to principal
removal. Although recent initiatives such as response
to intervention have been implemented to address
the needs of struggling students, it is not clear how
general and special education personnel have worked
or will work together in schools to implement these
practices. At the very least, collegial work is expected,
and one approach that administrators may consider
in supporting teachers to collaborate effectively is
professional learning communities (PLCs).
Broadly defined, PLCs refer to professionals in a
school, typically groups of teachers, who work
collaboratively to improve practice and enhance
student learning (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth,
2001; Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kauffman, & Liu, 2001;
Louis, Kruse, & Marks, 1996). PLCs grew out of major
reform efforts in the 1980s when effective schools and
effectiveness of organizations shifted school
improvement efforts to core concepts of school culture
(e.g., Bruner, 1996; Fullan, 1993) and collegiality and
collaboration (e.g., Hargreaves, 1991; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Multiple reviews of the literature (Hord, 1997; InPraxis
Group, 2006; Morrissey, 2000) have addressed and
summarized characteristics of PLCs. Although the
different reviews may use slightly different wording
or list five versus six major characteristics, the
characteristics identified by these reviews are very
similar. Figure 1 provides an overview of the
characteristics based on these literature reviews.
Although accountability, mostly in the form of
student achievement, has dominated school reform in
recent years, research and interest in PLCs continue
and raise important questions about the compatibility
of strict test-focused forms of school reform and

N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
N6

N N
Figure 1. Major characteristics of a professional learning community.
collegial forms of school improvement. In addition,
this research raises the specific question about how
special education fits within teacher PLCs. Although
research that connects PLCs and special education is
sparse, an examination of existing literature reveals a
number of implications directly applicable to special
education teachers. Thus, the purpose of this article is
to explore the relationship between special education
teachers and PLCs by examining research conducted
and reported on PLCs in the past 25 years. We begin
by reviewing research to understand how PLCs
support school improvement. Next, we explore the
role that special education teachers play in learning
communities. Third, we discuss findings that show
that conflict and tension are expected occurrences
among teachers in PLCs. We conclude with a set of
recommendations for administrators whose goals for
school improvement are driven not only by
accountability but also by collegiality.
PLCs Support School Improvement
Many school administrators find that the reason a
school fails to meet AYP is that students who have
disabilities were among those who failed to improve
sufficiently on achievement tests (Eckes & Swando,
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Professional Learning Communities
2009). Solutions to this dilemma may be found in
establishing school cultures where PLCs can flourish.
Research findings show that teachers improve their
classroom practices when working in learning
communities and, correspondingly, the school
performance of students taught by these teachers
improves, including the performance of students who
struggle most.
Teachers’ Classroom Practices Improve
in PLCs
Although limited, research on PLCs reveals that
special education teachers’ classroom practices, like
those of their general education counterparts, often
change in a positive direction as a result of their
participation in PLCs. This is supported in the
research generally (Curry, 2008; Little, 2003; Vescio,
Ross, & Adams, 2008; Wood, 2007; Wood & Whitford,
2010) and in one study focused on special education
specifically (Englert & Tarrant, 1995).
..........................................
Little’s (2003) research findings revealed that the
interactions of members of the groups studied
supported teacher learning and improvement of
practice as evidenced by allocating time to talk
about problems in their practice, revealing their
dilemmas to each other, exploring their problems
openly, and sharing specific classroom materials,
such as student work, to find solutions.
In a study of mathematics and English teachers in
two high schools, Little (2003) conducted case studies
to explore how teacher learning opportunities and the
dynamics of professional practice affect teacher-led
groups. Little’s interest was in looking inside teacher
communities to understand how interactions among
teachers promote the positive outcomes that are often
attributed to PLCs. Her findings revealed that the
interactions of members of the groups studied
supported teacher learning and improvement of
practice as evidenced by allocating time to talk about
problems in their practice, revealing their dilemmas
to each other, exploring their problems openly, and
sharing specific classroom materials, such as student
work, to find solutions. Similarly, Wood’s (2007)
7 N
 Professional Learning Communities
N N
investigation of PLCs in five schools (elementary,
middle, secondary) over a 2K-year period revealed a
number of positive outcomes. These outcomes
included increased collaboration and more
discussion about teacher practice and student work,
enhanced trust among participants, and an increased
focus on students and their needs.
In their research synthesis, Vescio et al. (2008)
reported that all 11 studies they identified for their
review discussed improvements in teachers’
classroom practices as a result of participating in
PLCs. In addition, all of the studies revealed changes
in the professional culture of the school when
teachers participated in PLCs. When Vescio et al.
analyzed the corpus to uncover how teachers’
classroom practices changed as a result of
involvement in a PLC, they found that only five of the
studies explained these changes (Dunne, Nave, &
Lewis, 2000; Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Hollins,
McIntyre, DeBose, Hollins, & Towner, 2004; Louis &
Marks, 1998; Strahan, 2003) and that only two
(Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Louis & Marks, 1998) of
these five collected data on teacher practices when
the study began as a way to make comparisons with
practices observed later in the research.
Englert and Tarrant’s (1995) research was one of
the few studies to provide sufficient data on teacher
classroom practices throughout the course of the
project to describe the nature of these changes. The
changes in the three special education teachers’
literacy practices in this study transformed from the
use of a few restricted instructional practices to the
use of a variety of new interactive literacy practices.
Analysis of the discourse in meetings among the
teachers and researchers showed that the teachers’
talk evolved over time from a focus on practical
activities to discussions that included the theoretical
underpinnings of the activities they were
implementing in their literacy instruction.
Although the findings about teacher practices
lacked specificity, Vescio et al. (2008) reported that all
11 studies provided empirical support for changes in
the professional cultures of schools as a result of
teachers’ participation in PLCs. Vescio and
colleagues categorized the characteristics that seemed
inherent in PLCs that contributed to changes in
school culture. These were (a) collaboration, (b) a
focus on student learning (e.g., regularly scheduled
meetings to discuss students), (c) teacher authority
(e.g., making decisions regarding curriculum), and
N8
(d) continuous teacher learning (e.g., seeking new
information).
An investigation by Curry (2008) addressed how
Critical Friends Groups (CFGs), defined as a type of
school-based PLC in the study, influenced
instructional improvement and/or schoolwide
reform in an urban high school by exploring teacher
interactions and practices within CFGs. A qualitative
case study approach was used to collect data over a 3-
year period and was organized around four design
features of CFGs: diverse menu of activities (i.e.,
multiple pathways for learning), decentralized
structure, interdisciplinary membership, and the use
of protocols to guide discussion. Each design feature
was found to both enhance and constrain teacher
learning and school improvement. For example,
because the CFGs offered teachers multiple pathways
for their learning and development, this provided
opportunities for teachers to connect their classroom
practices to the larger reform agenda in a school. In
other cases, however, the availability of multiple
pathways stood in the way of teachers seeing the
bigger picture and coming together to improve
student achievement.
..........................................
Vescio and colleagues categorized the
characteristics that seemed inherent in PLCs that
contributed to changes in school culture. These
were (a) collaboration, (b) a focus on student
learning …, (c) teacher authority …, and (d)
continuous teacher learning ….
The current focus on accountability in schools
results in many teachers performing under the
scrutiny of assessment data. Research conducted by
Wood and Whitford (2010) underscored how this
scrutiny can lead some PLCs to focus their
deliberations narrowly on standardized test scores.
Although teachers occasionally steered the groups in
this direction, administrators (building, district, and/
or state) sometimes expected the groups’ primary
focus to be on improving test scores. However, Wood
and Whitford also found that although more
successful PLCs accepted test scores as one type of
data, they ‘‘extended the notion of what ought to
count in assessing their work’’ (p. 172). Teachers
within these PLCs explored new strategies and
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
assessed the impact of these strategies on student
learning and behavior. In the most promising
communities, teachers actively engaged in self-
assessment and reflection while maintaining the
highest of expectations for themselves and their
students.
Students’ School Performance Improves
When Teachers Work in PLCs
Research reveals that PLCs improve outcomes for
students generally and may also improve outcomes
for students with disabilities. Eight studies in the
review by Vescio et al. (2008) provided evidence that
student learning improves in schools where teachers
are involved in PLCs (Berry, Johnson, &
Montgomery, 2005; Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Thomas,
& Wallace, 2005; Hollins et al., 2004; Louis & Marks,
1998; Phillips, 2003; Strahan, 2003; Supovitz, 2002;
Supovitz & Christman, 2003). Most studies
documented change in student learning by reporting
longitudinal results on state achievement tests. For
example, Strahan (2003) used case studies to examine
school culture in three schools serving low-income
and minority students that showed dramatic
improvements on state achievement tests.
Achievement test scores reported from 1997 to 2002
showed that the percentage of students at or above
grade level in reading and math changed on average
from 46.2% in 1997 to 75.6% in 2002. The analysis of
findings of this 3-year study revealed that although
the schools differed in some respects regarding what
they emphasized (e.g., a focus on literacy) to
accomplish school improvement, their similarities
included building strong PLCs that focused on data-
driven dialogue. Other studies (e.g., Louis & Marks,
1998) revealed a relationship between student
performance and the extent to which a PLC focuses
on student learning.
Some research (e.g., Hipp, Huffman, Pankake, &
Olivier, 2008; Louis & Marks, 1998; Wood, 2007) has
found that as PLCs mature, they reach a point at
which they place a greater focus on students,
including those students who struggle most,
although it must be noted that students who have
disabilities are not mentioned specifically in this
research. In addition, there is no way of knowing
whether teachers’ activities in a PLC focus equally on
different subgroups of students (e.g., students who
have disabilities, English language learners,
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Professional Learning Communities
struggling readers) in a school. This is important to
point out because students with disabilities are often
excluded from school reform research (Koh &
Robertson, 2003). However, some research on school
reform has shown that a distinctive characteristic of
exemplary schools is that general and special
education teachers accept increased responsibility for
focusing on improving the performance of all
students in their school, including those who have
disabilities (Caron & McLaughlin, 2002).
..........................................
Louis & Marks (1998) revealed a relationship
between student performance and the extent to
which a PLC focuses on student learning.
In a recent report of the results of a 6-year funded
project on PLCs, Wood and Whitford (2010) explored
the reasons why teachers’ participation in PLCs led to
improved student learning, including improvements
for struggling students. First, teachers in PLCs often
focus their energy and discussion on assessment data
and the use of these data to drive their decisions
about children. In addition, teachers in strong PLCs
examine student work and talk openly and honestly
about how to reach students who are not performing
well in their classrooms. These discussions often lead
to teacher interactions about approaches they might
use to work with students who might otherwise be
‘‘slipping through the cracks’’ (p. 169). Although
Wood and Whitford do not mention students with
disabilities specifically, these researchers talk about
how the collaborative work among teachers as seen in
strong PLCs supports teachers in meeting the
individual learning needs of their students.
The Role Special Education Teachers
Play in PLCs
PLCs continue to be the subject of research, but most
of these investigations refer to all teachers in a school
or to groups of general education teachers, and they
rarely mention special education teachers specifically,
even when whole-school PLCs are the focus of the
research. However, as revealed in the research on the
contribution of PLCs to school improvement, much
can be inferred about the relationship between
special education teachers and PLC work. This
includes the promise that these communities hold for
9 N
 Professional Learning Communities
N N
what and how general and special education teachers
learn from each other, as well as about the specific
benefits these communities may provide special
education teachers.
Teachers Learn From Each Other in PLCs
Research evidence indicates that teachers who come
together in PLCs will often improve their classroom
practices (e.g., Vescio et al., 2008), and the school
performance of their students will often improve
(e.g., Strahan, 2003). Moreover, teachers in PLCs
gradually assume greater responsibility for
struggling learners, an outcome that suggests that
special education teachers are part of the whole-
school communities in which research
investigations have been conducted. Such findings
point to the significance of the learning and
support that may be taking place among teachers,
including general and special education teachers,
where, possibly, general education teachers are
acquiring greater knowledge about students who
struggle in classrooms (e.g., students who have
disabilities) and special education teachers are
making important linkages between the needs of
students who have disabilities and the general
education curriculum. In examining PLC studies for
findings that suggest such learning opportunities
among general and special education teachers, the
following emerged:
N A culture of shared learning takes place in PLCs.
Teachers working in PLCs report trusting their
colleagues (e.g., Wood, 2007), openly discussing
their classroom dilemmas and problems (e.g.,
Little, 2003), and engaging in cross-disciplinary
discussions (e.g., Curry, 2008). Furthermore, in
their report of the early stages of a 2K-year study
in an urban high school that included 22 English
and social studies teachers, as well as a special
education teacher and an English-as-a-second-
language teacher, Grossman et al. (2001) described
how teachers in mature PLCs grow to accept as
much responsibility for the learning of their
colleagues as they do for their own individual
learning.
N PLCs provide a safe environment for teachers to tackle
core educational issues. In Curry’s (2008)
investigation of CFGs, she reported that the
decentralized nature of a learning community
enables discussions of sensitive topics (e.g.,
tracking and inclusion) in open and constructive
N 10
ways. However, Curry’s findings revealed that
debating core issues did not necessarily lead to
follow-up and action because of the limited
decision-making power of CFGs. Although the
interdisciplinary makeup of CFGs supported
cross-disciplinary discussions and led to greater
collective responsibility for students, the
interdisciplinary nature of CFGs also hindered
teachers’ growth in the subjects that they teach
because of the inability to engage in in-depth
discussions about their subject matter. Achinstein
(2002) reported similar findings to those of Curry
(2008) regarding how PLCs support the open
debate among teachers of sensitive issues.
Achinstein found that in one of two schools in
her investigation, teachers openly debated the
inclusion or exclusion of students with problems.
Similarly, Grossman et al. (2001) noted that over
time, members of PLCs grow in their
appreciation of the unique contributions and
different perspectives of teachers in the
community.
Special Education Teachers May Benefit
From Working in PLCs
Research provides strong support for changes in the
professional cultures of schools (e.g., a focus on
student learning) as a result of teachers’ involvement
in PLCs (e.g., Curry, 2008; Little, 2003; Vescio et al.,
2008; Wood, 2007). Such changes may benefit special
education teachers in a number of ways, particularly
because they are only one or a few of the total
number of teachers in a school. However, the
workplace structures of schools (e.g., departments)
may create obstacles that deserve consideration in
examining the potential benefits of learning
communities for special education teachers. The few
studies (Little, 2003; M.W. McLaughlin, 1993)
investigating the relationship of workplace structures
such as departments to teacher communities reveal
that these bounded communities have the potential to
create exclusionary groups that either support or
deter teacher learning and their interactions with
teachers who are not part of the group. Although
these studies made no mention of special education,
one can infer that such organizations would have an
impact on teachers who may have no other
colleagues in a school, as, for example, the special
education teacher. Studies focused specifically on
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
learning communities, however, point more directly
to possible benefits for special education teachers, or
other teachers who are few in number in schools, as a
result of participating in whole-school PLCs, and
include the following.
N PLCs have the potential to serve as a catalyst for
integrating teachers who, because of their small numbers
in schools, might become marginalized and isolated. A
number of themes in the research on PLCs point to
the potential for integrating the often lone teacher
in special education into the center of teacher
activity in a school. First, as PLCs mature, teachers
place greater emphasis on students who struggle
and engage in sharing, reflecting, and developing
solutions for these students (e.g., Wood &
Whitford, 2010). Another critical theme is that the
culture that develops in PLCs is one of taking on as
much responsibility for the learning of colleagues
as for oneself (e.g., Grossman et al., 2001). A third
feature contributing to the integration of the special
education teacher is the willingness of teachers in
mature PLCs to engage in difficult discussions
such as those that might occur in debates about
inclusion (Curry, 2008). Moreover, PLCs enhance
the professional culture in schools, and as noted by
Vescio and colleagues (2008), collaboration is one
such positive characteristic.
N Special education teachers may become central
participants in teacher communities as a result of
involvement in PLCs. Two studies reveal how
teachers who may be the only teacher in an area
(e.g., special education) can become central to the
work of PLCs. Grossman et al. (2001) targeted their
investigation on the formation of a teacher
community to examine the process involved in the
emergence and sustainability of PLCs. It was of
particular interest that the special education
teacher in the group of English and social studies
teachers was a peripheral participant in the early
stages of the PLC but emerged as a central
participant as the PLC developed. Similarly, in
Curry’s (2008) research, she reported that a
journalism teacher moved from feeling completely
isolated to being centrally involved after joining a
critical friends group. In describing her
experiences, this journalism teacher noted that her
colleagues finally learned about her discipline and
what she does in her classes, they became highly
supportive of her role in the school, and they ‘‘will
go to bat for her in a crisis’’ (p. 757).
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Professional Learning Communities
Conflict and Tension Are Expected
Occurrences Among Teachers
in PLCs
Another important implication of PLC research for
special education is the natural occurrences of
conflict, tension, and disruptions in PLCs (e.g.,
Achinstein, 2002; Dooner, Mandzuka, & Clifton,
2008; Grossman et al., 2001; Hargreaves, 1991;
Westheimer, 1999; Wood, 2007). Successful PLCs
go through cycles of learning and in doing so are
able to repair the problems the community
experiences. Strategies to manage conflict and
identify and solve problems should be continuous
activities of PLCs and should be included early in
the startup of a PLC. Special education teachers,
along with their general education counterparts,
would be better served if all members of a PLC
are expected to collaborate on developing solutions
to problems and have an opportunity to discuss
strategies for managing conflict when it inevitably
occurs.
Conflict and Tension Occur, and Often Early
The purpose of some studies we examined was to
analyze and understand how teachers manage the
tensions they encounter in PLCs. Drawing on
micropolitical and organizational theories, Achinstein
(2002) analyzed two schoolwide teacher communities
in urban middle schools to gain insights into conflict,
boundaries of community, and ideological stances.
From the lens of organizational theory, she explored
how conflict influences more fundamental change in
organizations. Based on a comparison of their
characteristics with key characteristics identified in
the literature, the two sites chosen for investigation
were recognized as strong PLCs. A case study
approach was used to collect data at one site for 2
academic years and at the second site for 1 academic
year.
..........................................
Teachers working in PLCs report trusting their
colleagues (e.g., Wood, 2007), openly discussing
their classroom dilemmas and problems (e.g., Little,
2003), and engaging in cross-disciplinary
discussions (e.g., Curry, 2008).
11 N
 Professional Learning Communities
N N
An analysis of interviews, observations,
documents, and a teacher survey revealed a number
of findings that were used by Achinstein to develop a
continuum of micropolitical processes about conflict
within PLCs. By using a continuum, Achinstein
showed the variation in the ways that the
communities in the two schools managed conflict,
boundaries, and ideology. For example, her findings
revealed that conflict can occur at any point along a
continuum from groups of teachers who completely
avoid conflict to those groups or communities who
are capable of fully embracing conflict. How teachers
identify with particular subgroups in a building is
also a concern; Achinstein uses the term border politics
to label how such subgroup identities can create
boundaries that exclude or include others and that
ideologies can clash over the purposes of schooling
and help explain different stances on conflict.
Repairing the breakdowns and disruptions that each
of these processes creates can affect whether an
organization will transform or change. These findings
are similar to those of Dooner et al. (2008), who found
that using strategies to manage conflict early in a
community’s development may help members learn
to expect and deal with conflict.
In a related study, but one that was not focused
on PLCs, Hargreaves (2001) explored teacher
relationships with colleagues to gain more
understanding about how emotions and adult
relationships influence the work of teachers’
professional development and educational change.
Fifty-three teachers in elementary and secondary
schools were surveyed and interviewed. Of
particular interest were the findings that most
teachers viewed conflict as something to avoid and
was the source of many negative expressions toward
other teachers. Conflict among teachers often
centered on different philosophical orientations
about schooling (e.g., fairness to students). Other
sources of conflict included instances of particular
classroom practices. One example that stands out is
the existence of disagreements about whether
students who have disabilities should be included or
excluded from general education classrooms, a
finding Achinstein (2002) also reported in both
schools in her research. In addition, Achinstein noted
that in one school in which teachers failed to engage
openly in conflict about these issues, the special
education teacher, who represented a different
perspective, left the school at the end of 1 year. Such
N 12
philosophical differences among teachers in general
and special education might be anticipated given the
long-standing behaviorist traditions in special
education in contrast to constructivist traditions in
general education and the ways these traditions have
influenced teacher preparation in the two fields
(Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). Even
so, PLCs seem to offer a safe environment for
addressing such differing philosophies and
perspectives and may lead to actions that benefit
students who have disabilities.
Collaborating Requires Cultivation
These studies, as well as others that identified conflict
in teacher communities, make clear that simply
proclaiming the virtues of collaboration and
collegiality as essential to school reform does not
capture the complexity of the issue. Hargreaves
(1991) cautioned about the ‘‘many faces of
collegiality’’ when he used a micropolitical
perspective to examine group differences in
organizations. He illustrated this perspective by
reporting the findings of an exploratory study in
which principals and teachers in six schools were
interviewed. Of particular interest was whether
teachers’ working arrangements were controlled
administratively or whether they emerged from the
teachers. Hargreaves refers to the latter as collaborative
cultures, meaning that the working relationships of
teachers are spontaneous, voluntary, development
oriented, pervasive across time and space, and
unpredictable. Findings also revealed examples of
what Hargreaves referred to as contrived collegiality
(e.g., requiring classroom teachers to consult with
special education teachers) and how some
administrators may use the rhetoric of collegiality
when in reality collegiality is contrived via
administrative mandate.
Contrived collegiality, however, can be ‘‘double
edged,’’ as noted by Fullan and Hargreaves (1996),
when analyzing both the positive and the negative
outcomes of the concept. Although the negative
outcomes seem clear, Fullan and Hargreaves point
out that when contrived collegiality is more
facilitative than controlling, it can be a starting point
toward greater collaboration. This point is amplified
by Wenger and Snyder (2000) in their discussion
about how vulnerable learning communities are
because of their informal nature and the fact that they
are not part of a formal organizational structure
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
operating with designated resources. These authors
argue that administrators should provide the
infrastructure needed to help communities thrive by,
for example, making resources available in the form
of time, money, and/or personnel and by recognizing
and rewarding the work of those who participate
actively in learning communities.
Special Education Teachers and
PLCs: Implications
for Administrators
As pointed out by Grossman et al. (2001),
‘‘community has become an obligatory appendage to
every education innovation’’ (p. 942). That is,
although teacher groups might be described (or
describe themselves) as a community, they may not
be engaging in actions to suggest that they are
actually functioning as such, which can sometimes
make it difficult to distinguish between a community
of teachers and a group of teachers. Findings from
Grossman et al.’s (2001) study revealed four
dimensions that distinguished a community of
teachers from a group of teachers: (a) formation of
group identity and norms of interaction, (b)
navigating fault lines, (c) negotiating the essential
tension, and (d) communal responsibility for
individual growth. Grossman et al. used these
markers of community formation to develop a model
of emergent community to aid in understanding how
communities form. In the schematic for the model,
each of the four dimensions or markers of a PLC are
placed on a continuum to demonstrate teacher
interactions from the beginning stages of a PLC, to an
evolving stage, to the stage where a PLC has achieved
maturity. Understanding such complexities should
aid administrators in fostering collaborative cultures
in schools.
In addition to the issue of distinguishing a
community from a group, PLCs may share common
characteristics (e.g., shared vision or forums for
participation) but focus on different actions (e.g.,
shared vision for a curriculum that is
interdisciplinary or one that is not) in different
school settings. As Westheimer (1999) put it,
promoting a shared vision or belief as a criterion for
PLCs still ignores the ‘‘thorny question’’ about ‘‘what
beliefs should be shared’’ (p. 97). For example, a
school may have a shared vision—a characteristic of
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Professional Learning Communities
PLCs—but that shared vision may fail to address
students who have disabilities and, in so doing,
exclude them from consideration as the school moves
forward.
Even in the face of issues such as these and the
limitations of research (e.g., sufficiently describing
the makeup of a school PLC) that have been
elaborated elsewhere (Pugach, Blanton, Correa,
McLeskey, & Langley, 2009), we find the research on
PLCs compelling and strong with several
implications for special education. For administrators
who seek to support the development of collegial
forms of school improvement and to marry the
collegial and bureaucratic forms of school
improvement, we offer the following
recommendations.
1. Research shows that student learning improves
when their teachers are part of PLCs, including
those students who struggle most in classrooms
(e.g., Vescio et al., 2008). This may compel some
administrators to mandate collaboration among
their teachers. Encouraging collaboration among
faculty is a step in the right direction; however, it
is important for administrators to facilitate the
development of a collaborative culture within
their school that supports open dialogue and
debate among all members of the teaching
community. DuFour and Eaker (1998) offer
numerous suggestions for how administrators
can nurture such cultures. These include (a)
defending and raising tough questions about
whether the established vision and mission of a
school are being followed, (b) monitoring both
the school’s vision and specific priorities
established by a learning community, (c)
allowing time for tasks that support the learning
community, (d) celebrating the outcomes that are
achieved through learning communities, and (e)
modeling collaborative activities by engaging
teachers in decision-making and other
collaborative activities. DuFour and Eaker (1998),
Wenger (1998), and Wenger and Synder (2000) all
note the importance of making resources (e.g.,
meeting space, external experts, technology,
travel) available to sustain learning communities.
2. The dialogue within PLCs in a collaborative
culture needs to focus on student learning.
Administrators should focus energy and
discussion on how assessment data improve
instruction for every student in a school,
13 N
 Professional Learning Communities
N N
including students who have disabilities. This
sends a strong message to both general and
special education teachers that all persons in the
school are responsible for the improved
performance of every student. In addition,
DuFour and Eaker (1998) point out that
principals must go beyond the rhetoric of a
results-oriented stance and take action to use
assessment results to engage regularly with
school personnel to examine data for the
purposes of identifying successes and challenges,
setting measureable goals for action, and
monitoring progress.
3. To encourage spontaneous, voluntary, and
development-oriented working relationships
among teachers, it is important for administrators
to support a safe, nonthreatening environment
where teachers can talk openly and honestly
regarding their classroom practices and student
learning (e.g., Wood, 2007). Time allocated to the
discussion of problems encountered in teaching,
exploration of strategies and solutions to
challenges, and the sharing of specific classroom
materials (Little, 2003) promotes increased
collaboration and enhances trust among
members. It is also important for administrators
to openly accept and acknowledge the
contribution and knowledge of all teachers in
learning communities in schools, including the
expertise from those teachers who are single
representatives of an area such as special
education. This can be done by involving all
teachers in decision making and by also
providing them with the information and
guidelines they need to stay focused on the
organization’s vision and values (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998).
4. Research findings reveal that teachers’ classroom
practices improve when they work in PLCs (e.g.,
Vescio et al., 2008). Administrators can play an
important role in supporting teachers’ classroom
practices by encouraging them to actively engage
in self-assessment and reflection and to maintain
the highest of expectations for themselves and
their students. As noted by Eaker and Keating
(2008), administrators must be specific about the
standards expected in a classroom and in a
school and never settle for less simply because
school personnel are collaborating on activities
(e.g., working together on a school newsletter)
N 14
that do not achieve the standards expected in the
school.
5. As with every organization or community, PLCs
will go through both smooth and rough stages
(e.g., Achinstein, 2002). It is important for
administrators to understand that conflicts may
arise in the collaborative process. In fact, research
shows that conflicts will inevitably occur (e.g.,
Dooner et al., 2008); therefore, administrators
should accept this inevitability and anticipate
how to manage conflict early. Furthermore,
administrators must be willing to defend the
organization’s vision and to confront those who
may work against the vision and organizational
values (Eaker & Keating, 2008). To do this, Eaker
and Keating (2008) urge administrators to
leverage these commitments. In short, these
authors suggest to administrators that ‘‘they can
refer to the commitments (‘here are the promises
we have made to one another, I need you to
honor them’)’’ (‘‘The Expectations-Acceptance
Gap,’’ para. 3).
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The
micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College
Record, 104, 421–455.
Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The
power of teacher leadership. Educational Leadership,
62(5), 56–60.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace,
M. (2005). Creating and sustaining professional learning
communities (Research Report No. 637). London, UK:
General Teaching Council for England, Department
for Education and Skills.
Brownell, M.T., Sindelar, P.T., Kiely, M.T., & Danielson,
L.C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and
preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a
new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357–377.
Bruner, J.S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Caron, E., & McLaughlin, M.W. (2002). Indicators of
beacons of excellence schools: What do they tell us
about collaborative practices? Journal of Educational &
Psychological Consultation, 13, 285–314.
Curry, M. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities
and limitations embedded in teacher professional
communities aimed at instructional improvement
and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110,
733–774.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
Dooner, A., Mandzuka, D., & Clifton, R. (2008). Stages of
collaboration and the realities of professional learning
communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,
564–574.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning
communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student
achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical Friends
Groups: Teachers helping teachers to improve student
learning [electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappa, 4.
Retrieved August 15, 2008.
Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2008). A shift in school culture,
Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 14–17.
Eckes, S., & Swando, J. (2009). Special education subgroups
under NCLB: Issues to consider. Teachers College
Record, 111, 2479–2504.
Englert, C.S., & Tarrant, K.L. (1995). Creating collaborative
cultures for educational change. Remedial & Special
Education, 16, 325.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depth of
educational reform. New York: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting
for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001).
Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers
College Record, 103, 942–1012.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The
micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blase (Ed.),
The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and
cooperation (pp. 46–72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of
teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal
of Educational Research, 35, 503–527.
Hipp, K., Huffman, J., Pankake, A., & Olivier, D. (2008).
Sustaining professional learning communities:
Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9,
173–195.
Hollins, E.R., McIntyre, L.R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K.S., &
Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a self-sustaining
learning community: Investigating an internal model
for teacher development. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 17, 247–264.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities:
Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement.
Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
InPraxis Group. (2006). Professional learning communities:
An exploration. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Education.
Kardos, S.M., Johnson, S., Peske, H., Kauffman, D., & Liu,
E. (2001). Counting on colleagues: New teachers
encounter the professional cultures of their schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 250–290.
Koh, M., & Robertson, J. (2003). School reform models and
special education. Education and Urban Society, 35,
421–442.
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Professional Learning Communities
Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community:
Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College
Record, 105, 913–945.
Louis, K., Kruse, S., & Marks, H. (1996). Schoolwise
professional community. In F.M. Newmann (Ed.),
Authentic achievement: Restructuring school for
intellectual quality (pp. 179–203). San Francisco: Josey-
Bass.
Louis, K.S., & Marks, H.M. (1998). Does professional
community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and
student experiences in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 106, 532–575.
McLaughlin, M.J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of
educational equity and students with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 76, 265–278.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’
workplace context? In J.W. Little, & M.W. McLaughlin
(Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and
contexts (pp. 79–103). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Morrissey, M. (2000). Professional learning communities: An
ongoing exploration. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Phillips, J. (2003). Powerful learning: Creating learning
communities in urban school reform. Journal of
Curriculum & Supervision, 18, 240–258.
Pugach, M.C., Blanton, L.P., Correa, V.I., McLeskey, J., &
Langley, L.K. (2009, June). The role of collaboration in
supporting the induction and retention of special education
teachers (NCIPP Document No. RS-2). Gainesville, FL:
National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in
Special Education Professional Development.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social
organization of schools. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional
culture in three elementary schools that have
beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104,
127–146.
Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing communities of
instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104,
1591–1626.
Supovitz, J., & Christman, J. (2003, November). Developing
communities of instructional practice: Lessons from
Cincinnati and Philadelphia (RB-39). Philadelphia:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of
research on the impact of professional learning
communities on teaching practice and student
learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1),
80–91.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a
social system. Systems Thinker. Retrieved January 8,
2011 from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/
knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml.
15 N
 Professional Learning Communities
N N
Wenger, E.C., & Synder, W.M. (2000). Communities of
practice: The organization frontier. Harvard Business
Review, 78(1), 139–145.
Westheimer, J. (1999). Communities and consequences: An
inquiry into ideology and practice in teachers’
professional work. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 35, 71–105.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst
for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo.
Teachers College Record, 109, 699–739.
Wood, D.R., & Whitford, B.L. (2010). A look to the future.
In B.L. Whitford, & D.R. Wood (Eds.), Teachers learning
in community: Realities and possibilities (pp. 167–179).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
N 16
About the Authors
Linda Blanton, Ed.D., is a professor of special
education in the Department of Teaching and
Learning, Florida International University, 11200
S.W. 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199. Email:
blantonl@fiu.edu.
Yvette Perez, M.S., is a doctoral candidate in special
education at Florida International University and a
school counselor at Coral Reef High School, 10101
S.W. 152nd Street, Miami, FL 33157. Email:
ysperez@dadeschools.net.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
 Principals’ Roles in Supporting the Induction of
Special Education Teachers
N
Vivian I. Correa, Ph.D. Jennifer Y. Wagner, M.Ed.
University of North Carolina, Charlotte Clemson University

N Principals are a critical component of creating a positive school environment that supports new teachers to
meet the diverse needs of their students.

N The induction process for beginning special educators can often be more challenging for school
administrators and may require different supports than those provided for novice general educators.

N The principal’s role in the induction of special educators is to (a) promote a positive school climate, (b) serve
as an instructional leader, and (c) support induction and mentoring programs.

N The implications of the research suggest practices that administrators can use to support beginning special
education teachers.
N
P rincipal support of new teachers has been cited as
one of the primary factors that influences both
general and special education teachers’ retention in
the profession (Darling-Hammond, 2003). Principal
leadership is a critical component of creating
environments that support new teachers to meet the
complex and diverse needs of their students. The
induction process for beginning special education
teachers (SETs) can often be more challenging for
school administrators and may require different
supports than those provided for novice general
education teachers.
The primary purpose of this article is to provide
an overview of the role principals play in the
induction of novice teachers and review the research
on their role in the induction of SETs. Implications of
the research are discussed in relation to the strategies
principals use in supporting and mentoring novice
SETs during the first years of induction.
Overview of the Role of the
Principal in Induction
The principal has a direct impact on the direction,
culture, and process of teaching and learning at the
school (Reeves, 2006, 2007). Building administrators
must build an atmosphere of trust among stakeholders
in the building, especially with novice teachers
(Sergiovanni, 2005). In this environment, leadership
and learning can become an integrated process with
everyone working toward the same goals.
The principal’s role in the induction of novice
teachers is multifaceted. Findings from several
research studies suggest that building administrators
who were effective in supporting novice teachers
promoted a positive school climate, served as an
instructional leader, and actively supported induction
and mentoring programs (Andrews, Gilbert, & Martin,
2006; Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004; Schlichte,
Yssel, & Merbler, 2005; Whitaker, 2001).
First and foremost, the principal is responsible for
creating conditions that foster collaboration among
all stakeholders. Effective principals create positive
school climates and are committed to ensuring the
success of all students through collaboration with
others (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). Support of
new teachers is embedded in all school activities, a
natural part of the school culture in which everyone
takes part (Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kauffman, & Liu,
2001). Activities include orientation regarding
policies and procedures (Brock & Grady, 1997), with
on-going support throughout the induction year and
with follow-through support in subsequent years
(Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008).
In addition, the principal is deemed the
instructional leader who actively supports and

NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

17 N
 Principals’ Roles in Induction
N N
participates in professional development for
beginning teachers. As instructional leader, the
principal is charged with observing novice teachers
and providing structured feedback. Beginning
teachers reported that effective instructional leaders
acted as coach, mentor, and a promoter of their work
(Andrews et al., 2006). In addition, Andrews et al.
found that principals were instrumental when
determining class size, delegating nonteaching
duties, and assigning challenging students to
beginning teachers.
The principal also supervises the induction
programs for beginning teachers, providing counsel
for best instructional practices and classroom
management skills. Induction programs that include
administrative leadership, mentoring, professional
development, and formal assessments show that
teacher attrition can be reduced (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2004). When supporting
induction and mentoring programs, effective
principals provided time for the carefully matched
mentor and mentee to plan and afforded time for the
mentee to observe other well-established teachers
(Andrews et al., 2006; Shapiro & Laine, 2005).
Principals are typically in charge of managing the
everyday operations of such induction programs,
with the success or failure falling primarily on their
shoulders (Cherian & Daniel, 2008).
The multiple roles principals assume can be very
challenging. They are often in charge of disciplining
students, hiring and firing personnel, advocating for
students and parents, and supervising school faculty
and staff, which includes novice SETs. Building-level
administrators report higher levels of stress when all
the leadership responsibilities are placed upon their
shoulders (Rafoth & Foriska, 2006). Effective principals
realize they cannot work in isolation and need input
from other stakeholders for the betterment of all
teachers, students, and staff, including those involved
with students identified with disabilities (Goor &
Schwenn, 1997; Grubb & Flessa, 2006). Principals who
use distributed leadership can empower faculty and
staff to share in the decision-making process, working
collaboratively to build a positive school climate
(Grubb & Flessa, 2006; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). As
such, the responsibility of supervising and managing
induction and mentoring programs can be shared with
other school personnel.
As noted, much has been written about the role of
the principal in induction with general education
N 18
teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2003, 2004; Kardos et al.,
2001; Wood, 2005; Youngs, 2007a, 2007b). However,
the role of the principal with SETs is more limited.
The following section examines and discusses the
research on administrators’ roles in the induction of
novice SETs.
Role of the Principal in Special
Education Induction
Creating a positive school climate, being an
instructional leader, and actively supporting
induction and mentoring programs are three aspects
of principals’ roles in supporting all beginning
teachers. However, the research on the induction of
novice SETs suggests that principals may face
additional challenges (Billingsley et al., 2004;
Schlichte et al., 2005; Whitaker, 2001). If principals
lack the background knowledge and experience in
supporting new SETs, there is a higher risk of these
teachers leaving the profession (Billingsley & Cross,
1991; Boe et al., 2008) The quality of the relationship
between novice SETs and school administrators is
very important. The principal can exert considerable
influence over how beginning SETs become
acclimated to the new school environment, design
instructional programs that meet the needs of their
students, and participate in the induction program
(Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Marks & Printy, 2003). The
following sections discuss the three specific
administrative roles principals can play as (a)
promoters of a positive school climate, (b)
instructional leaders, and (c) active supporters of
induction and mentoring programs.
Role of Principal as Promoter of a
Positive School Climate
Building-level administrators bear the primary
responsibility for the creation of the school climate,
cultivating collaboration among the leadership,
teachers, parents, and students, including those
involved with students identified with disabilities
(Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Grubb & Flessa, 2006).
Principals have been defined as the builders of
climate and culture, who encourage and support
collegial relationships among beginning and veteran
teachers to create an atmosphere where there is
shared responsibility for SETs to be an integral part of
the school’s learning community (Wood, 2005).
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
In a national study conducted by Billingsley et al.
(2004), 11053 novice SETs reported they were more
likely to stay in the field of education until retirement
when there was a highly positive school climate. One
of the first ways to cultivate a positive climate is for
principals to provide comprehensive orientation
sessions for novice teachers. According to data from
Brock and Grady (1997), a majority of principals
provided fall orientation sessions to review school
policy, procedures, planning (long-range, short-
range, and daily), and conferencing strategies. These
orientation sessions can provide valuable information
for the novice SET, making these teachers feel
connected to and part of the culture of the school. In
surveys conducted by Whitaker (2000, 2003) in South
Carolina, beginning SETs stated that being provided
assistance with the daily routines of the job was one
of the most beneficial supports they received during
their orientation to the school. This included
understanding building and district-wide policies
and procedures, locating pertinent materials and
curriculum resources, and knowing who to contact in
the school for particular information.
..........................................
Principals that designed favorable working
conditions, provided equitable caseloads, and gave
SETs resources for instruction were instrumental in
helping SETs feel supported and an integral part of
the school community.
Beginning SETs begin their teaching careers in the
school environment under different circumstances
than beginning general education teachers. SETs work
with students in different disability groups (e.g., low-
incidence, high-incidence, physical) and in different
settings (e.g., general education, resource, self-
contained) and may be the only teacher in the building
working with a specific population. SETs are usually
outnumbered by general education teachers
throughout the entire school or even in specific grade
levels. Due to the specificity of their teaching duties,
SETs may be left to function independently from other
teachers in the building. Feelings of isolation may
begin a downward emotional spiral for the beginning
SET that can include stress, dissatisfaction with the
work environment, and a lack of desire to continue
teaching (Schlichte et al., 2005). These negative
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Principals’ Roles in Induction
emotions can foster a working environment not
conducive for either beginning SETs or their students.
Working conditions can be especially challenging
for novice SETs (Whitaker, 2000). SETs often feel their
jobs are overwhelming due to the academic and
behavioral challenges students with disabilities bring
to the classroom and the paperwork often associated
with compliance to federal laws and regulations
(Billingsley et al., 2004). Principals that designed
favorable working conditions, provided equitable
caseloads, and gave SETs resources for instruction
were instrumental in helping SETs feel supported
and an integral part of the school community.
Role of Principal as
Instructional Leader
In the past several years, there has been a shift in the
principal’s role as ‘‘manager’’ to instructional leader
in order to improve teacher effectiveness and overall
student achievement (Lashley, 2007; Simpson,
LaCava, & Graner, 2004). Yet, many principals do not
have the background knowledge on evidence-based
instructional practices in special education. Bays and
Crockett (2007) investigated how instructional
leadership was implemented in special education at
nine elementary schools. Through information
solicited through interviews, faculty and staff
overwhelmingly agreed that the principal served as
an instructional leader. Yet, the majority of those
interviewed also felt that principal interactions with
SETs about best instructional practices were minimal.
Overall findings from the Bays and Crockett study
suggest that, while teachers and principals stated that
they valued students’ individual needs, many
principals are not systematically monitoring the
specialized instruction used by ’’teachers‘‘ when
working with students who have disabilities.
Interestingly, in a qualitative study of principal
supervision, Bays (2001) found that over 50% of
building administrators surveyed were the sole
supervisors and evaluators of SETs. A smaller
percentage of building administrators (40%) shared
this responsibility with assistant principals, district
office personnel, or special education directors.
Supervising and evaluating novice SETs may be
problematic if administrators lack background
knowledge about effective instructional practices for
teaching special education students. As the focus for
principals remains on being instructional leaders for
19 N
 Principals’ Roles in Induction
N N
all educators in the building, principals may struggle
when they are not experienced with the curriculum
and the instructional practices used with students with
disabilities (Billingsley et al., 2004). School principals
are also often responsible for faculty and staff
evaluations, providing feedback to improve and
inform instruction. Through shared or distributed
leadership, the principal can ease the burden of these
responsibilities by collaborating with school personnel
and veteran teachers regarding special education
curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Goor &
Schwenn, 1997; Marks & Printy, 2003). In fact, in a
study by Singh and Billingsley (1998), SETs indicated
that they relied on their peers for instructional
support. The building administrator often facilitated
this peer support by encouraging collaboration among
teachers. These teachers were also more likely to work
together and share common goals when principals
exhibited strong leadership skills that included
communicating clear expectations, sharing a vision for
the school, providing fair evaluations, recognizing
accomplishments, providing resources, and
encouraging collaborative problem-solving.
Collaborative problem-solving can take many forms
and a relative balance of decision-making power
between the administrators and teachers is
instrumental for effective problem-solving.
Furthermore, peer support can have a significant and
positive impact on novice SETs commitment to the
profession.
..........................................
In the past several years, there has been a shift in
the principal’s role as ‘‘manager’’ to instructional
leader in order to improve teacher effectiveness
and overall student achievement (Lashley, 2007;
Simpson, LaCava, & Graner, 2004).
Without an understanding of special education
practices, principals may find it difficult to make
beginning SETs feel a part of the school community
(Billingsley et al., 2004). Whitaker (2000) found that,
while novice SETs stated that they needed assistance
with classroom management, discipline, and
curriculum and instruction, they did not receive such
assistance. Researchers have found that principals
indicate they have knowledge of special education
policies and regulations, disability categories, and
N 20
general eligibility criteria but do not always have the
necessary knowledge regarding instructional
practices in special education (Bays & Crockett, 2007;
Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; Idol, 2006; Wakeman,
Browder, Flowers, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006).
Furthermore, few studies have been conducted
that address the evaluation responsibilities of
principals in relation to SETs. In a study by Singh and
Billingsley (1998), beginning SETs were more
committed to the profession when principals made
multiple classroom observations, provided them with
a fair evaluation, and developed individualized
professional development plans. In fact, in a study by
Kardos et al. (2001) principals reported they attended
professional development opportunities with the
novice teachers. However, Billingsley et al. (2004)
found that novice SETs received little to no feedback
from the principal regarding their teaching practices.
It is clear from the research that principals are
working with and responding to special education
issues on a daily basis (Goor & Schwenn, 1997).
Preparation in special education instructional
practices should be a critical component of school
administrator training (Lashley & Boscardin, 2003).
Role of Principal as Active Supporter
of Induction and
Mentoring Programs
The role of supporting induction and mentoring
programs for beginning SETs can greatly differ from
principal to principal, school to school, or state to
state. These programs can be delivered by off-site
personnel such as district office personnel or
professional consultants (Billingsley et al., 2004). The
availability of these off-site individuals, however,
may not be conducive to providing beginning SETs
with on-going, daily support needed for effective
instruction and classroom management.
..........................................
Without an understanding of special education
practices, principals may find it difficult to make
beginning SETs feel a part of the school community
(Billingsley et al., 2004).
Other induction and mentoring programs utilize
on-site personnel to mentor beginning SETs, but little
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
has been written or researched about the nature of the
relationship between the mentor and mentee.
Billingsley et al. (2004) found that many of the novice
SETs they surveyed did not receive mentors or
specialized instruction and training catered to their
professional needs. The SETs reported that formal
induction and mentoring programs were not very
beneficial. On the other hand, new SETs did report
that informal support from peers was vital. When the
formal programs did not provide the support the
beginning SETs needed, these teachers turned to their
colleagues to provide them with feedback regarding
best instructional practices.
In order to better understand the mentor–mentee
relationship, Schlichte et al. (2005) conducted case
studies on five novice SETs during their induction
year of teaching. Out of the five beginning SETs, three
resigned at the end of the school year, stating that
lack of support from mentors and the principal
played an important role in their decision to leave.
One beginning SET reported that she spoke with her
mentor a total of three times during the academic
school year. Only one novice teacher retained his
position as a special educator, stating that his first
year was a ‘‘blessing’’ due to the immense hands-on
support he received from his mentor.
Whitaker (2000, 2003) identified four critical
components of the induction program that were
important for the novice special educator: 1)
materials and resources were abundant and easily
available, 2) emotional support was provided by the
mentor, 3) information was provided that was
pertinent to both the school and district, and 4)
information was provided that was relevant to the
field of special education. Moreover, Whitaker found
a positive correlation between the overall helpfulness
of the induction and mentoring program and the
intent to continue teaching in the special education
profession. The beginning SETs stated that the
mentors’ knowledge of special education was the
most important characteristic in making the mentor–
mentee partnership successful and beneficial.
Arguments can be made for and against on-site
non–special education mentors versus off-site special
education mentors. Whitaker (2000, 2003) argued that
a mentor with a special education background is
more important than the selection of a mentor within
the same school. In Whitaker’s study, 33% of the
beginning SETs were not paired with a special
education mentor. These beginning SETs found that
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Principals’ Roles in Induction
innate characteristics of the mentor (i.e.,
approachable, confident, enthusiastic, patient,
sensitive, supportive) overshadowed the lack of
special education knowledge. Furthermore, Whitaker
suggests that a co-mentoring model be utilized for
beginning SETs. This model would consist of an on-
site mentor paired with an off-site special education
mentor who would work collaboratively for the
benefit of the SET. The co-mentoring model is one
way to address the on-site or off-site mentor debate.
..........................................
Whitaker (2000, 2003) argued that a mentor with a
special education background is more important than
the selection of a mentor within the same school.
The kind of support provided to SETs is also
important to consider. Billingsley et al. (2004)
reported that novice teachers rated informal supports
as more beneficial than formal mentoring supports,
yet less than half of the teachers surveyed
participated in informal induction and mentoring
programs. Whitaker (2000, 2003) reported similar
results regarding beginning SETs preferences. Formal
and informal support for beginning SETs is essential,
but survey data suggest that many are not receiving
this support from building-level and district office
administrators (Billingsley et al., 2004; Cole, 1991).
Results from the available research indicate that
administrators in general, principals specifically,
must do a better job of working with beginning SETs
and providing multiple opportunities for teachers to
collaborate about instruction, both formally and
informally. Effective administrators took time to
work closely with beginning teachers by scheduling
orientation and new teacher meetings, conducting
classroom observations, and providing teachers with
written materials on school policies and procedures
(Billingsley et al., 2004). Regardless of the method or
model, it is imperative that mentoring programs,
coupled with on-going professional development, be
a part of the support provided to beginning SETs
(Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001).
Implications for Principals’ Support
of Beginning SETs
The principal’s role has become more critical as
attrition rates rise for SETs (Wynn, Carboni, & Patall,
21 N
 Principals’ Roles in Induction
N N
2007). The role that principals play in the induction
and mentoring of beginning SETs is complicated and
challenging at best. The principal, undeniably, should
be the cornerstone of active support for beginning
SETs by providing a positive school climate
conducive to collaboration among professionals. This
positive school climate, fostered by effective principal
leadership, influences beginning SETs’ intent to
remain in the field of education. As greater attention
is placed on induction and mentoring programs,
principals need to assess their school climate to
ensure that it is conducive to supporting beginning
SETs.
As instructional leaders, principals spend much
of their time in classrooms focused on the
improvement of student academic outcomes. They
concentrate on understanding the instructional
practices and curricular needs of students and
support teachers in their instruction (Grigsby,
Schumacher, Decmen, & Simieou, 2010; Hallinger,
2003). As instructional leaders, they must promote an
atmosphere where collaboration, reflection, and
cooperation among novice SETs and seasoned
teachers is maintained (Flores, 2004, 2006). This can
be a daunting task for any one administrator.
Principals are not only managers but instructional
leaders, supervisors, disciplinarians, and program
evaluators. They often function without their own
sources of professional development or support
(Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Cole, 1991; Grubb & Flessa,
2006; Rafoth & Foriska, 2006; Wood, 2005). It can be
deduced that professional development related to
special education is an essential component for
principals working with novice SETs (Pugach,
Blanton, Correa, McLeskey, & Langley, 2009).
However, principals may not always have the
knowledge base required to be instructional leaders
for SETs. Principals must stay abreast of changes and
trends in the special education field but must also be
active learners (Bays & Crockett, 2007). Although
principal knowledge of special education is
important, the type of training and preparation
principals receive on teaching students with
disabilities prior to or during their principalship must
also be examined.
The research clearly supports that induction and
mentoring programs are a critical aspect of retention
for SETs (Billingsley et al., 2004; Cole, 1991; Kardos
et al., 2001; Schlichte et al., 2005; Whitaker 2000,
2003). Successful induction and mentoring programs
N 22
have many components, one being both novice and
veteran teachers working together on a shared
mission to increase academic achievement. This
collaboration works best when actively supported
by the principal and is an expectation embedded in
the day-to-day processes and procedures of the
school (Kardos et al., 2001). Principals created
opportunities for all teachers, veterans and novices
alike, to engage regularly in ‘‘deliberations about
curriculum, instruction, and their shared
responsibility for students’’ (Kardos et al., 2001,
p. 262). Novice teachers had easy access to others’
classrooms and were provided time to discuss the
needs of students and strategies for improved
practices. According to survey data collected from
SETs, the most critical component of induction and
mentoring programs is the informal relationships
among the mentee, the mentor, other colleagues,
and the principal (Billingsley et al., 2004; Kardos et
al., 2001; Whitaker, 2000, 2003). Multiple
professional development opportunities, coupled
with feedback from mentor teachers and principals
regarding instruction, are critical for SETs success in
the profession.
..........................................
According to survey data collected from SETs, the
most critical component of induction and
mentoring programs is the informal relationships
among the mentee, the mentor, other colleagues,
and the principal (Billingsley et al., 2004; Kardos et
al., 2001; Whitaker, 2000, 2003).
Mandating induction and mentoring programs at
the district and state levels is not enough to make
these programs viable for retaining beginning SETs
(Whitaker, 2000). Principals must actively participate
in the induction and mentoring program and support
on-going professional development (Quinn &
Andrews, 2004; Wood, 2005). These programs and
professional development activities must be
specifically designed for SETs to promote learning
and growth for the students whom they teach.
Principals who get involved in orientation meetings,
help make the matches between the mentor and
mentee, and individualize the professional
development activities for each SET can help ensure
that novice teachers will remain at their schools.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
 Principals’ Roles in Induction
N N

Table 1: Recommendations for principals working with beginning special education teachers

Promoting a positive school climate

N Present comprehensive orientation programs at the beginning of the school year (Andrews et al., 2006; Cole, 1991; Quinn & Andrews,
2004).
N Alleviate isolation by creating a sense of inclusiveness and community (Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Cole, 1991; Quinn & Andrews, 2004).
N Include SETs in school-wide meetings and shared governance activities (Cole, 1991; Singh & Billingsley, 1998).
N Supply novice SETs with appropriate instructional materials, resources, and classroom space (Billingsley et al., 2004; Quinn & Andrews,
2004; Youngs, 2007a).
N Provide reasonable caseloads and limit their nonteaching responsibilities and duties (Billingsley et al., 2004; Youngs, 2007a).
N Enlist the informal and formal supports of other teachers (Billingsley et al., 2004; Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Cole, 1991).
N Allocate time for collaboration and meetings with mentors, GETs, and SETs (Andrews et al., 2006; Cole, 1991; Youngs, 2007a).
N Provide clerical support for paperwork (Billingsley et al., 2004).
Facilitating instructional leadership
N Use a nonthreatening, formative evaluation approach conducted in concert with mentors, peer teachers, and district-level supervisors
(Brock & Grady, 1997; Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Cole, 1991; Youngs, 2007a).
N Support evidenced-based instructional and behavioral practices for working with students with disabilities (Stanulis & Floden, 2009; Weiss,
1999; Youngs, 2007a).
N Visit the novice SET’s classroom often and provide informal support (Andrews et al., 2006; Billingsley et al., 2004; Brock & Grady, 1997;
Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Cole, 1991).
N Develop professional development plans that are relevant to SETs (Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Youngs, 2007a).
N Provide multiple formats for providing professional development (e.g., consultation, technical assistance, workshops, college seminars,
community of learner activities, conference attendance; Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Cole, 1991; Youngs, 2007a).
N Collaborate with local university preparation programs in educational administration and special education (Cherian & Daniel, 2008;
Schlichte et al., 2005).
N Participate in continuing professional development on changes and trends in special education policy and practice (e.g., inclusion,
response to intervention, co-teaching, positive behavioral supports; Cole, 1991; Quinn & Andrews, 2004).
N Remain updated on federal, state, and local special education policies (Quinn & Andrews, 2004; Youngs, 2007a).
Supporting induction and mentoring programs
N Assure that careful consideration is taken when matching the novice SET with a mentor (Stanulis & Floden, 2009; Whitaker, 2000; Youngs,
2007b).
N Implement a team approach to mentoring (e.g., co-mentoring on-site GET with off-site SET) (Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Cole, 1991; Youngs,
2007a, 2007b).
N Provide novice SETs an opportunity to visit other school programs in the district or state (Andrews et al., 2006; Youngs, 2007a).
N Coordinate visits for novice SETs to observe other school district sites and model special education programs (Youngs, 2007a).
N Arrange informal opportunities to meet with other novice SETs (Andrews et al., 2006; Billingsley et al., 2004; Cole, 1991).
Note. GETs: general education teachers; SETs: special education teachers. Adapted from Pugach, M.C., Blanton, L.P., Correa, V.I., McLeskey, J., &
Langley, L.K. (2009). The role of collaboration in supporting the induction and retention of new special education teachers. (NCIPP Doc. No. RS-
2). Retrieved from http://www.ncipp.org/reports/rs_2.pdf

Principals may not always have the background
necessary to support novice SETs effectively. However,
the implications of the research suggest certain practices
that administrators can use to support beginning SETs.
Table 1 provides a list of recommended strategies for
principals and other school administrators.
The need for principals to support special
education is clear. The research conducted on novice
SETs and administrators suggests that active
engagement by the principal in induction and
mentoring programs in conjunction with quality
interactions regarding day-to-day policies, procedures,
and instructional practice are integral to cultivating
beginning SETs and keeping them in the field.
References
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the
potential: Retaining and developing high-quality new
teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

23 N
 Principals’ Roles in Induction
N N
Andrews, S., Gilbert, L., & Martin, E. (2006). The first years
of teaching: Disparities in perceptions of support.
Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 4–13.
Bays, D. (2001). Supervision of special education instruction in
rural public school districts: A grounded theory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
VA.
Bays, D.A., & Crockett, J.B. (2007). Investigating
instructional leadership for special education.
Exceptionality, 15, 143–161.
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working
conditions and induction support of early career
special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333–347.
Billingsley, B., & Cross, L. (1991). Teachers’ decisions to
transfer from special to general education. Journal of
Special Education, 24, 496–511.
Boe, E.E., Cook, L.H., & Sunderland, R.J. (2008). Teacher
turnover: Examining exit attrition, teaching area
transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75,
7–31.
Brock, B.L., & Grady, M.L. (1997). Principals: The guiding
light for new teachers. Momentum, 28(2), 52–55.
Cherian, F., & Daniel, Y. (2008). Principal leadership in
new teacher induction: Becoming agents of change.
International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership,
3(2), 1–11.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Teaching quality matters.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 95–98.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Taking stock in 2004: Teacher
education in dangerous times. Journal of Teacher
Education, 55, 3–7.
Cole, A. (1991). Relationships in the workplace: Doing
what comes naturally? International Journal of Teaching
and Teacher Education, 7, 415–426.
Cruzeiro, P.A., & Morgan, R.L. (2006). The rural principal’s
role with consideration for special education.
Education, 126(3), 569–579.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why
it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership,
60(8), 6–13.
DiPaola, M.F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and
special education: The critical role of school leaders.
COPPSE Document No. IB-7. Gainesville: University
of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special
Education.
Flores, M. (2004). The impact of school culture and
leadership on new teachers’ learning in the workplace.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7,
297–318.
Flores, M. (2006). Being a novice teacher in two different
settings: Struggles, continuities, and discontinuities.
Teachers College Record, 108, 2021–2052.
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M.K.
(2001). Working in special education: Factors that
N 24
enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional
Children, 67, 549–567.
Goor, M.B., & Schwenn, J.O. (1997). Preparing principals
for leadership in special education. Intervention in
School & Clinic, 32(3), 133–141.
Grigsby, B., Schumacher, G., Decmen, J., & Simieou, F.
(2010). A principal’s dilemma: Instructional leader or
manager. Academic Leadership, 8(4). Retrieved from
http://www.academicleadership.org
Grubb, W.N., & Flessa, J.J. (2006). A job too big for one:
Multiple principals and other nontraditional
approaches to school leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42, 518–550.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change:
Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 33, 329–351.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education
students in general education: A program evaluation
of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27,
77–94.
Kardos, S.M., Johnson, S., Peske, H., Kauffman, D., & Liu,
E. (2001). Counting on colleagues: New teachers
encounter the professional cultures of their schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 250–290.
Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special
education: An ethical framework. Exceptionality, 15(3),
177–187.
Lashley, C., & Boscardin, M.L. (2003). Special education
administration at a crossroads: Availability, licensure, and
preparation of special education administrators. COPPSE
Document No. IB-8. Gainesville: University of Florida,
Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
Marks, H.M., & Printy, S.M. (2003). Principal leadership
and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370–397.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002). School change and
inclusive schools: Lessons learned from practice. Phi
Delta Kappan, 84(1), 65–72.
Pugach, M.C., Blanton, L.P., Correa, V.I., McLeskey, J., &
Langley, L.K. (2009). The role of collaboration in
supporting the induction and retention of new special
education teachers. NCIPP Doc. No. RS-2. Retrieved
from http://www.ncipp.org/reports/rs_2.pdf
Quinn, R., & Andrews, B. (2004). The struggles of first-year
teachers investigating support mechanisms. The
Clearing House, 77, 164–169.
Rafoth, M.A., & Foriska, T. (2006). Administrator
participation in promoting effective problem-solving
teams. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 130–135.
Reeves, D. (2006/2007). Leading to change/How do you
change school culture? Educational Leadership, 64(4),
92–94.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
Schlichte, J., Yssel, N., & Merbler, J. (2005). Pathways to
burnout: Case studies in teacher isolation and
alienation. Preventing School Failure, 50, 35–40.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (2005). The virtues of leadership. The
Educational Forum, 69, 112–123.
Shapiro, S.K., & Laine, S.W.M. (2005). Adding the critical
voice: A dialogue with practicing teachers on teacher
recruitment and retention in hard-to-staff schools.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Simpson, R.L., LaCava, P.G., & Graner, P.S. (2004). The No
Child Left Behind Act: Challenges and implications for
educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 67–75.
Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1998). Professional support and
its effects on teachers’ commitment. Journal of
Educational Research, 91, 229–239.
Stanulis, R.N., & Floden, R.E. (2009). Intensive mentoring
as a way to help beginning teachers develop
balanced instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 60,
112–122.
Wakeman, S.Y., Browder, D.M., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-
Delzell, L. (2006). Principals’ knowledge of
fundamental and current issues in special education.
NASSP Bulletin, 90, 153–174.
Weiss, E.M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and
first-year teachers’ morale, career choice commitment,
and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 15(8), 861–879.
Whitaker, S. (2000). Mentoring beginning special
education teachers and the relationship to attrition.
Exceptional Children, 66, 546–566.
Whitaker, S. (2001). Supporting beginning special
education teachers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(4),
1–18.
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Principals’ Roles in Induction
Whitaker, S. (2003). Needs of beginning special education
teachers: Implications for teacher education. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 26, 106–117.
Wood, A. (2005). The importance of principals: Site
administrators’ roles in novice teacher induction.
American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39–63.
Wynn, S., Carboni, L., & Patall, E. (2007). Beginning
teachers’ perceptions of mentoring, climate, and
leadership: Promoting retention through a learning
communities perspective. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 6, 209–229.
Youngs, P. (2007a). District induction policy and new
teachers’ experiences: An examination of local policy
implementation in Connecticut. Teachers College Record,
109, 797–837.
Youngs, P. (2007b). How elementary principals’ beliefs and
actions influence new teachers’ experiences.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 101–137.
About the Authors
Vivian I. Correa, Ph.D., is a professor in the
Department of Special Education & Child
Development at the University of North Carolina,
Charlotte, College of Education COED 336, 9201
University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223-0001.
E-mail: vcorrea@uncc.edu.
Jennifer Y. Wagner, M.Ed., is a second-year doctoral
student in special education at Clemson University,
Eugene T. Moore School of Education, 207-A Godfrey
Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-0702. E-mail:
jyoungw@clemson.edu.
25 N
 Supporting Improved Practice for Special
N Education Teachers
The Importance of Learner-Centered Professional Development
James McLeskey, Ph.D.
University of Florida

N The limited use of evidence-based practices has led to increased interest in forms of professional
development that improve teacher practice and student outcomes.

N Traditional forms of expert-centered professional development have been demonstrated to have little
impact on teacher practices or student outcomes.

N Newer forms of learner-centered professional development have been demonstrated to be an effective

approach to changing the practice of many general and special education teachers and improving student
outcomes.

N In spite of these research findings, the predominant form of professional development for general and
special education teachers continues to be expert-centered professional development.

N Administrators play a critical role in providing high quality professional development for all of their
teachers, but especially beginning teachers in both general and special education. Critical roles include
resource acquisition, providing time for collaborative planning and implementation, supporting peer
coaching activities, and evaluating the effectiveness of professional development.
N
Professional Development and This article focuses on professional development
that is designed to provide teachers with new skills
Improved Teacher Practice and strategies that are used in classroom practice.
There are many purposes for conducting professional This focus is taken because improving teacher
development (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Lang & Fox, practice has been shown to improve student
2003). For example, professional development may be outcomes (Englert & Rozendal, 2004; Fuchs & Fuchs,
conducted to raise the awareness of or provide 2001) and increase the retention of special education
knowledge to participants regarding a new law (e.g., teachers (Billingsley, 2004). Initially, a review of
No Child Left Behind, or NCLB), procedural issues approaches to professional development that have
(e.g., implementing a new Individualized Education typically been used in the past and continue to be
Program, or IEP), or a new practice (e.g., Response to widely used today is provided, even though they
Intervention, or RtI). A second purpose of rarely lead to changes in teacher practice. A summary
professional development is to address beliefs or of the general education literature regarding new
understandings of participants about critical forms of professional development that result in
educational issues. This type of professional teacher use of practices in the classroom follows.
development can address teacher understandings Next, a review and discussion of research from
about students from different cultural backgrounds special education that has addressed the use of
or beliefs regarding students with disabilities and professional development to facilitate teachers’ use of
inclusion. A third purpose of professional new strategies in their classrooms or schools is
development is to provide participants with new provided. Finally, considerations for administrators
skills or strategies for instruction (e.g., strategies for in developing and supporting effective professional
teaching phonemic awareness). development will be explored.

N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
N 26

N N
Expert-Centered Professional Development
The predominant form of professional development
that is provided to general and special education
teachers is based on an expert-centered model (Choy,
Chen, & Bugarin, 2006). Within this framework,
professional development takes the form of
disseminating knowledge to teachers. To achieve this
goal, an outside expert who is familiar with an
innovative practice presents information to teachers
using written material, lectures, demonstrations, and/
or practice over a relatively short period of time. There
is typically little follow up once a professional
development session is completed. In this approach,
teachers are viewed as passive recipients of knowledge
and are expected to implement instructional strategies
exactly as they are presented, with few or no
adaptations to account for teacher preferences, or the
context of the classroom and school (Duffy & Kear,
2007). This ensures fidelity of implementation and the
effectiveness of the practice. If teachers do not
implement an innovative practice precisely as
presented by an expert, they are viewed as resistant
and perhaps recalcitrant (Richardson & Placier, 2001).
..........................................
Butler and colleagues (2004) suggest that expert-
centered professional development fails because it
results in shallow, surface level knowledge of
instructional strategies that promotes little
sustained use of these practices.
Much evidence indicates that the expert-centered
approach to professional development has not been
effective in changing classroom practice (Butler,
Lauscher, Jarvis-Sellinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Joyce
& Showers, 2002; Richardson & Placier, 2001;
Sprinthall, Reiman, & Thies-Sprinthall, 1996;
Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). For example, in a
review of research on professional development,
Joyce and Showers (2002) found that short-term
knowledge dissemination (‘‘sit and get’’) types of
professional development result in knowledge and
skill development for some teachers, especially when
demonstrations and opportunities to practice
instructional strategies are used, but this information
is rarely used in the classroom.
Butler and colleagues (2004) suggest that expert-
centered professional development fails because it
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Learner-Centered Professional Development
results in shallow, surface level knowledge of
instructional strategies that promotes little sustained
use of these practices. Expert-centered forms of
professional development are also based on faulty
assumptions regarding the nature of professional
knowledge, and how to bridge the research-to-
practice gap (Butler, et al., 2004; McLeskey &
Waldron, 2004; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). For
example, these models of professional development
tend to be built on the assumption that formal
knowledge (e.g., evidence based practices) is the
purview of outside experts (often researchers), while
the role of teachers is to listen to the experts and
implement these practices; however, ‘‘an alternative
view is that both teachers and researchers bring
combinations of formalized and practical knowledge
to classrooms as they seek to make instructional
change’’ (Butler et al., 2004, p. 437). This suggests the
need to combine the expertise of researchers and
teachers in developing and implementing innovative
classroom practices (McLeskey & Waldron, 2004).
..........................................
In spite of the widespread concerns regarding the
limited effectiveness of expert-centered
professional development, research has shown that
many school districts and state departments
continue to rely on this form of professional
development.
Research findings in special education have been
strikingly similar with regard to the use of expert-
centered professional development and the failure to
translate research based strategies into classroom
practice (Klingner, 2004; Lang & Fox, 2003; McLeskey
& Waldron, 2002a). As Klingner notes, these ‘‘sit and
get’’ professional development activities involve
passive participation of teachers and are marginally
successful at best. This has led to widespread concern
in special education regarding the lack of research-
based practices that are used in classrooms (Browder
& Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Cook & Schirmer, 2003;
Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Vaughn &
Linan-Thompson, 2003).
In spite of the widespread concerns regarding the
limited effectiveness of expert-centered professional
development, research has shown that many school
districts and state departments continue to rely on
27 N
 Learner-Centered Professional Development
N N
this form of professional development. For example,
in a study using a national sample to examine
professional development practices related to
instruction in math and science, Porter and
colleagues (2000) found that the quality of typical
professional development offered nationwide was
not high, and that over 75% of teachers only
participated in short term professional development
that did not offer active learning opportunities, and
did not include the collaborative participation of
peers. Choy and colleagues (2006) had similar results
examining a national sample. These investigators
found that most professional development was short
term and did not reflect research on high quality
professional development. Additional research is
needed to better understand why these methods
continue to be widely used, in spite of their limited
effectiveness. Possible factors influencing this
continued use include the relatively low cost and ease
of administration of this form of professional
development, as well as accountability requirements
for state and local education agencies.
In sum, it has proven much more difficult than
anticipated to provide teachers with professional
development that influences classroom practice.
Expert-centered forms of professional development
have been largely ineffective in this regard, resulting
in few changes in classroom practice. Thus, these
forms of professional development seem to have
limited utility in improving teacher practice to a level
that both reduces teacher attrition and improves
student outcomes. These poor outcomes have led to
the development and study of new forms of
professional development that are significantly more
effective in facilitating change in teacher practice
(Desimone, 2009; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Lang & Fox,
2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001). Increasingly these
new forms of professional development are being
used in school districts across the U.S. (Choy et al.,
2006; Desimone, 2009).
The Emergence of Learner-Centered
Professional Development
Professional development that facilitates the use of
innovative instructional approaches in the classroom
reflects theoretical and practical perspectives that
contrast sharply with the approach that underlies
expert-centered professional development. This new
form of professional development is based on the
concepts of personal growth and collaboration, and
N 28
assumes that teachers actively construct knowledge
based on their past experience, the context of their
classrooms, and the new instructional strategies they
are considering (Desimone, 2009; Joyce & Showers,
2002). When this form of professional development
is used, teachers are active participants in
identifying, learning about, adapting, and using
instructional strategies to improve classroom
practice. With this approach, it is assumed that
teachers have the power over change in their
classrooms and may choose to share this power with
collaborators (either other teachers or outsiders) who
work with them to improve practice. Professional
development then becomes a collaborative endeavor
involving groups of teachers and other professionals
who can contribute to teacher learning and
improved practice.
Much research has been conducted on new forms
of professional development that facilitate the use of
innovative practices in the classroom and integrate
the role of the researcher with that of the classroom
teacher in improvement efforts. This research, which
until recently had occurred almost entirely with
general education teachers, has resulted in a
consensus regarding a general approach to
professional development that fosters the increased
use of innovative practices in the classroom
(Desimone, 2009; Elmore, 2002; Hawley & Valli, 2000;
Joyce & Showers, 2002; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007;
Richardson & Placier, 2001; Sprinthall, Reiman, &
Thies-Sprinthall, 1996). This type of professional
development has been called learner-centered
professional development (Hawley & Valli, 2000).
Components of a general approach to Learner-
Centered Professional Development (LCPD). The
general approach to learner-centered professional
development (LCPD) includes the following
components (Desimone, 2009; Joyce & Showers, 2002):
N A focus on knowledge that provides teachers with
a deep understanding of an innovation, including a
theory or framework underlying the innovation, a
rationale for the use of the innovation, and how the
innovation may be appropriately adapted to the needs of
the teacher’s classroom and students. In addition,
evidence related to teaching math and science
reveals that a focus on both content and how
students learn that content is a critical feature of
professional development. Lectures, readings, and
discussion are used as teachers initially explore
this new information.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
N Along with a focus on knowledge, professional
development activities should include
demonstration or modeling of the innovation in a
context that simulates the classroom. Videos of
classroom instruction may be used to demonstrate
or model a strategy, followed by discussion of the
strategy. These activities facilitate gaining in-depth
knowledge and understanding regarding the use
of an innovation.
N Teachers should practice the innovation under
simulated conditions (e.g., using peer teaching),
approximating the workplace as closely as possible
to facilitate use of the practice in the classroom.
N The focus of professional development should be
consistent with teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, as
well as with policies related to school reforms,
standards, and accountability that influence the
local school context.
N Professional development should be of sufficient
duration to ensure that teachers gain deep
knowledge of the innovation.
N Teachers should collectively participate in
professional development with other professionals
who share similar interests and knowledge. This
could include collaborative groups who meet and
support teachers as they implement an innovation
by providing in-depth information regarding a
particular instructional strategy or innovation;
modeling the use of the innovation; discussing
adaptations that may be appropriate; and engaging
in observation, problem solving, and feedback (i.e.,
coaching) as the teacher uses the innovation in her
classroom. These activities provide teachers with
the opportunity to reflect on and learn about when
and how to use the innovative practice in ways that
benefit their students. A widely used collective
approach to professional development is peer
coaching, which provides on-going, classroom
support for teachers as they implement innovations.
In their review of research on different
approaches to professional development, Joyce and
Showers (2002) found that using a focus on
knowledge only in a professional development
activity resulted in a small number of teachers
who gained thorough or deep knowledge
regarding an innovation. This number of teachers
with deep knowledge regarding an innovation
increased significantly when demonstration and
practice were added to the professional
development activity. Finally, Joyce and Showers
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Learner-Centered Professional Development
found that adding peer coaching to these
professional development activities again
significantly increased the number of teachers with
deep knowledge of an innovation.
..........................................
The findings of Joyce and Showers (2002) revealed
that the first three components of professional
development (i.e., knowledge, demonstration, and
practice) result in very limited use of the innovation
in the classroom, while adding peer coaching
significantly increased the number of teachers who
used an innovative practice.
Joyce and Showers (2002) also addressed the
extent to which these components of professional
development resulted in the use of an innovative
practice in the classroom. These findings revealed
that the first three components (i.e., knowledge,
demonstration, and practice) result in very limited
use of the innovation to the classroom, while adding
peer coaching significantly increased the number of
teachers who used an innovative practice.
Other reviews of research have reached similar
conclusions (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000;
Desimone, 2009; Richardson & Placier, 2001; Sprinthall
et al., 1996), noting that while knowledge,
demonstration, and practice are needed to gain deep
knowledge of an innovative practice, in-class coaching
significantly increases the use of a practice in the
classroom (Sprinthall, et al., 1996). Finally, while
Richardson and Placier (2001) found that learner-
centered professional development was effective in
facilitating the classroom use of new practices for
many teachers, they offer the caveat that this approach
does not always work with all teachers. More
specifically, at times some teachers prefer to learn
about practices that they may immediately use in their
classrooms, rather than being offered the option of
reflecting on practices and developing alternatives.
As was noted previously, research in general
education has provided strong support for learner-
centered professional development that facilitates the
use of innovative practices in the classroom. In recent
years, working with both general and special
education teachers, special educators have begun to
investigate these issues and address the use of
innovative practices that are widely supported as
29 N
 Learner-Centered Professional Development
N N
effective in the special education professional
literature. The findings of this research are
considered in the following section.
Professional Development Research in
Special Education
Over the last decade, professional development that
addresses the use of innovative practices in the
classroom has become a topic of significant interest to
special education researchers (Klingner, 2004; Lang &
Fox, 2003; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002a). This interest
seems to have been precipitated primarily because
research-based practices are used infrequently in
classrooms (Cook & Schirmer, 2003). This problem seems
to be pervasive across disability categories and age levels
(Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Odom & Wolery, 2003;
Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003), and has been
characterized as a research-to-practice gap (Gersten et al.,
1997) or the lack of sustainability of research based
practices (Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, & Arguelles, 1999).
Recently, special educators have recognized that
expert-centered professional development does not
facilitate the use of innovative practices in the
classroom (Klingner, 2004; Lang & Fox, 2003;
McLeskey & Waldron, 2002a, 2002b, 2006). For
example, Klingner (2004) noted that the majority of
professional development activities in special
education involve passive, ‘‘sit and get’’ types of
formats, and are marginally successful at best.
McLeskey and Waldron (2002a) concur with this
perspective and go on to note that professional
development in special education is often ineffective
because of a failure to take into account the complexity
of the classroom and the culture of the school. Finally,
Lang and Fox (2003) note that typical professional
development in special education involves the
dissemination of information with little follow-up as
teachers implement these new practices. They go on to
suggest that these activities are often piecemeal,
addressing a series of disconnected topics, and lack the
necessary in-depth focus on specific topics to ensure
that teachers gain deep knowledge of practices.
Given the lack of success of expert-centered
professional development in special education, many
special educators have begun to examine the potential
of different forms of professional development to
facilitate the use of innovative practices in classrooms
(Klingner, 2004; Lang & Fox, 2003; McLeskey &
Waldron, 2002a). These efforts have primarily
N 30
addressed the extent to which research-based practices
can be implemented in general education classrooms
and how this implementation can be sustained over
time (e.g., Klingner et al., 1999).
For example, two investigations have been
conducted that compare expert-centered professional
development with new forms of professional
development that include knowledge, demonstration,
practice, and coaching (Boudah, Blair, & Mitchell,
2003; Little & Houston, 2003). These investigations
addressed the use of learning strategies (Boudah et
al., 2003) and evidence-based strategies related to
phonemic awareness (Little & Houston, 2003). Both of
these investigations revealed that substantially more
teachers used practices in their classrooms when
LCPD was used as compared to the use of expert-
centered professional development.
These studies provide support for the
components of professional development that are
described by Joyce and Showers (2002) as important
to ensuring the use of innovative strategies in the
classroom, i.e., knowledge, demonstration, practice,
and peer coaching. However, in both of these studies,
the extent to which strategies were used in
classrooms is based on teacher report and not on
actual observation of teachers using the strategies. In
the next section, research that included detailed
studies of smaller groups of teachers and direct
observation of teachers’ use of strategies is reviewed.
These studies provide further insight into the
effectiveness of learner-centered professional
development in facilitating the classroom use of
innovative instructional strategies.
Case studies of LCPD. Several investigations have
been conducted using case studies to determine the
effectiveness of LCPD in changing teacher practice
(Gersten & Dimino, 2001; Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott,
& Walton, 2003; Klingner et al., 1999; Vaughn,
Hughes, Schumm & Klingner, 1998). Across these
studies, teachers have been shown to be more likely
to change classroom practices when LCPD is used.
One of these investigations (Greenwood et al.,
2003) provides an example of a well-designed case
study that illustrates this change in classroom
practice. Greenwood and colleagues worked with 16
teachers and the principal in one elementary school to
facilitate the implementation of evidence based
literacy practices. The researchers and teachers met to
develop a common goal for this work, which
addressed improving student learning, including the
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
rate of acquisition and mastery of academic skills.
The authors provided LCPD activities regarding
evidence-based practices (e.g., class-wide peer
tutoring, partner reading), as well as in areas of
individual interest to teachers (e.g., phonemic
awareness instruction). The professional
development consisted of providing a rationale and
in-depth information, as well as modeling and
practice of the strategies. Teachers were then
provided with support in their classrooms as
strategies were implemented and adapted to the
particular needs of their classrooms.
By the end of their three-year project, teachers
had successfully implemented 13 evidence-based
practices in their classrooms. These practices
included class-wide peer tutoring, partner reading,
reciprocal teaching, writer’s workshop, and
phonemic awareness. Student evaluation data
revealed that these strategies significantly improved
students’ reading comprehension but did not result
in significant improvement in reading fluency.
While Greenwood et al. (2003) and other case
studies (Gersten & Dimino, 2001; Klingner et al., 1999;
Vaughn et al., 1998) have demonstrated that LCPD can
be effective in changing teacher practices, one concern
that has been raised with the use of teacher-researcher
collaborative forms of professional development is the
expense of this approach and the lack of feasibility of
using this form of professional development in a wide
range of schools (Abbott, Walton, Tapia, &
Greenwood, 1999). To address these issues, studies
have been conducted (Abbott, Greenwood, Buzhardt,
& Tapia, 2006; Vaughn & Coleman, 2004) using a train-
the-trainer approach to professional development,
which reduces the cost and seeks to make professional
development more feasible in local schools.
For example, using a train-the-trainer approach,
coupled with technology-based teacher support tools,
Abbott et al., (2006) designed professional
development to prepare teachers in five elementary
schools to use Class-Wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT).
Trainers were recruited who had previous experience
using this strategy, and included teachers, principals,
and graduate students. Teachers gathered in one
location and were provided learner-centered
professional development by the researchers that
included in-depth coverage of a rationale for and use
of CWPT, demonstrations, and hands-on practice.
Local professional developers then provided on-site
support and coaching in classrooms regarding the use
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Learner-Centered Professional Development
of this strategy. The researchers also provided
participants with a CD set that included
supplementary instruction and training that teachers
could use at any time, a manual for using CWPT, and a
gallery of videos illustrating the use of this innovation.
The CD also included a learner management system
that provided the teacher with a ‘‘convenient way to
create and deliver peer-tutored content, monitor
student participation, and assess student performance
and progress’’ (Abbott et al., 2006, p. 51).
The researchers followed up with teachers from
each of the five schools to determine the extent to
which they implemented CWPT and the Learner
Management System (LMS) in their classrooms.
They found that 57% of the teachers fully
implemented CWPT and the LMS in their
classrooms. The schools ranged from 100%
implementation in two schools, to moderate rates of
implementation in two schools (45% and 42%), to no
implementation in one school.
The case study by Abbott and colleagues (2006), as
well as other case studies (Gersten & Dimino, 2001;
Greenwood et al., 2003; Klingner et al., 1999; Vaughn &
Coleman, 2004; Vaughn et al., 1998) provide further
support for the components of LCPD as important to
ensuring the use of innovative practices in classrooms.
Although not all teachers successfully used innovative
practices, even with intensive support in the use of the
strategy in their classrooms, these results indicate that
the use of innovative practices occurs at substantially
higher levels than when using expert-centered
professional development. Studies of LCPD that have
taken the form of teacher-researcher collaboration to
develop and implement effective practices are
reviewed in the next section.
Teacher–researcher collaboration and LCPD. Several
teams of researchers have worked collaboratively
with teachers over extended periods of time to gain a
better understanding of how the use of innovative
practices in classrooms is enhanced (Abbott et al.,
1999; Baker, Gersten, Dimino, & Griffiths, 2004;
Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Englert & Rozendal, 2004;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, Bentz, Phillips, &
Hamlett, 1994). These teams worked as professional
learning communities to address mutually agreed
upon goals for professional development, and used
LCPD with follow up support in the classroom to
address implementation of selected strategies. A brief
overview of one of these investigations is
subsequently provided.
31 N
 Learner-Centered Professional Development
N N
Abbott et al. (1999) developed partnerships with
eight elementary schools to evaluate the effectiveness
of an approach to professional development designed
to facilitate the use of research-based practices in the
classroom. These researchers designed a model that
allows researchers and teachers ‘‘to work together in
a sustained problem-solving process leading to
evaluation of problem solutions, redesign, solution
validation, and wide-scale use across teachers and
classrooms’’ (p. 343). Activities included a
partnership between researchers and teachers to
determine the focus of the work toward improving
practice, consultation by researchers in ways that
bring practices to teachers that ‘‘evoke teacher-
researcher interactions and sustainable support for
classroom application’’ (p. 343), and professional
development using LCPD and support in the
classroom.
.......................................... ..........................................
This research thus suggests that the use of
intensive, learner-centered professional
development results in significantly increased levels
of classroom use of innovative practices.
During the first two years of this project, Abbott
and colleagues worked with 22 teachers. All of the
teachers successfully implemented Class-Wide Peer
Tutoring (Abbott et al., 2006) and Skills for Learning
Independence in Developmentally Appropriate
Environments (Carta, Renauer, Schiefelbusch, & Terry,
1998) in their classrooms. Evidence collected by the
researchers indicated that the interventions
accelerated academic responses and reduced
inappropriate behaviors for students in first and
second grades. Interviews with teachers also revealed
a high level of satisfaction with this form of
professional development and the interventions that
they implemented in their classrooms.
Studies of teacher-researcher collaborations add
further support for the use of LCPD to ensure that
innovative practices are used in the classroom. In
addition, these studies provide insight into how
researchers and teachers may successfully work
together to develop effective interventions that fit
well into the realities of general education
classrooms, thus enhancing the possibility that
teachers will use the strategies in their classrooms
(Gersten & Dimino, 2001).
N 32
Summary of Research on LCPD
Research on LCPD in special education reflects
findings that are similar to those that have been
reported previously for general education. That is, an
LCPD approach results in substantially more teacher
use of innovative practices in the classroom. These
findings suggest that in contrast to expert-centered
professional development with relatively large
groups of teachers, which results in 5 to 10% of
teachers who use innovative practices in the
classroom (Boudah et al., 2003; Joyce & Showers,
2002; Little & Houston, 2003), LCPD results in
classroom use of practices by 50 to 100% of
participating teachers, although some teachers only
implement the practice at limited levels, while others
are frequent implementers (Boudah et al., 2003;
Klingner et al., 1999; Klingner et al., 2003).
The central feature related to changing teacher
practice seems to rest on the development of
professional learning communities (PLCs) among
teachers and other professionals (Fullan, 2007;
Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
This higher level of classroom use of innovative
practices has been found across a range of studies,
including those providing professional development
for large groups of teachers (Boudah et al., 2003; Little
& Houston, 2003), smaller groups of teachers in one
or a few schools (Gersten & Dimino, 2001;
Greenwood et al., 2003; Vaughn et al., 1998), and
teachers who were provided with professional
development as part of researcher–teacher
collaborative activities (Abbott et al., 1999; Englert &
Tarrant, 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001).
This research thus suggests that the use of
intensive, learner-centered professional development
results in significantly increased levels of classroom
use of innovative practices. This intensive
professional development provides teachers with in-
depth knowledge regarding an innovation, illustrates
the use of the innovation with demonstrations in a
context that simulates the classroom, provides
opportunities for teachers to practice the use of the
innovation, and uses peer coaching to support the
teacher as the innovation is used in the classroom.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
LCPD is also built on the assumption that
innovations that are the focus of professional
development should fit well into the classroom and
thus will be more readily accepted by teachers.
LCPD offers an opportunity to more effectively
bridge the research to practice gap and ensure
that teachers are well prepared to use effective,
research-based practices in their classrooms.
However, there are several issues regarding this
approach to professional development that need
to be further investigated to provide insight into
how more widespread use of LCPD might become
a reality.
Limitations of the Research on
Professional Development
While a consensus has emerged regarding the
relative effectiveness of LCPD compared to expert-
centered professional development in facilitating
teacher use of innovative practices, this research
should be interpreted with caution for several
reasons, including:
N Most of this research has been done with general
education teachers, with little mention of special
educators.
N The research that has been conducted and reported
in both the general and special education literature
has seldom used rigorous experimental designs.
N Little is known about the effectiveness of
individual components of LCPD, or how this
approach may be delivered cost effectively.
N Additional research is needed regarding the roles
of administrators in supporting the use of learner-
centered professional development.
LCPD and Improved Teacher Practice—
Considerations for Administrators
Any review of research on professional development
leaves many questions for administrators and other
professionals. Most importantly, this research makes it
clear that LCPD can be effective in changing teacher
practices, and expert-centered professional
development is much less effective. However, in spite
of these findings, expert-centered professional
development continues to be the predominant
approach to improving teacher practice. This could be
because of the relative expense of using LCPD, while
expert-centered professional development is much less
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Learner-Centered Professional Development
expensive to deliver. That is, it is much simpler to
disseminate information and assume that these good
ideas will travel into teachers’ classrooms of their own
volition (Fullan, 2007), in spite of the fact that extensive
research and professional experience of most special
and general educators indicates that this does not occur.
Given these findings, the role of administrators in
supporting the use of LCPD to change teacher
practice is critical. Key considerations in this regard
include:
1. In many schools and school districts, much of the
time allocated for teacher professional
development is used to disseminate information
regarding policies, local procedural practices, and
so forth. Schools that are highly effective in
improving teacher practice and student outcomes
use inexpensive, electronic methods to
disseminate information regarding policies and
local practices. Furthermore, in these settings,
teacher time is highly valued, and is used for
collaborative planning and a range of LCPD (e.g.,
observing and coaching in classrooms, study
groups) to improve practice. This includes the use
of faculty meeting time and district wide meetings
for this purpose, rather than using these meetings
for ‘‘sit and get’’ information dissemination.
2. The successful use of LCPD is highly dependent
on active administrative support (Waldron &
McLeskey, 2010). Thus, it is important that
administrators limit the use of teacher out-of-class
time spent disseminating information to them, and
ensure that teachers have sufficient time for LCPD.
This includes time to engage in activities such as
observation of highly effective methods in other
teachers’ classrooms, and freeing up teachers to
work as peer coaches to support peers in the
development of new skills. Funds to supports
these activities may come from federal sources
(e.g., IDEA, NCLB) or district funds for
professional development.
3. It is also important that administrators engage
teachers in shared decision making regarding topics
for professional development, thus ensuring that
the focus of these activities address issues that are
important to the teacher. Other ways to engage and
support teachers in this regard include providing
opportunities for teachers to assume leadership
roles, engaging teachers in shared decision making,
and collaborating with teachers in data sharing and
analysis (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
33 N
 Learner-Centered Professional Development
N N
4. The central feature related to changing teacher
practice seems to rest on the development of
professional learning communities (PLCs) among
teachers and other professionals (Fullan, 2007;
Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). These communities
offer a cost-effective means of delivering LCPD,
as team members provide much of the support
needed by teachers to gain deep knowledge
regarding instructional strategies and implement
these strategies in their classrooms with coaching
support from colleagues. For more information
on PLCs, see the article by Blanton and Perez in
this issue.
5. Finally, it is especially important that
administrators provide LCPD for beginning
special education teachers in the early years of
their teaching careers. Developing new skills is
important to all special education teachers, but is
especially important to new teachers and those
who enter the classroom with limited
preparation (Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, &
Misra, 2007). Providing LCPD provides the
support these teachers need to gain new skills to
be successful in their jobs, and increases the
likelihood that they will remain in the profession
(Billingsley, 2005).
References
Abbott, M., Greenwood, C.R., Buzhardt, J., & Tapia, Y.
(2006). Using technology-based teacher support tools
to scale up the class-wide peer tutoring program.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 47–64.
Abbott, M., Walton, C., Tapia, Y., & Greenwood, C.R. (1999).
Research to practice: A blueprint for closing the gap in
local schools. Exceptional Children, 65, 339–352.
Baker, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J.A., & Griffiths, R. (2004).
The sustained use of research-based instructional
practice. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 5–24.
Billingsley, B. (2005). Cultivating and keeping committed
special education teachers: What principals and district
leaders can do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Billingsley, B. (2004). Special education teacher retention
and attrition: A critical analysis of the research
literature. Journal of Special Education, 38, 39–55.
Birman, B.F., Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., & Garet, M.S.
(2000). Designing professional development that
works. Educational Leadership, 57, 28–33.
Boudah, D.J., Blair, E., & Mitchell, V.J. (2003).
Implementing and sustaining strategies instruction:
Authentic and effective professional development or
‘‘business as usual’’? Exceptionality, 11, 3–23.
N 34
Browder, D., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based
practices for students with severe disabilities and the
requirement for accountability in ‘‘No Child Left
Behind.’’ Journal of Special Education, 37, 157–163.
Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Sellinger, S., &
Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-
regulation in teachers’ professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455.
Carta, J., Renauer, M., Schiefelbusch, J., & Terry, B. (1998).
Project SLIDE: Skills for Learning Independence in
Developmentally Appropriate Environments. Kansas City,
MO: Juniper Gardens Children’s Center.
Choy, S.P., Chen, X., & Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher
professional development in 1999–2000: What teachers,
principals, and district staff report (No. NCES 2006-305).
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Cook, B., & Schirmer, B. (2003). What is special about
special education? Overview and analysis. The Journal
of Special Education, 37, 200–205.
Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’
professional development: Toward better
conceptualizations and measures. Educational
Researcher, 38, 181–199.
Duffy, G.G., & Kear, K. (2007). Compliance or adaptation:
What is the real message about research-based
practices? Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 579–581.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and
achievement: The imperative for professional development in
education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Englert, C.S., & Rozendal, M.S. (2004). A model of
professional development in special education. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 27, 24–46.
Englert, C.S., & Tarrant, K.L. (1995). Creating collaborative
cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special
Education, 16, 325–336.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention
and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 85–95.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N.B., & Hamlett,
C.L. (1994). The nature of student interactions during
peer tutoring with and without prior training and
experience. American Educational Research Journal, 31,
75–103.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2001). The realities of translating
research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 16, 120–130.
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997).
What we know about using research findings:
Implications for improving special education practice.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476.
Greenwood, C.R., Tapia, Y., Abbott, M., & Walton, C.
(2003). A building-based case study of evidence-based
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior,
and growth in reading fluency, K–4. Journal of Special
Education, 37, 95–110.
Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (2000). Learner-centered
professional development, Research Bulletin No. 27.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappn.
Joyce, B.R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement
through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Klingner, J. (2004). The science of professional
development. The Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37,
248–255.
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Arguelles, M.E.
(1999). Sustaining research-based practices in reading:
A 3-year follow-up. Remedial and Special Education, 20,
263–274, 287.
Lang, M., & Fox, L. (2003). Breaking with tradition:
Providing effective professional development for
instructional personnel supporting students with
severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 26, 17–26.
Lawless, K.A., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2007). Professional
development in integrating technology into teaching
and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
better questions and answers. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 575–614.
Little, M.E., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice
through professional development. Remedial and
Special Education, 24, 75–87.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002a). Professional
development and inclusive schools: Reflections on
effective practice. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 159–172.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002b). School change and
inclusive schools: Lessons learned from practice. Phi
Delta Kappan, 84, 65–72.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2004). Three conceptions of
teacher learning: Exploring the relationship between
knowledge and the practice of teaching. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 27, 3–14.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2006). Comprehensive school
reform and inclusive schools: Improving schools for all
students. Theory into Practice, 45, 269–278.
Odom, S.L., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of
practice in early intervention/early childhood special
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Learner-Centered Professional Development
education: Evidence-based practices. Journal of Special
Education, 37, 164–173.
Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K.S., &
Birman, B.F. (2000). Does professional development change
teaching practice? Results from a three-year study. Jessup,
MD: U.S. Department of Education.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V.
Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (4th
ed., pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Rosenberg, M.S., Boyer, K.L., Sindelar, P.T., & Misra, S.
(2007). Alternative route programs to certification in
special education: What we know about program
design, instructional delivery, and participant
characteristics. Exceptional Children, 73, 224–241.
Sprinthall, N., Reiman, A., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996).
Teacher professional development. In J. Sikula, T.J.
Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.). Handbook of research on
teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 666–703). New York, NY:
MacMillan.
Vaughn, S., & Coleman, M. (2004). The role of
mentoring in promoting use of research-based
practices in reading. Remedial and Special Education,
25, 25–38.
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Schumm, J.S., & Klingner, J.
(1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and
writing instruction in inclusion classrooms. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 21, 57–74.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special
about special education for students with learning
disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37,
140–147.
Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a
collaborative culture through Comprehensive School
Reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 20, 58–74.
About the Author
James McLeskey, Ph.D., is a Professor in the School of
Special Education, School Psychology, and Early
Childhood Studies at the University of Florida, 1423D
Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611. Email:
mcleskey@coe.ufl.edu.
35 N
 N Research on Co-teaching and Teaming
An Untapped Resource for Induction

Marleen C. Pugach, Ph.D., and Judith A. Winn, Ph.D.

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

N Co-teaching and various forms of team teaching are common in today’s schools but have rarely been
viewed in relationship to supporting novice special education teachers.

N Personal compatibility is consistently reported as a key factor in the success of co-teaching.

N Special educators who co-teach often take a backseat role in the general education classroom.

N Innovative instruction in co-taught classrooms is the exception rather than the norm.

N When co-teaching and teaming for inclusion occur in only some classrooms in a school, this may detract
from a whole-school commitment to practicing an inclusive education philosophy.

N Teachers who co-teach and team report positive attitudes toward these forms of professional interaction;
both hold promise for assisting novice special education teachers and increasing their retention.
N
The Role of Co-teaching and studies of teaming and co-teaching that are applicable
to induction at the classroom and school levels. We
Teaming in the Induction of Novice conclude with the implications of this body of
Special Educators literature for the induction of novice special
education teachers.

C o-teaching and teaming are well-recognized

forms of teacher collaboration in schools, but
they are not typically thought of in relationship to
the induction of new teachers, even though they
have existed side by side for decades. Yet as
collaborative models for teaching, both co-teaching
and teaming have the potential to influence how
new teachers experience their initial work in schools.
The purpose of this article is to discuss how the
research on co-teaching and teaming can be used to
assist administrators in both special and general
education as they continue to develop purposeful
induction support for new special education
teachers. In this article, we define co-teaching as
shared responsibility for teaching within the same
classroom by a general and special education teacher
and team teaching as an interdisciplinary group of
teachers sharing responsibility for a group of
students.
To illustrate the untapped potential of co-teaching
and teaming as means of supporting novices, we first
consider lessons from several reviews of literature on
co-teaching, followed by a discussion of individual
What Can We Learn From Reviews
of Research on Co-teaching?
Since its initial appearance in the late 1980s as a
strategy for supporting inclusion, co-teaching has
been a dependable—but certainly not a universal—
feature of the special education landscape, existing
alongside more traditional approaches to special
education such as resource rooms and self-contained
classrooms. Nevertheless, as efforts to include
students who have disabilities in general education
have increased and have become institutionalized
under multiple reauthorizations of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–446,
118 Stat. 2647) and the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (P.L. 107–11), the practice of co-teaching
continues to be implemented in schools. It provides a
means for special and general education teachers to
support one another in their common goal of
providing a high-quality education to all of their
students in the shared setting of a general education

N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
N 36

N N
classroom. Four major reviews of the literature on co-
teaching and collaboration between special and
general education teachers were conducted between
1999 and 2007 (Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Weiss & Brigham,
2000; Welch, Brownell, & Sheridan, 1999). Attention
to induction and retention are notably absent from
these reviews, but together they do provide some
important perspectives on how co-teaching and
induction might intersect.
Early Concerns: Establishing
Co-teaching as a Model
The earliest review, conducted by Welch et al. (1999),
provided a broad, general picture of co-teaching
rather than a critical analysis. Unlike typical reviews
of the literature, this early review was not limited to
data-based studies but included position papers,
technical guides, and articles on the topic of co-
teaching, which contained no research question or
methodology.
Welch and his colleagues (1999) found that
attitudes of teachers toward co-teaching were
favorable, that teachers were satisfied with co-
teaching generally, and that it was a socially
validated form of collaborative work for teachers.
Teachers’ testimonials were uniformly positive.
Only seven of the studies they reviewed included
data on student outcomes, which suggests there
was a greater focus in early writing about co-
teaching on studies of teachers’ perspectives rather
than whether co-teaching was a successful
instructional strategy to foster student learning. This
review was generally supportive of co-teaching but,
as the authors observed, reflected a very limited
knowledge base in what was then still a relatively
new trend.
A Focus on Original Research on
Co-teaching
The following year, Weiss and Brigham (2000)
published an analysis of 23 peer-reviewed, data-
based studies that had been conducted between 1987
and 1999. These studies, which included five
program evaluations, provided evidence that co-
teaching was frequently initiated by pairs of teachers
who already respected each other or by one teacher
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
encouraging a peer to become his or her teaching
partner. In general, findings suggested that
volunteers for co-teaching were more satisfied than
nonvolunteers and that volunteers reported greater
mutual respect for their co-teachers than those who
did not volunteer. In those situations in which
teachers did not ask to work together, turf and
ownership problems were more likely to occur. A
major criterion for successful co-teaching as viewed
by co-teachers themselves was the personal
compatibility of the teaching pair. Furthermore,
based on the program evaluation studies that were
included as part of this review, co-teaching teachers,
parents, and students with disabilities expressed
satisfaction with co-teaching; however, the small
number of respondents in these evaluation studies
led the authors to question how generalizable these
particular findings were.
..........................................
In general, findings suggested that volunteers for
co-teaching were more satisfied than
nonvolunteers and that volunteers reported greater
mutual respect for their co-teachers than those who
did not volunteer.
Despite documenting general satisfaction on the
part of co-teachers, the authors also noted confusion
about the roles special educators play in co-teaching
settings. Although the majority of special education
co-teachers played subordinate instructional roles, a
smaller number had more prominent roles, for
example, teaching small groups of students, sharing
responsibility for large-group instruction, or
managing peer tutoring in relationship to the general
education curriculum. But they did not appear to
provide ‘‘appropriate and specially designed
instruction’’ that could be considered highly
responsive to the specific needs of students who
have disabilities (Weiss & Brigham, 2000, p. 238).
This raises questions about the kind of instruction
special education teachers are expected to provide in
their roles as co-teachers and the level of well-
defined expertise they are expected to possess
beyond that of general education teachers. If
instructional roles are unclear for special education
co-teachers, the authors argue, this may have
implications for their retention.
37 N
 Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
N N
..........................................
Although the majority of special education co-
teachers played subordinate instructional roles, a
smaller number had more prominent roles, for
example, teaching small groups of students,
sharing responsibility for large-group instruction, or
managing peer tutoring in relationship to the
general education curriculum.
Barriers to successful co-teaching that were
identified included lack of common planning time
and lack of administrative support. Furthermore,
when a co-teaching model was implemented, special
education teachers worked with only a limited
number of general education teachers, namely, the
ones with whom they were co-teaching. Because not
all teachers participated in co-teaching, this was
viewed as reducing the capacity of co-teaching to
contribute to a schoolwide, systematic
implementation of inclusion (Weiss & Brigham,
2000).
Looking at Student Outcomes in
Quantitative Studies of Co-teaching
In 2001, Murawski and Swanson conducted a meta-
analysis that allowed them to compare the data
across several quantitative studies of co-teaching
to look specifically at student learning outcomes.
They included only studies that were based on
instructional interventions that lasted at least 2 weeks,
that took place in heterogeneous general education
classrooms as part of co-teaching, and that generated
sufficient data to calculate an effect size so they could
make the appropriate comparisons. Only six studies
met these criteria. Outcome measures included
student absences, measures of attitudes, social
measures (e.g., self-concept), grades, and
achievement measures in the content areas of
mathematics and reading/language arts. In three of
the six studies, teachers volunteered to co-teach and
attempted to sustain an equal-status relationship with
their teaching partners; in four studies, teachers
reported sharing responsibility, resources, and
accountability for their students’ learning. All studies
appear to have been conducted with teams of co-
teachers that were successful.
N 38
Based on the limited number of studies that met
their criteria, Murawski and Swanson (2001)
concluded that co-teaching is only moderately
successful in terms of improving student outcomes.
They recommended that more experimental studies
using student outcome measures be conducted to
determine the effectiveness of co-teaching. Similar to
Weiss and Brigham (2000), Murawski and Swanson
(2001) also emphasized the importance of conducting
research on co-teaching that includes both successful
and unsuccessful co-teaching pairs rather than just
studying those that were successful.
Qualitative Studies of Co-teaching
After a 6-year lapse in reviews of co-teaching,
Scruggs et al. (2007) looked across 32 qualitative
studies conducted between 1995 and 2005 that
included attention to the novice status of some of the
teachers who were included in these studies. They
found that in general, special education co-teachers
continued to play subordinate roles in the classroom
in relationship to their general education peers,
usually because special education teachers lacked
sufficient academic content knowledge to play more
prominent roles. When special education co-teachers
did possess adequate content knowledge (e.g., Rice &
Zigmond, 2000), they assumed greater levels of
instructional responsibility. Similar to the results
reported by Weiss and Brigham (2000), time for joint
planning and the support of building administrators
was viewed as essential but was not always in place.
..........................................
Based on the limited number of studies that met
their criteria, Murawski and Swanson (2001)
concluded that co-teaching is only moderately
successful in terms of improving student outcomes.
Scruggs and colleagues (2007) also found that
teachers benefited from co-teaching and that it
contributed to their professional development but
only when the co-teachers were personally
compatible. Personal compatibility, as well as
volunteering, was central to the success of co-
teaching. In fact, in one of the studies, it was noted
that co-teaching partnerships that were not voluntary
were ‘‘doomed’’ (Rosa, 1996). Yet it appears that
nonvolunteer co-teaching partners can also
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
sometimes end up forging strong teaching
relationships. In this review, a study by Trent (1998)
documented one high school general education
teacher who was teamed consecutively with two
different novice special education teachers; one pair
worked out well, and one did not. Because none of
the teachers in this study volunteered, these findings
suggest that despite the special education teachers’
status as novices, personal compatibility appeared to
trump volunteering in co-teaching.
..........................................
Personal compatibility, as well as volunteering, was
central to the success of co-teaching.
This review highlighted a study by Mastropieri et al.
(2005) that documented cases of secondary science and
social studies co-teaching and included some discussion
of identified novice teachers. In two of the seven teams
studied, one of the teachers was a novice—one in a
seventh-grade earth science co-teaching pair and one in a
high school chemistry pair. In both of these situations, the
teachers were assigned to co-teaching rather than
volunteering. The seventh-grade team had daily planning
time; no mention of common planning time was made
regarding the high school chemistry team. The authors
did not identify which of the seventh-grade teachers was
the novice but did state that the general educator took the
lead the majority of the time; the special educator saw this
as an advantage because ‘‘she was learning so much that
she could use later in her teaching’’ (Mastropieri et al.,
2005, p. 264). In the high school chemistry team, the
chemistry teacher was the novice in the pair; the special
education teacher was a 15-year veteran. They shared all
roles and forged a mutually respectful, positive
relationship. External university researchers provided
support throughout the implementation of co-teaching in
each of the teams described.
In contrast, Morocco and Aguilar (2002) focused on
co-teaching in interdisciplinary teams rather than as a
stand-alone relationship between one general and one
special education teacher. Three of the four
interdisciplinary teams in a low-income, culturally
diverse middle school were involved in co-teaching
teams, all of which included a special education
teacher. A first-year language arts teacher in one of
these teams was the only teacher who was not
comfortable in a co-teaching situation; she left the
school after her first year. Although the authors did
not say so specifically, the implication was that this
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
new teacher had not volunteered to co-teach with
students who had disabilities. This situation was
atypical for the school, and the authors argued that it
illustrates how the success of co-teaching depends on
all members of the team holding strong commitments
to inclusion. These authors indicated that co-teaching
was embedded into the school’s overall
interdisciplinary team model: ‘‘Teams are responsible for
the same students for 2 years (‘looping’), and serve as the
first point of contact for parents. Teams, which include
content teachers and a special education teacher, develop
curriculum units, assess students’ progress, and plan
interventions for students with specific needs. Coteaching is
an extension of that collaborative planning into the content
area classroom.’’ (Morocco & Aguilar, 2002, p. 330).
In contrast to results reported earlier, which
suggest that those who co-teach often appear to play
subordinate, backseat roles, in this study the
interdisciplinary model itself ‘‘made the status of the
special education teacher equal to that of the content
area teachers and made the interdisciplinary team …
the special education teacher’s primary reference
group’’ (Morocco & Aguilar, 2002, p. 332). This means
that special education novices can be socialized to be
members of the general education community and do
not need to be viewed solely as members of a special
education community within their school and/or
district—a concern raised by Pugach (1992) with
regard to how novice special educators view their
own professional status and identity.
Scruggs and his colleagues (2007) were also highly
concerned about the lack of attention to student
outcomes in co-teaching research. Finally, they
described the absence of instructional innovation in co-
teaching classrooms and concluded that ‘‘if the
qualitative research to date represents general practice,
it can be stated that the ideal of true collaboration
between two equal partners—focused on curriculum
needs, innovative practice, and appropriate
individualization—has largely not been met’’ (p. 412).
..........................................
‘‘Co-taught classes, …, should become far more
dynamic and innovative than these research reports
suggest they presently are’’ (McDuffie et al., 2007,
p. 333).
McDuffie, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2007) then
reanalyzed these 32 studies by school level
39 N
 Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
N N
(elementary, middle, high school, and mixed-level
studies). From this analysis, the authors reasserted
the value of co-teaching, particularly the benefits for
special education teachers in terms of learning the
academic curriculum and for general education
teachers in terms of learning about behavior
management and adapting instruction. Consistent
with many earlier studies, they focused on the
following issues: (a) the backseat role of special
education teachers, (b) the high need for personal
compatibility and volunteers to make co-teaching
work, and (c) the need for administrative support and
planning time. Lastly, they expressed concern about
the absence of innovative approaches to instruction in
co-taught classrooms. ‘‘Co-taught classes,’’ they
argue, ‘‘should become far more dynamic and
innovative than these research reports suggest they
presently are’’ (McDuffie et al., 2007, p. 333). It
appears that the initial emphasis on the need to
conduct more research on student outcomes in co-
taught classrooms has expanded to include a focus on
improving the quality of instruction in classrooms
where co-teaching is taking place—classrooms that
have twice the human resources, it must be added, of
traditional classrooms.
The Role of Team Teaching and
Schoolwide Collaboration
Co-teaching research has focused largely on the
perceptions of and interactions among pairs of
teachers, supports needed to implement co-teaching,
and, to some lesser degree, how co-teaching affects
student learning. In this section, we describe studies
of different forms of teaming that have implications
for supporting novices beyond one-to-one co-
teaching.
The Beacons of Excellence Studies
The U.S. Department of Education’s Beacons of
Excellence project (McLaughlin, 2002) conducted in-
depth studies of schools that demonstrated
exemplary practices for serving students with
disabilities in middle and high school settings. Two
Beacons studies (Caron & McLaughlin, 2002; Wallace,
Anderson, & Bartholomay, 2002), although not
focused on co-teaching per se, shed light on the role
of co-teaching as one of several strategies to support
schoolwide collaboration.
N 40
The first study, by Wallace et al. (2002), was based
on interviews and focus groups and included an
electronic survey of staff members at four schools to
illustrate a range of collaborative strategies that high
schools could implement to support high-quality
inclusive education. All schools in the study had
multiple supports in place for students with
disabilities and also had implemented some form of
teaming across general and special education
teachers. The four models in use at these schools
included the following:
N A ‘‘shared teaching model’’ (Wallace et al., 2002,
p. 354), introduced at the same time basic skills
classes and resource rooms were eliminated. The
school was also on a block schedule, resulting in
teachers moving from lecture only to a project
orientation, which made collaboration a necessity
rather than merely a desired future outcome.
N Cross-disciplinary blocks developed by teachers as
a way to meet their students’ varying needs.
Although the school did not formally subscribe to
block scheduling, a grassroots effort across special
and general education moved in this direction,
which affected instructional methods used.
N An Integrated Settings Program in which general
and special education teachers and
paraprofessionals worked side by side teaching
academic subjects. Common planning time
facilitated the quality of their working together,
which was described as a strongly held, shared
value at the school.
N A technical arts high school with a substantial
population of students who were deaf that was
organized into seven academies. Each academy
had a teaching team that included a special
educator whose role was described more as
consultative rather than instructional. In this study,
special educators were viewed as being essential to
team functioning.
In all four schools, special education teachers
spent at least some time teaching academic content
solo in general education classes. These four school
cultures were all described as cultures of sharing,
collaboration, and inclusion and as schools in which
special education was viewed as a support rather
than as a crutch. All valued common planning time
but also reported that communication was frequent,
in large part due to unscheduled meetings. Teachers
viewed these multiple forms of collaboration in place
at each school, as the reason for their school’s success.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
Through interviews and focus groups about
collaborative elements in their buildings, the second
study examined four exemplary elementary and two
exemplary middle schools to identify indicators of
collaboration in relationship to building capacity for
collaboration (Caron & McLaughlin, 2002). In all six
schools, there was a strong sense of a collaborative
community and uniformly high expectations for all
students, yet the schools varied in the ways
collaboration was implemented.
Collaboration was not defined solely as co-
teaching. Although in two schools co-teaching was
the primary means for collaboration, the other four
schools used different ways of co-planning and
consultation. In one school, the general education
teachers felt confident working with their students
who had disabilities and did not feel the need for
continuous co-teaching. Instead, they called on
special educators, who were their team members,
when they were needed. In schools where
collaboration was more pervasive, teachers used
every available means for collaboration, including
technology (i.e., frequent e-mail). The authors
conclude that among the most important features of a
school’s overall capacity for collaboration were (a)
formal methods of communication, (b) shared
leadership, and (c) a collaborative approach to
decision making. However, despite schoolwide
commitments to collaboration and high expectations
for all students, in two of the schools teachers were
not mandated either to co-teach or to accept students
who had disabilities. As noted earlier, this raises an
important question about what it means to support a
philosophy of inclusion schoolwide.
Middle School Teaming Research
Studies to determine the effectiveness of the
interdisciplinary team teaching model at the middle
school level can also inform how we think of teacher
collaboration and teaming in relationship to
induction support (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Kruse &
Louis, 1997). Bolstered at the time by an interest in
middle schools as a strategy for school restructuring
on the part of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent
Development (1989), these studies provide a
multifaceted picture of teaching teams. Although
they do not address teaming between special and
general education teachers explicitly, taken together
they do offer insights into how teachers who team
carry out and view their work.
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
The first study documents the implementation of
interdisciplinary teaming and teachers’ attitudes
toward and perceptions of teaming in four middle
school teams in one suburban school (Crow &
Pounder, 2000). Team members included teachers in
the major academic content areas as well as teachers
in exploratory subjects, for example, art, music,
physical education, and foreign language. Special
educators were not identified as team members.
Three of the four teams focused their teamwork on
behavioral interventions more than on curriculum.
All teams had common planning time but believed
they needed more time to work together. Block
scheduling was not a feature of the school; three of
the four teams believed that the absence of block
scheduling was problematic in trying to achieve an
interdisciplinary curriculum. The team that was the
least experienced, a seventh-grade team, had the
most problems, specifically with team leadership and
participation.
Kruse and Louis (1997) studied interdisciplinary
teaching units in four middle schools that served at-
risk populations. In two of the schools, special
education teachers were part of these teams; in one
school, some of the teams housed students with
disabilities and included special education teachers;
and in the fourth school, no information about special
education was provided. The authors described
tensions, which they called ‘‘teaming dilemmas’’
(p. 271), to refer to how team members viewed their
primary allegiances. Although teaming conferred
many advantages in terms of providing teacher
support and supporting a teacher’s ability to focus on
the individual needs of students, it was difficult for
teachers to focus both on their own team and on the
needs of the school as a whole.
For example, one team being focused on
inclusion, as was the case at one of the schools, did
not necessarily mean that inclusion was a priority for
the rest of the school. Despite any individual team’s
modeling of the school’s values regarding inclusion
and meeting the needs of individual students, the
authors argue, teaming as a structure ‘‘may
simultaneously undermine collaboration and
collective responsibility of teachers for those very
issues’’ (Kruse & Louis, 1997, p. 275). Also, limited
time for meeting can pit team meeting time against
whole-school meeting time and thus inhibit whole-
school discussions about essential issues and values.
Because teachers who team seem to rely first on their
41 N
 Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
N N
own team members for assistance, principals may
have to manage conflict that emerges as a result of the
strength of team allegiance, encourage informal
communication networks across teams, and work to
integrate teachers who are feeling marginalized. The
authors conclude that on its own, team teaching
cannot do the work of creating a school community
with common commitments and values.
..........................................
Because teachers who team seem to rely first on their
own team members for assistance, principals may
have to manage conflict that emerges as a result of
the strength of team allegiance, encourage informal
communication networks across teams, and work to
integrate teachers who are feeling marginalized.
One additional point made by Kruse and Louis
(1997) that is directly related to induction is that it may
be difficult for novices to break into teams of veteran
teachers. At one school where novice special education
teachers were on the team, veterans were not pleased
by the need to constantly support new teachers and
socialize them to the team and the school. Thus, teacher
turnover itself within special education may negatively
affect the support new teachers receive.
What Can More Recent Studies of
Co-teaching and Teaming Offer
to Induction?
Several additional recent studies of co-teaching and
teaming, described in this section, provide
information about the ways co-teaching can affect
novice special education teachers, in terms of both
supporting them and creating potential sources of
stress. These studies reinforce and extend the
findings of the studies described previously.
One important issue addressed in these more
recent studies is the impact of the proximity of novice
special education teachers to general education
teachers and their interactions with them. In a survey
of 596 novice special education teachers, Griffin et al.
(2009) found that new special education teachers were
more likely to rate collaboration and communication
as accomplishments if they either (a) taught in an
integrated general education classroom or (b) were
N 42
located near one in the building. This suggests that
novice special education teachers do not necessarily
rely on other special education teachers but rather
receive and value support from their general
education colleagues.
In an earlier study, Kilgore and Griffin (1998)
followed four of their teacher education program
graduates into their first two years as special
education teachers to determine how they defined
their early problems of practice and also how the
school context influenced their work. Three graduates
taught in self-contained settings and one moved from
a self-contained to an inclusive setting (i.e., co-
teaching in a general education classroom) midway
through her first year of teaching and remained there
during her second year. Those who were in self-
contained settings felt marginalized in their schools,
depended nearly completely on other special
education teachers for support, were isolated from
their general education peers, expressed
discouragement, and questioned whether they could
continue in this type of teaching context. However,
the novice teacher who shifted to an inclusive co-
teaching setting described having a high degree of
integration with her general education colleagues,
serving as their team leader, and taking charge of
team projects—in contrast to her initial experiences in
a self-contained classroom, which had been similar to
those of the other three teachers in the study.
Although the sample size in this study was quite
small, the findings point to the importance of support
from general educators—support that can occur in
co-teaching—and suggest implications for retention.
..........................................
… novice special education teachers do not
necessarily rely on other special education teachers
but rather receive and value support from their
general education colleagues.
Mentoring as a direct form of support can also take
place within the team itself. For example, Jimenez-
Sanchez and Antia (1999) studied three teams of two
teachers each, in which one team member was hearing
and one deaf, regarding their perceptions of team
teaching. One of these teams included a novice teacher.
In that team, the general education teacher, who was
hearing, had three years of experience, and her co-
teacher, who was deaf, had 13 years of experience—
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
five at the school they were teaching in at the time of
the study. The special education veteran directly
helped his novice partner by initiating her into the
school’s norms and procedures. One of the roles across
the teams studied was that the more experienced
teacher ‘‘assumed the role of mentor within the team’’
(Jimenez-Sanchez & Antia, 1999, p. 219) for less
experienced teachers at the school site. A competing
explanation for special education teachers taking a
backseat role in co-teaching may be their relative lack
of experience generally.
In addition, recent studies have shown that along
with its positive qualities, co-teaching can also cause
stress for novices as well as for experienced teachers.
Role definition is one source of stress (Hang &
Rabren, 2009; Naraian, 2010). For example, Naraian
(2010) described the experiences of a dually-certified
special education teacher co-teaching a first-grade
class with a general education teacher who, after their
initial work together, went on maternity leave for
several months. The special education teacher’s role
had been subordinate to that of her general education
peer before this leave, but during the leave, the
special education teacher was assigned to the role of
the general education teacher. Upon her original
partner’s return, she was again expected to take on a
backseat, secondary role, even though she had
proven herself fully capable of taking the lead as the
general education teacher. Having been empowered in
this manner, the special education teacher advocated
for her full range of abilities to work with the students
but was not welcomed into an expanded role once the
original general education teacher returned. The
author discusses the danger of a self-fulfilling
prophecy within a rigid demarcation of roles. She
suggests that novices who are co-teaching may need to
advocate for themselves to draw on their full repertoire
of skills and achieve co-equal teaching status.
..........................................
In the first year of teaching, for example, novice
special education teachers can be faced with the need
to manage conflicts with their co-teachers (Castro,
Kelly, & Shih, 2010), something teachers who teach
alone are not likely to experience in the same way.
In addition to role clarification, potential sources
of stress in co-teaching can surface due to
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
incompatible personality characteristics and working
styles, as well as differing philosophical beliefs about
instruction. In the first year of teaching, for example,
novice special education teachers can be faced with
the need to manage conflicts with their co-teachers
(Castro, Kelly, & Shih, 2010), something teachers who
teach alone are not likely to experience in the same
way. Teams that include novice special educators,
and whose members not only have different teaching
styles but also different styles of planning, can
experience a lack of success working together
(Leatherman, 2009). Furthermore, in a study of
mathematics and collaboration, Van Gardenen,
Scheuermann, Jackson, and Hampton (2009) noted
that differing philosophical beliefs about instruction
have to be integrated productively if co-teaching is to
meet the wide-ranging needs of today’s students.
Finally, lack of adequate planning time continues
to be viewed as a barrier to the success of co-teaching.
Lack of time to engage in comprehensive planning
affects the quality of collaboration not only in terms
of how teachers apportion their instructional time
during co-teaching (Leatherman, 2009) but also how
they address behavior management issues that may
arise (Hang & Rabren, 2009).
Implications for Administrator
Support of Novice Special
Education Teachers
What direction can the research reviewed in this article
offer to administrators who are striving to retain
novice teachers? On the whole, co-teaching and
teaming continue to be viewed as beneficial by
teachers, especially in terms of personal and
professional support (Kilgore & Griffin, 1998;
Mastropieri et al., 2005; McDuffie et al., 2007; Weiss &
Brigham, 2000; Welch et al., 1999). Also, it seems
important for special education teachers to participate
closely with their general education colleagues both to
widen the base of support they can tap into beyond
special educators alone and to appreciate what they
can learn from their general education colleagues. This
can contribute to their socialization not just as
members of the professional special education
community but also as members of the entire school
community as a whole (Pugach, 1992).
However, several important challenges have been
raised in this review. In summary, they are:
43 N
 Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
N N
N Curricular and instructional innovations are
intended to be the hallmarks of co-teaching, yet
practice appears to be lagging behind the ideal.
N Novice special education teachers often have
limited academic content knowledge.
N Many special education teachers play subordinate
roles in co-teaching contexts compared with their
general education peers, serving as assistants
rather than being fully engaged in instruction or
providing innovative approaches to instruction.
Whether because they are hesitant novices or
because they lack sufficient academic content or
pedagogical content knowledge (Ball, Thames, &
Phelps, 2008) to innovate and play prominent roles,
a subordinate role for special education teachers
diminishes the potential of co-teaching to enhance
instructional innovation.
N Co-teaching is typically voluntary and is
frequently initiated by pairs of teachers who
already respected each other or by one teacher
encouraging a peer to become his or her teaching
partner.
N Personal compatibility and the congruity of
professional philosophies are hallmarks of
successful co-teaching; in their absence, novices
can experience stress.
N Special education teachers often experience
confusion about their roles in the classroom.
N It can sometimes be difficult for novices to break
into teams of veteran teachers.
N Special educators are not always identified as full
team members.
N Lack of adequate planning time continues to be a
concern, even when co-teaching pairs or
interdisciplinary teams already had regular,
structured planning time in place.
N Teaming as a structure ‘‘may simultaneously
undermine collaboration and collective
responsibility of teachers for those very issues’’
(Kruse & Louis, 1997, p. 275); conflict can emerge
when the strength of team allegiance outweighs
allegiance to the school as a whole.
N Team teaching and/or co-teaching alone cannot do
the work of creating a school community with
common commitments and values.
A limitation of this literature is that the research
base itself is not extensive. Although there are
hundreds of publications about co-teaching, the
number of data-based, empirical studies is quite
small, particularly in relationship to studies of
N 44
student learning. The research on co-teaching
continues to be based primarily on documentation of
the experiences of successful teams of teachers, which
can skew the results. Furthermore, the literature is
heavily dependent upon teacher self-report, that is,
teachers’ own perceptions of co-teaching.
Despite these limitations, however, the literature
points to guidance for administrators about ways co-
teaching and teaming can be structured to support
novice special education teachers and, by extension,
the quality of support these teachers provide their
students. Based on this review, we offer the following
recommendations to strengthen the early teaching
experiences of new special education teachers in
relationship to co-teaching and teaming:
1. Select teams carefully and closely monitor them.
Many studies pointed to the success of having
team members volunteer for co-teaching
(Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Scruggs et al., 2007;
Weiss & Brigham, 2000), and as much as possible,
this should be encouraged. However, care should
be taken that the teams are not exclusive or do
not become separate from the school. Under
certain circumstances, success can also come
from being assigned to a team (Trent, 1998).
Issues for administrators to consider in making
assignments include compatibility of
personalities, content expertise, and instructional
philosophies. A consideration in assigning teams
with novices is the willingness of the veteran
teacher to serve as a mentor. Although co-
teachers or team teachers might be in a position
of serving as natural mentors, veterans may also
have negative feelings about this role if they
constantly have to mentor new teachers assigned
to their teams. New teachers may have assigned
mentors from school or district induction
programs; administrators will need to monitor
the relationships when an outside special
education mentor is working within a co-
teaching situation. Finally, as the dynamics of a
team can change over time, administrators are
urged to monitor team members regularly,
looking carefully for signs of stress or
marginalization of particular teachers.
2. Provide targeted professional development for novices
and veteran teachers who are engaged in teaming.
When novice special educators team in the
classrooms of teachers who are not high-quality
role models for instruction, novices neither gain
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
knowledge of innovation nor develop a sense of
what their roles as fully recognized teachers
actually are. Parity between co-teachers or team
members should encourage the kind of
significant instructional innovation that can lead
to improved outcomes for students. To address
concerns raised about the quality of instruction in
co-taught classrooms, strong professional
development that focuses on instructional
innovations, ways to collaboratively integrate
core academic curriculum and more intense
instruction for those who need it, and decision
making based on data from outcome measures
are called for (see McLeskey, this issue, for a
discussion of learner-centered professional
development). Furthermore, having the time to
observe a general education teacher in action on a
daily basis can be an important form of
professional development for novice special
educators, especially as a means of learning
academic content, which is typically limited in
preservice programs in special education.
3. Ensure and protect adequate planning time for co-
teaching teams, especially when they include novices.
The concern about time raised across the studies
emphasizes how critical it is to have a
predictable, sustained time for team members to
work together. If veteran teachers are feeling
constrained by insufficient planning time,
novices may experience even greater constraints.
Absence of sufficient planning time might
contribute to special education teachers’ playing
a subordinate role. Without adequate time for
discussing roles and co-teaching approaches, the
default might be letting the stronger teacher take
the lead. One way to ensure planning time is to
include special educators in grade-level
meetings, scheduled so they can attend all those
meetings relevant to their co-teaching.
4. Provide schoolwide support for inclusion. When the
school as a whole is committed to inclusive
education, with shared responsibility, resources,
and accountability for all students’ learning,
novice special education teachers may experience
less ambiguity about their roles and more
acceptance as full members of the school
community and be viewed as central to enacting
such a philosophy. Furthermore, with a
schoolwide philosophy in place, single teams of
teachers are not disproportionately responsible
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
for educating students with disabilities. Within a
culture of shared responsibility and collaboration
to promote inclusion, the provision of formal and
informal communication networks across teams
should address the issue of how special
education teachers conceptualize their primary
identities and the school, rather than a single
team being the unit of identity. Furthermore,
taking a schoolwide perspective would mean
including special education teachers in all forms
of professional development, especially those
directly related to academic content and
pedagogical content knowledge (see Blanton &
Perez, this issue, for a discussion of professional
learning communities).
In conclusion, co-teaching and team teaching
seem like natural allies for providing support to
novice special education teachers, and for general
education teachers as well. They represent a routine
form of collaborative work and counteract the historic
isolation of special education teachers. Despite
identified benefits in terms of support and teacher
learning, however, the literature would suggest that
co-teaching and teaming have not yet demonstrated
their full potential either to build collaborative,
inclusive school communities for special education
teachers that could reduce the attrition of novices or
to support significant curricular and instructional
innovation. Administrators have a pivotal role to play
in tapping into the potential of these collaborative
structures to support and retain novice special
education teachers in our schools.
Authors’ Note
We would like to thank Bharti Tandon, doctoral
student at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee,
for her assistance in the preparation of this article.
References
Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content
knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal
of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989).
Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st
century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Caron, E., & McLaughlin, M.W. (2002). Indicators of
Beacons of Excellence schools: What do they tell us
about collaborative practices? Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 13, 285–314.
45 N
 Co-teaching and Teaming as Induction Supports
N N
Castro, A.J., Kelly, J., & Shih, M. (2010). Resilience
strategies for new teachers in high needs areas.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 622–629.
Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009).
Beginning teachers’ views of their collaborative roles.
Preventing School Failure, 53, 235–244.
Crow, G.M., & Pounder, D.G. (2000). Interdisciplinary
teacher teams: Context, design, and process.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 216–254.
Griffin, C., Kilgore, K., Winn, J., Otis-Wilborn, A., Hou, W.,
& Garvan, C. (2009). First year special educators: The
influence of school and classroom context factors on
their accomplishments and problems. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 32, 45–63.
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-
teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial
and Special Education, 30, 259–268.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
of 2004. P.L. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647.
Jimenez-Sanchez, C., & Antia, S. (1999). Team-teaching in
an integrated classroom: Perceptions of deaf and
hearing teachers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 4, 215–224.
Kilgore, K., & Griffin, C. (1998). Beginning special
educators: Problems of practice and the influence of
school context. Teacher Education and Special Education,
21, 155–173.
Kruse, S.D., & Louis, K.S. (1997). Teacher teaming in middle
schools: Dilemmas for a schoolwide community.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 261–289.
Leatherman, J. (2009). Teachers’ voices concerning
collaborative teams within an inclusive elementary
school. Teaching Education, 20, 189–202.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., Graetz, J., Norland, J.,
Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-
teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and
challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260–270.
McDuffie, K., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2007). Co-
teaching in inclusive settings: Results of qualitative
research from the United States, Canada, and
Australia. In T. Scruggs, & M. Mastropieri (Eds.),
Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 20
(pp. 311–338). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
McLaughlin, M. (2002). Examining special and general
education collaborative practices in exemplary
schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 13, 279–284.
Morocco, C.C., & Aguilar, C.M. (2002). Coteaching for
content understanding: A schoolwide model. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 315–347.
Murawski, W.W., & Swanson, H.L. (2001). Meta-analysis
of co-teaching research. Remedial and Special Education,
22, 258–267.
Naraian, S. (2010). General, special and … inclusive:
Refiguring professional identities in a collaboratively
N 46
taught classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
1677–1686.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107–110.
Pugach, M. (1992). Uncharted territory: Research on the
socialization of special education teachers. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 15, 133–147.
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary
schools: Teacher reports of developments in
Australian and American classrooms. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 190–197.
Rosa, B. (1996). Cooperative teaching in the inclusive
classroom: A case study of teachers’ perspectives.
Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI
No. AAG9638771).
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-
teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of
qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–417.
Trent, S.C. (1998). False starts and other dilemmas of a
secondary general education collaborative teacher: A
case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 503–513.
Van Gardenen, D., Scheuermann, A., Jackson, C., &
Hampton, D. (2009). Supporting the collaboration of
special educators and general educators to teach
students who struggle with mathematics: An overview
of the research. Psychology in the School, 48, 56–77.
Wallace, T., Anderson, A.R., & Bartholomay, T. (2002).
Collaboration: An element associated with the success
of four inclusive high schools. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 13, 349–381.
Weiss, M., & Brigham, F. (2000). Co-teaching and the model
of shared responsibility: What does the research support?
In T. Scruggs, & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in
learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 14. Educational
Interventions (pp. 217–245). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S.M. (1999).
What’s the score and game plan on teaming in
schools? A review of the literature on team teaching
and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial
and Special Education, 20(1), 36–49.
About the Authors
Marleen C. Pugach, Ph.D., is a professor in the
Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Enderis Hall,
2400 E. Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53211. E-mail:
mpugach@uwm.edu.
Judith A. Winn, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the
Department of Exceptional Education, University of
Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Enderis Hall, 2400 E.
Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53211. Email:
jwinn@uwm.edu.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
 The Role of Leaders in Forming School–University
Partnerships for Special Education
Teacher Preparation
N
Erica D. McCray, Ph.D. Michael S. Rosenberg, Ph.D. Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D.
University of Florida John Hopkins University University of Florida

Laurie U. deBettencourt, Ph.D. Melinda M. Leko, Ph.D. Susanne K. Long, M.Ed.

Johns Hopkins University University of Wisconsin–Madison University of Florida

N Partnerships between local education agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs) allow
individual organizations to leverage their assets as well as expand and enhance their own knowledge
bases.

N Two of the more prominent types of LEA–IHE partnerships in special education are Alternative Route to
Certification programs and Professional Development Schools.

N In addition to a collaborative infrastructure, both partnership types described converge in a few key areas:
addressing teacher shortages, innovative program design, shared responsibilities, and resources and
contextual supports.

N These two partnerships can yield promising outcomes, but require the same amount of intensive, time-
consuming work regardless of their different goals.

N To optimize LEA–IHE engagement, leaders should: build trusting relationships, develop a common vision,
define and restructure roles and responsibilities, develop novel curricula, and establish shared governance
structures.
N
School–University Partnerships
The appeal of partnerships between schools and
universities is seemingly intuitive. Partnerships allow
individual organizations to leverage their assets as
well as to expand and enhance their own knowledge
base. In formal papers and commission reports (e.g.,
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession,
1986; Holmes Group, 1995; Levine, 2006; National
Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996),
partnerships between local education agencies
(LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs)
are cited repeatedly as a means to improve the
quality of personnel at both levels. Additionally,
structured partnerships are used to intervene in
underachieving schools. However, beyond dynamic
combinations of resources, personnel, and expertise,
LEA–IHE partnerships set the stage for a more
expansive and developmental view of teacher
preparation. Rather than being viewed as a fixed
series of events within a limited time period, teacher
preparation through partnerships is conceptualized
as an ongoing process that bridges preservice
development, induction, and ongoing professional
development. Inherent in a partnership continuum
view of teacher preparation is that IHE and K–12
faculty members will work together to mentor
preservice teachers as they simultaneously
collaborate in their own ongoing growth and
professional development (Stephens & Boldt, 2004).
Partnerships promote practices within
cooperating institutions that contribute both directly
and indirectly to elements frequently cited as
essential to school and teacher education reform
(Lauer, Dean, Martin-Glen, & Asensio, 2005; U.S.
Department of Education, 2005). These elements

NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

47 N
 School-University Partnerships
N N
include K–12 educators having a strong voice in the
design and implementation of teacher preparation
programs; increased collaboration among IHE faculty
in schools of arts and sciences and education; the
production of teachers with strong, applied
classroom experiences; increased opportunities to
work with diverse students; and enhanced
opportunities for feedback and evaluation of reform
efforts (Price, 2005). Partnerships also allow for a
number of important secondary benefits. Specifically,
preservice teachers benefit from coordinated and
well-conceptualized programs of study, experience
enhanced familiarity with school-based procedural
practices, and can benefit from preferences in the
hiring process. In-service teachers benefit from
increased opportunities for on-site staff development,
have frequent opportunities to put research into
practice, and work in settings that reduce isolation
and encourage collaboration, often with experts in
their subject area. Finally, students in schools
engaged in partnerships garner increased amounts of
adult attention and benefit from new and innovative
educational practices (Price, 2005).
..........................................
From an interpersonal perspective, effective
partnerships are characterized by trust among
participants, open communication, mutual respect,
and a collective positive predisposition about
changes occurring.
Elements of partnership renewal efforts are not
homogenous and the literature reflects a wide range
of formative goals and contexts (Clark, 1999; Price,
2005). In definitions that focus on organizational
structures, partnerships range from simple limited
working relationships to complex and involved
collaborative partnerships. At their very best, these
collaborative relationships are symbiotic—different
types of institutions cojoin to meet mutually
beneficial goals (Allexsaht-Snider, Deegan, & White,
1995; Goodlad, 1998). Several authors (e.g., Lauer et
al., 2005; Peel, Peel, & Baker, 2002) have defined
LEA–IHE partnerships by focusing on the
characteristics that make them successful.
Characteristics contributing to positive impact and
sustainability include participants understanding the
evolutionary stages of partnership development as
N 48
well as the purposes, directions, and outcomes of the
relationship. From an interpersonal perspective,
effective partnerships are characterized by trust
among participants, open communication, mutual
respect, and a collective positive predisposition about
changes occurring. Effective partnerships are also
characterized by the visible and tangible commitment
of leaders in participant organizations. This
commitment is often reflected by visionary leaders
who strive for a thorough understanding of all
constituent needs and maintain flexibility in
addressing the needs of individual constituents and
the partnership. Finally, effective partnerships
deliver on promises and ensure that goals are met.
Specifically, those investing their time and effort
should be able to see, first hand, that their work is
contributing to teacher education reform and
renewal.
In this paper, which is derived from a recent
literature synthesis (Rosenberg et al., 2009), we focus
on two types of LEA–IHE partnerships: Professional
Development Schools (PDSs) and Alternative Route
to Certification (ARC) programs. Specifically, we
provide an overview of each type of partnership, note
the dimensions of such arrangements, and discuss
the benefits and barriers to sustaining these
partnerships in the preparation of preservice special
education teachers. Finally, we conclude with
implications for LEAs and special education
administrators regarding LEA and IHE partnering.
The literature on school–university partnerships
addresses each of these elements with regard to the
LEA and IHE partners, the benefits and leadership
considerations experienced by both, as well as
implications for all parties involved. The scope of this
paper, however, discusses the factors most relevant to
LEA and state-level leaders for the purpose of
preparing special education teachers to take on
complex roles.
Partnership Types: An Overview
Professional Development Schools (PDSs). PDSs are
innovative partnerships between school districts and
IHEs that focus on four primary goals: the
preparation of new teachers, faculty development,
inquiry directed at the improvement of practice, and
enhanced student achievement (National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2009). Reforming
schools and colleges of education to ensure equitable
outcomes for all learners is a primary goal of PDS
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
partnership work, which requires the development
and active involvement of leaders and faculty across
sites (The Holmes Partnership, 2007). Consequently, a
strong focus on how teachers are prepared to address
the needs of students with disabilities should be a top
priority in any PDS effort.
Early literature reviews of PDS work (e.g., Abdal-
Haqq, 1998; Pritchard & Ancess, 1999; Teitel, 1998;
Valli, Cooper, & Frankes, 1997) highlighted how the
important goal of equity for all students had been
neglected, leaving questions regarding how the needs
of students with disabilities were incorporated within
PDSs. Sapon-Shevin (2001) asserted that the omission
of special education from discussions of PDS efforts is
highly problematic and indicative of how special
education is often left out of broader conversations
about school reform. She argued for PDSs to focus on
special education, and that the renewal of both general
education and special education in both IHEs and
LEAs should be ‘‘inextricably linked’’ (Sapon-Shevin,
2001, p. 33). She recommended the development of
seamless programs for students with disabilities and
their typically performing peers; unified teacher
education programs; and professional development
schools that serve as models of unified collaborative
systems. Unfortunately, even when IHE–LEA
partnerships are available for general education
teachers, special education is rarely included as part of
that partnership (Prater & Sileo, 2002).
Alternative Route to Certification (ARC). ARC
programs provide access to a teaching credential by
circumventing traditional preservice preparation.
These programs are often streamlined and tend to
attract nontraditional candidates into the teaching
profession (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005). Although
the number of individuals seeking special education
licensure through alternative routes is increasing
nationwide (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children,
2000; Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007),
there are few empirical studies addressing the
variables associated with special education ARC
programs. Rosenberg and Sindelar (2005) concluded
that the rapid rise of ARC programs in special
education is viewed by many as a response to market
conditions. A number of alternative route programs
in special education have been developed to address
school districts’ shortages of highly qualified special
educators. For example, the University of Utah
developed an ARC partnership with school districts
across the state to address special education teacher
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
School-University Partnerships
shortages, particularly in Utah’s rural areas.
According to Menlove and Lignugaris-Kraft (2001),
during a six year period about half of the 74 teachers
who began the program actually completed it and
became certified special educators with a few leaving
to teach general education.
..........................................
In addition to a collaborative infrastructure, both
special education partnership types converge in a
few key areas: addressing teacher shortages,
innovative program design, shared responsibilities,
and resources and contextual supports.
Many believe that special education ARC
partnerships streamline the process of certification by
moving teacher candidates on to a fast track (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005) and allow for
enhanced recruitment of nontraditional participants
and culturally and linguistically diverse special
educators (Tyler, Yzquierdo, Lopez-Reyna, & Flippin,
2004). The requirements for highly qualified status
within content areas add to the increased need for
recruitment. Many school districts advertise ARC
programs in their area to help recruit career changers
or content specialists (e.g., math majors) to the field of
special education. Not surprisingly, the major factors
that have contributed to the growth in ARC programs
in special education include: (a) the shortage of
qualified special education teachers, (b) the belief that
ARC programs will increase the number of teachers
from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds, and (c) the criticism of traditional
preparation programs (Hardman, Rosenberg, &
Sindelar, 2005).
Dimensions of School–
University Partnerships
Of the PDS and ARC program studies reviewed, a
good number of those that focused on special
education teacher development comprised common
elements or even served similar purposes.
Dimensions that commonly characterize a special
education PDS include mechanisms for blurring
boundaries between university and school personnel
in the preparation of preservice teachers and
structures for improving preservice and in-service
49 N
 School-University Partnerships
N N

Table 1: Dimensions of partnerships

Feature PDS Convergence ARC

Primary Goal N Comprehensive reform efforts
Timeframe N Continuum of preservice to in-
service development
Emphasis N Seamless induction process and
professional learning
N Inclusion and cultural competence
N Evidence-based practices
Professional Development N Preparation of preservice teachers
N Professional development of in-
service teachers
N Collaborative inquiry
Core Dimensions N LEA and IHE collaboration in
management, planning, and
delivery
N Collaborative, action research
N IHE faculty assigned to school,
serve as liaison for PD
N In-service faculty as clinical faculty
and mentors
N Coursework and field work
integrated on site
N Involve families and community
N Reducing shortages
N Expedited preparation
N Teacher preparation to
address special education
shortages
N Locally-based preparation
experiences
N Cohort model
N Collaborative structures
N Frequent communication
N Considerable resources and
contextual supports
N Reducing special education
teacher shortages
N Short institutes
N One to two year programs
N Providing support to novices
through initial certification
N Individualized to classroom
and need
N Technology used for program
delivery
N Cohort model
N Address shortages
N Wide recruitment
N Collaboration among
stakeholders
N Coursework, field placement,
and some mentoring

teachers’ learning. Those involved in PDS work relied
on various processes and structures for integrating
their roles in preservice preparation, as well as
creating intensive learning experiences for preservice
teachers. Through an extensive review of the
literature, Rosenberg and Sindelar (2005) gleaned that
for ARC programs in special education to be
successful, there must be meaningful school–
university collaboration with adequate time
allocated, an instructional program that is substantive
and rigorous, and IHE supervision and building-
based mentoring supports. In addition to a
collaborative infrastructure, both special education
partnership types converge in a few key areas:
addressing teacher shortages, innovative program
design, shared responsibilities, and resources and
contextual supports. Table 1 highlights these
partnership dimensions.
Addressing shortages. Collaborative ARC efforts
tend to revolve around the need for well-qualified
and diverse candidates to fill vacancies in special
education settings. Some partners begin to
collaborate because of their shared belief that school
systems should grow their own (Humphrey &
Weschler, 2007). In Epanchin and Wooley-Brown’s
(1993) partnership, individuals with roots in the
community were prepared. Edelen-Smith and Sileo
(1996) also emphasized the need to hire from the
same community. Simpson, Yocum, and Blum (2005)
formed a partnership that provided an ARC program
for teachers who were teaching out of field in special
education settings across the sparsely populated state
of Wyoming. Many ARC partners believe that if they
collaborate to grow their own teachers, the special
education teachers will more likely remain in their
communities (See Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005).
As previously stated, many PDSs operated to
meet needs similar to ARC programs—reducing
special education teacher shortages. Several of these
partnerships were located in high poverty and/or
culturally diverse neighborhoods (Epanchin &
Colucci, 2002; Peters, 2002; Taylor & Sobel, 2003). One
partnership between Northern Arizona University
and the Kayenta Unified School District (Heimbecker,
Medina, Peterson, Redsteer, & Prater, 2002)
represented one of the most intensive experiences
involving students with disabilities who were also
culturally diverse. Within this partnership, the
preservice teacher education program occurred over
three semesters, was site-based, and was designed to
prepare preservice teachers to address the specific
needs of Navajo students, with and without

N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
N 50

N N
disabilities. Preservice teachers of Navajo and non-
Native American descent were provided with
multiple opportunities to work together. The non-
Native American preservice teachers were housed in
community apartments provided by the school
system to assist them in becoming immersed in the
Navajo culture and community. Administrators were
integral to the implementation of the program. In
addition to providing housing and exposure, they
secured classroom space, student teaching and
practicum placements, and served as guest lecturers
and members of interview and selection committees.
Still, the degree to which this PDS reflected
partnership work (e.g., IHE–LEA faculty
collaboration) more broadly is questionable.
Innovative program design. A second characteristic
across many ARC partnerships deals with
curriculum; it is often delivered innovatively and the
length of the program is typically shorter than
traditional programs. The ARC curriculum is often
based upon the current state-approved teacher
education program that leads to certification in one or
more areas of special education (Epanchin & Wooley-
Brown, 1993). As preservice interns are working in
schools and often balancing family responsibilities,
the delivery of the ARC curricula requires creativity.
The use of seminars, online learning, and after school
and evening class meetings allows for meaningful
learning with a focus on problem solving and
ongoing peer support. Use of technology has been
particularly helpful in less populated rural areas as it
increases interaction among students, cooperating
teachers, and university supervisors.
To foster collaborative learning and the sharing
of experiences, many preservice interns progress
through ARC and PDS programs grouped into
cohorts that provide peer support (Esposito & Lal,
2005; Heimbecker et al., 2002; Jenkins, Pateman, &
Black, 2002). ARC cohort members typically receive
university instruction together and are taught within
the same district as they proceed through their
program (deBettencourt & Howard, 2004). In much
the same way, PDS preservice teachers are typically
clustered together for carefully designed coursework
and related field experiences (Sobel, French, & Filbin,
1998).
Another focus of special education PDS work is to
help in-service and preservice teachers implement
evidence-based practices (McHatton & Daniel, 2008).
University faculty and school personnel team up to
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
School-University Partnerships
implement a variety of evidence-based strategies at
elementary and middle schools. These strategies
focus on improving literacy, mathematics, content
area instruction, and discipline. Jenkins et al. (2002)
described coursework that addressed (a) assessments
and interventions for students with disabilities in
inclusive classrooms; (b) classroom and behavior
management skills including applied behavior
management techniques; (c) techniques in
assessment, planning, and instruction that are
appropriate for students with mild disabilities; and
(d) basic principles of assessment and curriculum
development for students with severe disabilities,
including using assessments to develop goals and
instructional plans.
Shared responsibilities. A third shared characteristic
of the two types of partnerships is mentoring and
supervision of candidates. Many of the partnerships
reviewed relied on both mentors from within the
school district as well as mentor–supervisors from the
IHE. Several partnerships provided a course or
seminar to familiarize mentors with adult learning,
classroom processes, and clinical supervision
(Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993). Both Burstein and
Sears (1998) and Rosenberg and Rock (1994) provided
criteria to guide the selection of mentors, and the
mentors were provided support throughout the
program. The mentors visited classrooms, gave
feedback on teaching, and helped teachers with
procedures. Involving mentor teachers in this way
provided opportunities for them to hone their skills
as practitioners and professional peers.
..........................................
To foster collaborative learning and the sharing of
experiences, many preservice interns progress
through ARC and PDS programs grouped into
cohorts that provide peer support (Esposito & Lal,
2005).
The need for collaborating teachers to act as
effective mentors was seen across all ARC
partnerships. Given the needs of newly prepared
special education teachers and the complexity of their
jobs, any efforts to design mentoring and support
programs must consider (a) strategies for including
new special education teachers in the broader school
context; and (b) each special educator’s specific
51 N
 School-University Partnerships
N N
needs, based on his or her prior experience, level of
expertise, role in the school, and the specific special
education population served (Brownell, Hirsch, &
Seo, 2004).
Partnerships need to be built on trust and an
agenda that addresses mutual needs. For many LEAs
the greatest motivation to be involved in a
partnership comes from critical shortages in the
number and quality of their special education
teachers. IHEs often form the partnership to increase
the university’s number of students as well. Yet, like
any partnership, the stakeholders must spend time
making the partnership work (Rosenberg & Sindelar,
2005). For example, frequent discussions (i.e.,
monthly meetings, advisory board meetings) are
needed to overcome past or current areas of mistrust
and conflict (Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993). It
takes time to hammer out specifics of trust,
responsibility and expectations. Both stakeholders
may need to be involved in selecting key personnel.
In some cases, a memorandum of understanding is
developed and agreed upon by the partners,
particularly for the purpose of teacher preparation
and ongoing professional development.
In many efforts to share responsibility and meet
expectations, program oversight and design teams
comprise stakeholders from both IHEs and LEAs
(Esposito & Lal, 2005; Menlove & Lignugaris-Kraft,
2001; Rosenberg et al., 2007). In the programs
reviewed, the roles of university faculty members,
school-level mentor teachers, and school
administrators were redefined (Jenkins et al., 2002),
and each of the partners often needed to change their
practices. This type of program design and redefinition
takes time and effort. In many cases partnerships begin
with outside funding, often provided to support
candidates, such as tuition or scholarships for books
(Esposito & Lal, 2005). In several programs, funding
was provided by the U.S. Department of Education
(deBettencourt & Howard, 2004; Simpson et al., 2005)
or state funds (Rowlinson, 2006). Rosenberg et al.
(2007) found that most (57.1%) ARC programs
surveyed reported funding from their state education
agencies and approximately 40% were funded by their
LEA. However, when the funding ended it was not
clear if these programs continued.
Resources and contextual supports. In most
partnerships there are resources and contextual
supports (e.g., leadership vision, reward structures,
funding) identified as necessary to initiate, maintain
N 52
and institutionalize effective partnerships. In our
review of ARC programs in special education there
were several such resources and supports that
became evident. For example, Burstein and Sears
(1998) found that the conditions and supports in the
school are critical to the success of the ARC
candidates. Also, many partnerships mentioned the
participation of the candidates needed to be
voluntary (Simpson, et al., 2005).
Another important resource identified was that a
group of often unrecognized but talented and
motivated mentor teachers needed to be involved in
the training (Epanchin & Colucci, 2002; Epanchin &
Wooley-Brown, 1993). Few would deny that learning
to teach is contextual (i.e., relating to the community
within the school and within the community in which
the school is housed). Preservice interns need
opportunities to explore various schools and the
communities in which they exist to integrate and
connect their coursework with the students, teachers,
and classrooms within which they work (Epanchin &
Collucci, 2002). In special education teacher
preparation, this need to understand the context is
more pronounced, making mentor teachers (or
cooperating teachers) critical resources within the
school environment (Epanchin & Colucci, 2002;
McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996).
..........................................
Preservice interns need opportunities to explore
various schools and the communities in which they
exist to integrate and connect their coursework
with the students, teachers, and classrooms within
which they work (Epanchin & Collucci, 2002).
The ‘‘climate’’ within the school is also critical
(Burstein & Sears, 1998). The preservice intern
needs to feel supported and know that if problems
arise, the school administration will be there to
help. In addition, there needs to be a firm
foundation of successful collaboration that
engenders trust and respect, and the needs and self-
interests of partners need to be understood and
addressed (Epanchin & Colucci, 2002). For example,
Burstein and Sears (1998) examined the
effectiveness of an ARC program developed for
urban special education teachers hired without
certification to serve students with disabilities in an
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
urban area in Southern California. Although
Burstein and Sears’s program did not discuss the
nature of their partnership with the school district,
their outcomes point to the need for effective
collaboration among the partners. Their survey of
teachers completing the program indicated that
school conditions impacted their stress on the job.
Challenges related to working conditions and
student behaviors were intense and did not
decrease over time. Epanchin and Wooley-Brown
(1993) provided limited empirical data but
suggested that partnership success required
overcoming mistrust, addressing mutual needs, and
developing mechanisms for accomplishing shared
goals. What’s more, students benefit from additional
competent adults in the classroom and on campus.
The Role of Leaders in Sustaining
Partnerships: Benefits
and Considerations
In this section, we discuss benefits and barriers
associated with each partnership type that may be
directly related to the focus and goals of the
partnership that leaders should consider if the goal is
to sustain partnerships.
Benefits of Professional
Development Schools
Because of the unique goals of PDS work, a number
of benefits were identified in the literature. The
intensive professional development emphasis
provides IHE and LEA faculty with ample
opportunity to focus on school and classroom-based
issues and begin the induction process for preservice
teachers. In general, the literature indicates that
preservice teachers felt prepared for cultural and
linguistic diversity in the classroom and community
(Heimbecker et al., 2002; Taylor & Sobel, 2003),
particularly when they worked with capable mentor
teachers, had concrete field experiences and
coursework that prepared them to work with diverse
learners, discussed controversies involving culturally
diverse students in depth, and had opportunities to
be immersed in the culture of the community. LEA
and IHE leaders have an integral role in creating a
supportive culture, ensuring time for appropriate
professional development, and managing the
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
School-University Partnerships
logistics to make these activities feasible (Epanchin &
Wooley-Brown, 1993; Heimbecker et al., 2002).
Additionally, preservice teachers were socialized into
the school community and viewed as professionals. Both
preservice teachers and cooperating teachers were
impressed by the professionalism that developed as a
result of their work. Jenkins and her colleagues (2002)
provided anecdotal support that preservice teachers felt
more self-efficacious and confident to accept
responsibility as a result of their PDS work. Further,
cooperating teachers indicated that preservice teachers
were professional, helpful (Frazee & Frazee, 2005), and
prepared to handle the demands of teaching—a fact
corroborated by districts’ inclination to hire these teachers
upon graduation (Abma, Fischetti & Larson, 1999).
PDS efforts were also a positive experience for
students. Students attending PDSs seemed to improve
on several important outcomes, including
achievement, school attendance, and motivation;
however, the data were not always disaggregated by
special and general education. For example, in Peters’
(2002) case study, pass rates on the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) increased
from 20% in the first year of the project to 67.5% in the
third. It was made evident that the school was moving
toward a culture of inclusion. Students with high-
incidence disabilities showed growth in academic
engagement, but their self-esteem, standardized test
scores, and grades did not differ appreciably. In
contrast, students with low-incidence disabilities
made gains on expressive vocabulary, initiating
conversations, and skills with communication boards
when paired with typically developing students.
Leadership Considerations for
Sustaining PDSs
Contextual barriers and supports for special
education PDSs were not very different than issues
identified in non-special education PDS efforts. Issues
related to governance and collaboration, logistical
factors, and funding were prominent and should be
given serious consideration by leaders undertaking
partnership work. Many of the programs
documented in the literature went to great lengths to
overcome obstacles they faced.
The importance of governance and collaboration. In
several partnership efforts, governance structures
were put in place to promote collaboration between
IHEs and LEAs, and the partners joined larger
53 N
 School-University Partnerships
N N
reform efforts to support their work (Abma,
Fischetti, & Larson, 1999; Peters, 2002). These
included implementing projects that required
collaboration, such as collaborative research groups,
research-to-practice projects, and school-wide
change projects, as well as a variety of collaborative
structures (e.g., school-based improvement teams,
university liaisons assigned to sites to promote
collaboration, student cohorts or co-teaching pairs,
grade-level intervention assistance teams). For
instance, Abma et al. (1999) described how the
school joined the Coalition of Essential Schools to
work on specific school reform goals, such as
including students with disabilities and improving
content area instruction. The school leadership
reorganized grade level teams and formed an
advisory council that included teachers, school
administrators, and faculty members. The
department chair of the teacher education program
was involved in the development of the oversight
council and involved the representative group in
revamping the teacher education program.
Early attention to logistical factors. Administrators
involved in partnership efforts also implemented
strategies to deal with time constraints. Specific
strategies included reallocating time to the
partnership, creating opportunities for faculty to
work in schools in their area of expertise, hiring
adjunct faculty to work in partnership schools, and
clustering resources by reducing the number of
partner schools (Jenkins, 2002) while simultaneously
being more selective about choosing sites genuinely
engaged in inclusive practices (Epanchin & Colucci,
2002). For instance, Walters and Pritchard (1999)
presented a case study of a 10-year partnership
involving an IHE and two local schools in which they
incorporated more professional development efforts
into the school day and extended the school year, as
the schools worked to become more inclusive.
..........................................
Principals rated ARC candidates slightly higher in
their preparedness than traditionally prepared
teachers, even though the evidence did not
support their perceptions.
The fundamental need for funding and incentives.
The literature in special education provided little to
N 54
no guidance about how funding and incentives
were provided to support partnerships and
encourage participation. A few projects received
grant support as seed money (Burstein, Kretschmer,
Smith, & Gudoski, 1999), but how these programs
sustained themselves at the conclusion of those
grants was unknown. If IHEs worked closely with
fewer schools over time, resources could be
leveraged and used more efficiently (Epanchin &
Colucci, 2002). By being able to work closely with
selected schools, relationships and trust develops.
These relationships allow teachers to capitalize on
the extra assistance provided by preservice teachers,
opportunities to improve their practice through
collaboration, and work on research or reform
projects.
Benefits of ARC Partnerships
The benefits of ARC partnerships in the preparation
of special education teachers are best assessed
through instructional practice and student
achievement. Sindelar, Daunic, and Rennells (2004)
compared graduates of traditional and ARC
partnerships across classroom performance (using
Praxis data), principals’ ratings, and their own
feelings of preparedness and self-efficacy. The Praxis
scores differentiated among the groups; the
differences favoring traditionally trained teachers
were related to their relative mastery of formal
knowledge (of instruction). The differences favoring
graduates of ARC partnership programs were related
to their prior work as paraprofessionals in the schools
where they now taught. Principals rated ARC
candidates slightly higher in their preparedness than
traditionally prepared teachers, even though the
evidence did not support their perceptions.
Several research teams used survey data to
compare ARC and traditional candidates (Esposito
& Lal, 2005; Sindelar et al., 2004). Sindelar et al.
(2004) found that both teachers in ARC and
traditional programs rated themselves as having a
healthy sense of self-efficacy. DeBettencourt and
Howard (2004) surveyed ARC teachers to
understand their reflections on their training
program, their feelings toward their mentors, and
their current teaching experiences. The preservice
interns’ self-ratings of their ability were high their
first year but lower in subsequent years. The authors
believe that during their first year, the teachers were
idealistic, but in later years they may have adopted
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
more realistic views of the job and rated themselves
accordingly. The preservice interns also felt that they
needed more mentoring than they received. In other
ARC partnerships, each school districts’
administration was surveyed. Simpson et al. (2005)
found that the LEA administration indicated
increased satisfaction with teachers enrolled in the
ARC program. Unfortunately, no outcome data on
the students of preservice interns in ARC
partnerships were found.
Leadership Considerations for
Sustaining ARCs
Time for deliberate collaboration. The greatest
barrier to sustaining ARC arrangements is
collaboration, which does not always come easily,
especially when two institutions are working
together for the first time. For example, in an ARC
in Florida, Epanchin and Wooley-Brown (1993)
noted how their partners struggled with ‘‘issues of
trust, respect, rights, and responsibilities’’ (p. 113).
In these instances, allocating time to initially
develop common goals and ongoing negotiations to
share leadership is important. In some cases, the
IHEs and LEAs had collaborated before the
formality of the partnership so relationships were
developed easily (Burstein & Sears, 1993; Epanchin
& Colucci, 2002; Rosenberg & Rock, 1994). In other
cases, the collaborative efforts began with support
of federal dollars (Burstein & Sears, 1993;
deBettencourt & Howard, 2004; Simpson et al.,
2005). Often when federal dollars are defraying the
costs, partners are encouraged to work together.
However, when federal dollars disappear, these
partnerships are likely to disappear. Moreover, the
expectations for higher education faculty to publish
and write grants, and the compressed day of public
school teachers make it difficult for them to find
the time to engage in the complex work of
collaboration.
The importance of infrastructure. Inadequate
infrastructure or resources may also be a hindrance. If
technology is used to deliver instructional
components, glitches are possible, thus requiring
more time to work effectively (Burstein & Sears, 1998;
Menlove & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2001). With some ARC
partnerships the use of technology may need to
continue beyond the initial partnership. Simpson et
al. (2005) used the established Wyoming Educational
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
School-University Partnerships
Network, which is the distance video system used to
connect all education entities, to prepare special
educators across the sparsely populated state of
Wyoming. Given tightening school district budgets,
the continued use of technology-based initiatives may
need to be funded by external sources.
Conclusions and Implications
We focused on two types of LEA–IHE partnerships:
professional development schools (PDSs) and
alternative route to certification (ARC) programs. Our
decision to focus on these two partnerships centered
on two factors. First, PDSs and ARC programs are
among the most widely employed teacher
preparation partnerships employed by IHEs and
LEAs. Second, PDSs and ARC programs exemplify
partnerships forged as a result of different goals, with
PDSs designed to improve the quality of teacher
education and schooling for students with disabilities
and ARC programs designed mainly to increase the
supply of special education teachers.
..........................................
… the expectations for higher education faculty to
publish and write grants, and the compressed day
of public school teachers make it difficult for them
to find the time to engage in the complex work of
collaboration.
In the literature, partnerships among IHEs and
LEAs are repeatedly characterized as desirable, high-
priority foundational activities and the research we
summarized suggests that they can produce positive
outcomes. Additionally, these partnerships can result
in successful collaboration if the appropriate
resources are dedicated; however, there is little data-
based information about how to support and sustain
partnerships. Despite the limited nature of the
research on partnerships, we believe they have the
potential to be fruitful as they allow multiple
organizations to leverage precious resources and
provide opportunities for personnel with specialized
areas of expertise to work together addressing shared
challenges. Partnerships are also a tangible
manifestation of teacher preparation being an
ongoing continuum that links preservice preparation,
induction, and continuing professional development.
55 N
 School-University Partnerships
N N
Because of these characteristics, there is usually
enthusiasm for partnerships. However, the
enthusiasm is more a function of anecdote and faith
than empirical data.
With these conclusions in mind, we offer the
following considerations for LEA and special
education administrators when preparing for or
engaging in partnerships with IHEs:
N ARC partnerships tend to be more pragmatic than
PDS partnerships, typically centering on filling
specific personnel needs, such as high-need subject
areas and difficult-to-staff schools. Not
surprisingly, ARC programs are highly variable in
content and intensity (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005).
N The body of research on the efficacy of ARC and
PDS partnership programs is still growing.
Researchers have not determined if these programs
attract high-achieving candidates to difficult-to-
staff schools, or if those who do participate stay in
teaching and promote student achievement
(deBettencourt & Howard, 2004; Sindelar, et al.,
2004).
N It appears that partnerships are a function of time
and circumstance. When teacher shortages are
dramatic, the goals of the partnership are focused
and there is a need for expedience. Rather than
focus on expansive reform efforts, the partnership
seeks to address immediate needs of schools and
their communities. However, in the absence of
crisis there are opportunities to focus on more
idealistic goals and address structural issues
associated with the integrated processes of teacher
preparation and ongoing professional teacher
development.
N When viewed in the current context of standards-
based accountability (e.g., Hardman & Muldur,
2004), there may be little governmental support for
the labor and time intensive processes associated
with partnerships without immediate student
achievement gains.
N ARC and PDS partnerships require similar and
extensive start-up and maintenance efforts. For
example, both PDS and ARC partnerships require
considerable time and effort to develop trusting
relationships among stakeholders, develop a
common vision, define and restructure roles and
responsibilities, develop novel curricula, and
establish relevant governance structures (e.g.,
Burstein et al., 1999; Epanchin & Wooley-Brown,
1993).
N 56
N Administrators for both PDS and ARC
partnerships must be mindful of governance
structures, collaboration, planning,
implementation, evaluation needs, resource
generation, and management.
N The hard work associated with forming LEA–IHE
partnerships can and should be continuous and
serve multiple teacher preparation and
professional purposes. Equally important, both
general and special education preparation and
professional development can be integrated into
the organizational structure of partnerships
(Epanchin & Colucci, 2002; Heimbecker et al.,
2002).
References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998, October). Professional development
schools: What do we know? What do we need to know? How
do we find out? Who do we tell? Paper presented at the
National Professional Development School
Conference, Baltimore.
Abma, S., Fischetti, J., & Larson, A. (1999). The purpose of
a professional development school is to make a
difference: 10 years of a high school–university
partnership. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 254–262.
Allexsaht-Snider, M., Deegan, J.G., & White, C.S. (1995).
Educational renewal in an alternative teacher
education program: Evolution of a school–university
partnership. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 519–530.
Brownell, M.T., Hirsch, E., & Seo, S. (2004). Meeting the
demand for highly qualified special education teachers
during severe shortages: What should policymakers
consider? Journal of Special Education, 38, 56–61.
Burstein, N.D., & Sears, S. (1998). Preparing on-the-job
teachers for urban schools: Implications for teacher
training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21,
47–62.
Burstein, N., Kretschmer, D., Smith, C., & Gudoski, P.
(1999). Redesigning teacher education as a shared
responsibility of schools and universities. Journal of
Teacher Education, 50, 106–118.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986).
A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century.
Washington, DC: Carnegie Forum on Education and
the Economy.
Clark, R.W. (1999). Effective professional development schools.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). Bright futures for
exceptional learners: An agenda to achieve quality
conditions for teaching and learning. Reston, VA: Author.
deBettencourt, L.U., & Howard, L. (2004). Alternatively
licensing career changers to be teachers in the field of
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
special education: Their first-year reflections.
Exceptionality, 12, 225–238.
Edelen-Smith, P., & Sileo, T.W. (1996). The alternative basic
certification program in special education: In search of
quantity and quality in special education. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 19, 313–330.
Epanchin, B.C., & Colucci, K. (2002). The professional
development school without walls: A partnership
between a university and two school districts. Remedial
and Special Education, 23, 348–358.
Epanchin, B.C., & Wooley-Brown, C. (1993). A university–
school district collaborative project for preparing
paraprofessionals to become special educators. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 16, 110–123.
Esposito, M.C., & Lal, S. (2005). Responding to special
education teacher shortages in diverse urban settings:
An accelerated alternative credential program. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 28, 100–103.
Frazee, B.M., & Frazee, F.F. (2005). Hawthorne Academy:
The university perspective. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10, 165–172.
Goodlad, J.I. (1998). Educational renewal: Better teachers,
better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hardman, M.L., & Mulder, M. (2004). Federal education
reform: Critical issues in public education and their
impact on students with disabilities. In L.M. Bullock, &
R.A. Gable (Eds.). Quality personnel preparation in
emotional/behavioral disorders: Current perspectives and
future directions (pp. 12–36). Denton, TX: Institute for
Behavioral and Learning Differences at the University
of North Texas.
Hardman, M.L., Rosenberg, M., & Sindelar, P. (2005).
NCLB, IDEA, and alternative routes in preparation of
rural special education teachers in high incidence
areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 16–22.
Heimbecker, C., Medina, C., Peterson, P., Redsteer, D., &
Prater, G. (2002). Reaching American Indian special/
elementary educators through a partnership with a
Navajo Nation school district. Remedial and Special
Education, 23, 373–379.
The Holmes Partnership. (2007). The Holmes’ partnership
trilogy: Tomorrow’s teachers, tomorrow’s schools, and
tomorrow’s schools of education. New York: Peter Lang.
Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education. East
Lansing, MI: Author.
Humphrey, D.C., & Wechsler, M.E. (2007). Insights into
alternative certification: Initial findings from a national
study. Teachers College Record, 109, 483–530.
Jenkins, A.A., Pateman, B., & Black, R.S. (2002).
Partnerships for dual preparation in elementary,
secondary, and special education programs. Remedial
and Special Education, 23, 359–371.
Lauer, P.A., Dean, C.B., Martin-Glen, M.L., & Asensio,
M.L. (2005). Teacher quality toolkit (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
School-University Partnerships
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. New York: The
Education Schools Project.
McHatton, P.A., & Daniel, P.L. (2008). Co-teaching at the
preservice level: Special education majors collaborate
with English education majors. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 31, 188–131.
McIntyre, D.J., Byrd, D.M., & Foxx, S.M. (1996). Field and
laboratory experiences. New York: Macmillan.
Menlove, R., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2001, March).
University and school district partners go the distance to
‘‘grow’’ special education teachers in rural communities.
Paper presented at Rural Special Education
Conference, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 453 037).
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE). (2009). What is a professional development
school? Professional development schools. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/ProfessionalDevelopmentSchools/
tabid/497/Default.aspx.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
(1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future.
New York: Author.
Peel, H.A., Peel, B.B., & Baker, M.B. (2002). School/
university partnership: A viable model. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 16,
319–326.
Peters, S. (2002). Inclusive education in accelerated and
professional development schools: A case-based study
of two school reform efforts in the USA. Inclusive
Education, 6(4), 287–308.
Prater, M.A., & Sileo, T.W. (2002). School–university
partnerships in special education field experiences: A
national descriptive study. Remedial and Special
Education, 23, 325–334.
Price, M. (2005). Promoting linkages: Partnerships between
schools and higher education. Syracuse, NY: New York
Higher Education Support Center for Systems Change
at Syracuse University.
Pritchard, F., & Ancess, J. (1999). The effects of professional
development schools: A literature review. Washington,
DC: National Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching, Retrieved from http://
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno5
ED448155.
Rosenberg, M.S., Boyer, K.L., Sindelar, P.T., & Misra, S.K.
(2007). Alternative route programs for certification in
special education: Program infrastructure,
instructional delivery, and participant characteristics.
Exceptional Children, 73, 224–241.
Rosenberg, M.S., Brownell, M., McCray, E.D.,
deBettencourt, L.U., Leko, M., & Long, S. (2009).
Development and Sustainability of School–University
Partnerships in Special Education Teacher
Preparation: A Critical Review of the Literature (NCIPP
Document No. RS-3). Gainesville, FL: University of
57 N
 School-University Partnerships
N N
Florida, National Center to Inform Policy and Practice
in Special Education Professional Development.
Rosenberg, M.S., & Sindelar, P.T. (2005). The proliferation
of alternative routes to certification in special
education: A critical review of the literature. The
Journal of Special Education, 39, 117–127.
Rosenberg, M.S., & Rock, E.E. (1994). Alternative
certification in special education: Efficacy of a
collaborative, field-based teacher preparation
program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17,
141–153.
Rowlinson, T. (2006). Meeting the needs for special
education teachers in New Mexico. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 25, 13–40.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2001). Special education and the
Holmes Agenda for teacher education reform. Theory
into Practice, 29, 55–60.
Simpson, E.S., Yocum, D.J., & Blum, H.T. (2005). The
Wyoming collaborative mentorship academy: A field-
based program for certifying fully qualified special
education teachers in a rural state. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 24, 11–17.
Sindelar, P.T., Daunic, A., & Rennells, M.S. (2004).
Comparison of traditionally and alternatively trained
teachers. Exceptionality, 12, 209–223.
Sobel, D., French, N., & Filbin, J. (1998). A partnership to
promote teacher preparation for inclusive, urban
schools: Our voices. Teaching and Teaching Education,
14, 793–806.
Stephens, D., & Boldt, G. (2004). School/university
partnerships: Rhetoric, reality, and intimacy. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(9), 703–707.
Taylor, S.V., & Sobel, D.M. (2003). Rich contexts to
emphasize social justice in teacher education:
Curriculum and pedagogy in professional development
schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36, 249–258.
Teitel, L. (1998). Professional development schools: A
literature review. In M. Levine (Ed.), Designing
standards that work for professional development schools
(pp. 33–80). Washington DC: PDS Standards Project,
NCATE.
Tyler, N., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Flippin, S.
(2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity and the special
education workforce: A critical overview. The Journal of
Special Education, 38, 22–38.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Meeting the highly
qualified teacher challenge: The secretary’s fourth annual
report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.
N 58
Valli, L., Cooper, D., & Frankes, L. (1997). Professional
development schools and equity: A critical analysis of
rhetoric and research. Review of Research in Education,
22, 251–304.
Walters, S., & Pritchard, F. The complexity of partnering:
A case study of two middle school professional
development schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 74,
58–70.
About the Authors
Erica D. McCray, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in
the School of Special Education, School Psychology,
and Early Childhood Studies at the University of
Florida, Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611. Email:
edm@coe.ufl.edu.
Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D., is the Irving and Rose Fien
Endowed Professor of Education in the School of
Special Education, School Psychology, and Early
Childhood Studies, University of Florida, Norman
Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611. Email:
mbrownell@coe.ufl.edu.
Michael S. Rosenberg, Ph.D., is Professor of Special
Education and Associate Dean for Research, College
of Education, Johns Hopkins University, Education
Building, 2800 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD
21218. Email: mrose@jhu.edu.
Laurie U. deBettencourt, Ph.D., is Professor and
Chair of the Special Education Department, School of
Education, Johns Hopkins University, 2800 N.
Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218. Email:
deBetten@jhu.edu.
Melinda M. Leko, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor,
Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special
Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1000
Bascom Mall, Rm. 409, Madison, WI 53706. Email:
leko@wisc.edu.
Susanne K. Long, M.Ed., is a School Psychology
Doctoral Candidate, School of Special Education,
School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies,
University of Florida, Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL
32611. Email: slonguf@gmail.com.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
 CASE IN POINT:
Providing a Full Circle of Support to Teachers in
an Inclusive Elementary School
N
Nancy L. Waldron, Ph.D.
University of Florida
P roviding a full circle of support to teachers in an
inclusive elementary school, the Newberry
Elementary School (NES) principal and staff have
worked for 5 years to ensure the inclusion of students
with disabilities in general education classrooms.
Effective inclusive practices require a school vision
focused on meeting the needs of all students, along with
attention to improving teacher practice by addressing
the professional development needs of individual
teachers. The articles in this special issue address
critical topics to building and maintaining a system of
support for special education teachers and thus
improving achievement outcomes for students. This
system of support must reflect and actively embody the
importance of professional learning communities,
learner-centered professional development, co-teaching
and teaming, and university–school partnerships. At
the nexus is the critical role that building principals play
in building and managing these systems of support.
We would like to share our perceptions of how
this full circle (the multiple systems) of support
operates within an inclusive setting at NES. Although
the complexity of this task cannot be overstated, we
find it helpful to focus our discussion on three critical
features that affect the daily work of teachers,
administrators, and staff within an inclusive school:
(a) partnerships for preparing the next generation of
teachers, (b) building school capacity, and (c)
focusing the role of the building principal on effective
instruction and student outcomes.
Partnerships for Preparing the Next
Generation of Teachers
Our efforts to become an effective, inclusive school
began with a school–university partnership, which
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Lacy Redd, Ed.S.
Newberry Elementary, Alachua County Schools
reflects many of the features of these partnerships
that are highlighted in the article by McCray and
colleagues in this special issue. In recognizing that we
needed to improve student achievement, particularly
for our lowest achieving students, it was important to
seek out new ideas and enhance the resources
available for meeting the needs of students, teachers,
and the school as a whole. The school–university
partnership provided a specific venue and dedicated
time to analyze and reflect on instructional practices
in relation to evidence-based practices and research,
as well as a host of potential resources in partnering
with the university to provide field experiences to
preservice teachers in general and special education.
Preservice teachers are placed at NES each
semester and serve as an important resource for
classroom teachers. In many schools the selection of
supervising teachers is done largely based on
individual volunteers. In contrast, at NES we view
placement of preservice teachers from a whole school
perspective and as a critical classroom resource.
Placements are done each semester with an eye
toward student numbers and needs and enhancing
classroom resources for teachers. This is especially
important in co-taught classrooms that include
students with disabilities.
..........................................
By supporting the preparation of preservice
teachers we can contribute to inclusion moving
forward in the future—both at our school and other
schools.
While meeting the schools’ student and teacher
needs, our school–university partnership has also
59 N
 Case in Point
N N
resulted in reciprocal benefits (similar to those
addressed by McCray and colleagues) to the
university teacher preparation programs. Our
teaching staff is invested in preparing future
educators who have worked in inclusive classrooms
and thus have seen inclusion work and believe in it.
By supporting the preparation of preservice teachers
we can contribute to inclusion moving forward in the
future—both at our school and other schools.
One of the most exciting by-products of the
school–university partnership is how it has
contributed to the on-going professional
development of supervising teachers. A professional
expectation has been established within the school
that preservice and supervising teachers will attend
training opportunities together. This has served to
create powerful dialogue regarding instruction
between supervising and preservice teachers and has
also resulted in improved implementation of effective
instructional practices. The benefits of these shared
opportunities are evident for both supervising and
preservice teachers.
The special education teachers at NES also take an
active role in preparing the preservice teachers who are
frequently placed in co-taught inclusive classrooms. A
number of professional development opportunities for
the preservice teachers are conducted by our special
education teachers to increase knowledge and
awareness of student accommodations, effective
instructional and intervention practices, assistive
technology, and regulations for special education
supports and services.
..........................................
PLCs have served as a forum at NES to highlight the
skills of less experienced teachers and provide an
opportunity for these teachers to begin to take on
leadership roles. … especially in areas such as using
technology in the classroom…
As the university–school partnership has
developed over the course of a number of years, it has
become a critical resource to teachers, instructional
support personnel, and the principal and has made
many contributions as we have built school capacity
at NES. These contributions relate to the development
of our professional learning community (PLC) and
the delivery of high-quality professional
N 60
development to our teachers. Both of these topics are
addressed in the next section.
Building School Capacity
Supporting teachers to gain the knowledge, skills,
and experience needed to improve their instructional
practice and student achievement is the cornerstone
to building overall school capacity. A central feature
of this support at NES is our PLCs and the many
benefits that come with PLCs that were described
previously by Blanton and Perez. Developing PLCs
provides opportunities for teachers to take control of
their own learning and also results in a cadre of
experts within the school. Although everyone in the
school participates, PLCs are particularly beneficial
for less experienced teachers. These teachers learn
valuable skills from engaging with experienced
teachers in professional learning activities organized
around a designated topic or instructional practice.
Some of the topics addressed through PLCs have
been inclusive practices, writing instruction,
formative assessment, and improving instruction for
students with attentional issues.
It is important to note that PLCs have served as a
forum at NES to highlight the skills of less
experienced teachers and provide an opportunity for
these teachers to begin to take on leadership roles.
Many times we have observed PLCs and professional
development activities when less experienced
teachers are able to contribute and receive
acknowledgment through this learning process.
These teachers often have knowledge and skills that
experienced teachers do not, especially in areas such
as using technology in the classroom to enhance
instruction, contributing information regarding a
newly developed resource that benefits others, or
displaying a willingness to try a different
instructional strategy. At NES, the recognition
provided to both novice and experienced teachers
through involvement in PLCs reinforces the
perspective that everyone needs to keep learning, and
value is placed on everyone’s contributions to the
students, their classrooms, and the school.
Another critical factor in building school capacity
relates to engaging teachers in high-quality, job-
embedded professional development, similar to the
learner-centered professional development described
by McLeskey in this special issue. For example, it has
not proven very effective for the adoption of new
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
practices when teachers go some distance away from
the school for expert-centered professional
development and only a small group of teachers
participate. In contrast, having a focused professional
development plan and preparing all teachers in the
school on the same topic results in a much higher
implementation rate for new practices. This approach
also creates a buzz of excitement because of the
numerous, natural opportunities for shared learning,
teacher dialogue, observation of practice, and peer
coaching.
Another avenue to building school capacity is the
prevalence of co-teaching, which benefits us at NES
in many ways that are described by Pugach and
Winn in this special issue. Although special
education teachers are always involved in co-
teaching, many of our less experienced general
education teachers volunteer to be a co-teacher in
inclusive classrooms. Participation in co-teaching is
an excellent foundation for these less experienced
teachers as they collaboratively share ideas and learn
new skills. Furthermore, the dynamic of sharing
instructional delivery in these classrooms has
frequently provided teachers with the opportunity to
become more public and reflective regarding their
practice and has led to many of these teachers
assuming leadership roles at NES.
Focusing the Principal’s Role
As Correa and Wagner noted in this special issue,
none of the structures and practices that have been
described in this commentary could occur in a
meaningful and sustained way unless the building
principal is engaged in creating a culture of shared
expectations. At the forefront of these expectations is
the on-going improvement of instruction for all
students, coupled with support to teachers to
improve their practice. In fact, the principal must
become the ‘‘keeper of the vision’’ regarding
inclusive practices that result in positive achievement
outcomes for all students, while continually prodding
teachers to take the next steps toward improving
their instruction. The school culture that is created
becomes one of shared learning, collaborative
support, and the expectation that all teachers will be
actively engaged, both individually and
collaboratively, in instructional improvement.
At NES, taking a hands-on approach to supervising
and mentoring less experienced teachers is a critical
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Case in Point
role for the building principal. The principal’s
interactions with these teachers and the expectation of
mentoring for all teachers must occur seamlessly
within the school. In addition, it is important that the
principal as an instructional leader ‘‘walk the talk’’;
that is, teachers must be able to see in a principal what
is expected of them. One way of doing this is for the
principal to be actively engaged as a member of the
school’s PLCs, participating in learning activities and
becoming part of the learning community. This is
particularly important in an inclusive school when
PLC topics are connected to improving instruction in
classrooms that include students with disabilities, and,
unfortunately, all too many principals have limited
knowledge regarding special education.
..........................................
In fact, the principal must become the ‘‘keeper of
the vision’’ regarding inclusive practices that result
in positive achievement outcomes for all
students.…
As anyone in a leadership role is well aware, the
roles that a principal must assume are complex and
interrelated. What we have described here is only a
quick summary of several key aspects of this role.
What has become clear at NES is that a key to
implementing many of the practices that we have
described is the active engagement of the principal as
a learner and contributor to the learning of others.
This helps all to see the principal’s role
operationalized as one that helps make connections
for teachers and supports them in improving their
practice. Thus, the active involvement of the principal
serves to lay the foundation for a school culture that
improves outcomes for all students.
About the Authors
Nancy Waldron, Ph.D., is an associate professor in
the School of Special Education, School Psychology,
& Early Childhood Studies at the University of
Florida, 1412 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-
mail: waldron@coe.ufl.edu.
Lacy Redd, Ed.S., is principal at Newberry
Elementary School, School Board of Alachua County,
25705 Southwest 15th Avenue, Newberry, FL 32669-
2554. E-mail: reddla@gm.sbac.edu.
61 N
 CASE IN POINT:
Induction at the Secondary Level: A Focus on
Content, Pedagogy, and a School’s Best Teachers
N
Daniel J. Donder, Ph.D.
Riverside University High School, Milwaukee Public Schools
T his special issue of The Journal of Special Education
Leadership is most timely. The role of the school
administrator as an instructional leader has had a
long history. However, today this role is more
important than ever as high stakes testing has
increased the level of accountability for all
educators. Districts across the country be they urban,
suburban, or rural are scraping for every dollar and
at the same time many superintendents are
pledging, ‘‘The classroom is the most important
place in the district.’’ To this end, all classrooms
need to be staffed by highly qualified teachers, who
know their curricular content and, just as important,
have the pedagogical skills to teach so that all
students learn to their fullest potential. As a public
high school principal in a large urban district, I have
experienced over the many years of my career that,
to attract and retain high-quality teachers, a
comprehensive induction plan needs to be in place.
This induction plan must include district and school
policies and procedures; however, the focus
throughout the year must be on teaching and
learning. The development of the induction plan
should include input from newly hired teachers who
are experiencing the joys and frustrations of the first
years of teaching.
In addition, secondary school administrators
must be able to count on institutions of higher
education to provide school districts with newly
trained special and regular education teachers who
have the academic content knowledge and
pedagogical skills to ensure that all students learn to
their highest potential. Unfortunately, at the high
school level this is not always the case. Many
secondary school principals feel that newly hired
N 62
regular education teachers, and our veteran regular
education teachers as well, often have a moderate to
excellent understanding of the curriculum content to
be taught. However, more often than not, high school
regular education teachers fail to have adequate
pedagogical knowledge and expertise to meet the
diverse educational needs and learning styles of their
students. Unfortunately, at the high school level,
special education teachers who educate high-
incidence students according to district/state
academic standards tend to have neither the content
knowledge to successfully co-teach or independently
teach a rigorous high school curriculum (especially in
mathematics and science courses) nor the
pedagogical skills necessary to co-teach and/or teach
academic content effectively in a self-contained
classroom with diverse learners.
..........................................
In addition to co-teaching, new teachers need to be
able to spend time in our most successful
classrooms for observation and reflection.… who
better to teach novice teachers than those with the
best skills in the same school with the same
students?
Even though the data-based research on co-
teaching is limited, it does indicate that there are
benefits for both the special education and regular
education teachers, especially when the co-teachers
are personally compatible. As Pugach and Winn
note, co-teaching is an excellent opportunity for on-
going induction. In addition to co-teaching, new
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011

N N
teachers need to be able to spend time in our most
successful classrooms for observation and
reflection. If the new special education teacher
focuses on one or two academic areas, this novice
teacher should spend time in the classrooms of the
most talented teachers in those content areas.
Special education teachers must spend time in our
successful special education classrooms as well.
After all, who better to teach novice teachers than
those with the best skills in the same school with
the same students?
Among the benefits of university–school
partnerships as described by McCray et al. in this
issue, they are an ideal venue for having challenging
conversations regarding the relationship between
content and pedagogy. For example, at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, university and school
district staff have been working closely through a
grant to develop systems for improving the content
knowledge and pedagogy by focusing on the concept
of pedagogical content knowledge (Ball, Thames, &
Phelps, 2008), not only for students in the School of
Education but also for practicing teachers and
professors in education and in the arts and sciences as
well. Special education teachers must have the
content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge,
and pedagogical skills to be able to teach rigorous
and relevant high school courses either
independently in special education classroom
settings or in a co-teaching model.
..........................................
… at the high school level many special education
teachers do not have the academic preparation
needed to have the content knowledge necessary
to provide rigorous curricula either in co-teaching
in a regular education classroom or in a self-
contained special education classroom.
The need for on-going professional development
of all teachers is critical if we are to meet the ever-
changing academic and learning needs of
contemporary students in a global community. The
era of expert-centered ‘‘drive-by’’ professional
development described by McLeskey, with little
expectation of implementation and reflection, has not
proven to be effective, so continuing this approach is
not defensible. With limited financial resources and
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Case in Point
limited professional development time at the high
school level, it is critical that professional
development meet the needs of the teachers and have
a significant impact on the quality of teaching and
learning taking place in the classroom. Professional
development that is determined in a collaborative
approach as part of a fully functioning professional
learning community, described in the Blanton and
Perez article, is what teachers and principals should
want. In addition, learner-centered professional
development is essential for both special and regular
education teachers alike in the context of a strong
professional school community.
A principal’s facilitative and collaborative
approach to professional development, with teacher
leaders determining what their professional
development needs are and how they are to be
provided, is critical. As noted by Blanton and Perez,
teachers should participate in professional
development with their colleagues who have similar
interests, knowledge, and needs. This new
knowledge base should be used in their classrooms
immediately, with teachers receiving support in their
classrooms from administrators and most important
from teacher mentors, or coaches, as they implement
these new strategies. Teacher reflection also needs to
take place for improved practice to become part of the
teaching and learning process. Research needs to
continue to determine not only the effectiveness of
learning-centered professional development in
changing teacher practices, as described by
McLeskey, but most important what impact learning-
centered professional development has on student
learning. Further, the use of action research would be
an excellent opportunity for teachers themselves to
monitor whether their new pedagogy is having any
effect on student learning. That way, student
performance data will be considered when
developing future topics for profession development.
..........................................
How can a special educator co-teach algebra if he
or she is lacking algebraic skills, is uncomfortable
with algebra, and has limited ways to present the
content of algebra?
Although several articles in this special issue
highlight some of the most important components of
professional development for new special educators,
63 N
 Case in Point
N N
what is not addressed sufficiently, unfortunately, is
the fundamental need for special education teachers
to be directly involved in on-going professional
development pertaining to academic content. As
noted previously, at the high school level many
special education teachers do not have the academic
preparation needed to have the content knowledge
necessary to provide rigorous curricula either in co-
teaching in a regular education classroom or in a self-
contained special education classroom.
Ultimately, what should induction for special
education teachers look like? It should model that of
their regular education counterparts. A high-quality
teacher induction program should include
opportunities to gain knowledge regarding district
and building operations and procedures but must
focus primarily on curriculum content and pedagogy,
as suggested by Correa and Wagner. Special
educators, who are fortunate enough to be in co-
teaching or team settings, as outlined by Pugach and
Winn, will need to have developed skills during
preservice preparation as to how to be a co-teacher.
Special educators also will need to have available to
them the opportunity to learn in depth the academic
content areas that they are responsible for teaching
and the relevant pedagogical content knowledge to
do so. How can a special educator co-teach algebra if
he or she is lacking algebraic skills, is uncomfortable
with algebra, and has limited ways to present the
content of algebra? Likewise, how would this teacher
N 64
be able to teach in a self-contained algebra class,
whose students deserve the same level of teaching?
Developing emerging skills or supporting the
mastery of new skills is important for all teachers but
especially for those who are new to teaching or who
have entered the profession with limited preparation.
A logical place to start is to give all new teachers the
opportunity, over a period of time, to observe and
learn from the best. When we use our most effective
teachers, those who blend a rigorous content with
engaging pedagogy with ease, as positive role models
and coaches, we multiply new teachers’ skill levels
and help improve their teaching. In addition, we
show our best teachers that we value their skills and
want to have them become well-respected teacher
leaders of our schools.
Reference
Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content
knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal
of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407. doi: 10.1177/
0022487108324554
About the Author
Daniel J. Donder, Ph.D., is principal at Riverside
University High School, Milwaukee Public Schools,
1615 E. Locust Street, Milwaukee, WI 53211. E-mail:
donderdj@milwaukee.k12.wi.us.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
 AUTHOR GUIDELINES:
Journal of Special Education Leadership
Journal Guidelines
The Journal of the Council for Administrators of
Special Education
A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
N
Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., Editor
N
The Editorial Mission
T he primary goal of Journal of Special Education
Leadership is to provide both practicing
administrators and researchers of special education
administration and policy with relevant tools and
sources of information based on recent advances in
administrative theory, research, and practice. Journal
of Special Education Leadership is a journal
dedicated to issues in special education
administration, leadership, and policy. Journal of
Special Education Leadership is a refereed journal
that directly supports CASE’s main objectives, which
are to foster research, learning, teaching, and practice
in the field of special education administration and to
encourage the extension of special education
administration knowledge to other fields. Articles for
Journal of Special Education Leadership should
enhance knowledge about the process of managing
special education service delivery systems, as well as
reflect on techniques, trends, and issues growing out
of research on special education that is significant.
Preference will be given to articles that have a broad
appeal, wide applicability, and immediate usefulness
to administrators, other practitioners, and
researchers.
Manuscript Guidelines and
Editorial Policies
Journal of Special Education Leadership, published
by the Council for Administrators of Special
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Education, seeks articles that capture an
administrator’s attention by providing useful
information that stimulates new ways of thinking
about managing and leading. Only articles that have
been validated and accompanied by accepted theory,
research, or practice are sought.
The goals for Journal of Special Education
Leadership are:
1. To provide fresh ideas and perspectives grounded
in recent advances in administrative theory and
research, on contemporary issues that
administrators must face.
2. To become a primary source of useful ideas for
those who seek to educate present and future
administrators of special education programs.
3. To become a forum through which practicing
administrators of special education programs can
challenge the meaningfulness of translations of
administrative theory and research.
Contributors for each issue will include practicing
administrators, researchers, policymakers, or others
interested in special education administration. The
purpose of this arrangement is to encourage
interaction among individuals within those roles in
developing articles. Interactions may include any of
the following: a jointly authored manuscript, an
interview preceded or followed by commentary
written by the interviewer, and a follow-up article
that is specifically linked to the theory and/or
research article that provides examples from the field
and implications for administrators in similar
situations.
65 N
N N
A typical article might begin with either a brief
case illustrating the primary theme, or posing certain
questions and issues that special education
administrators need to address. A typical article will
also satisfy the academic reader who seeks more than
just opinions and wants to see a serious effort at
connecting ideas to accepted theory and research.
With respect to style and format, manuscripts
should:
{ Be accompanied by a letter signed by the author(s),
{ Have a separate title page that identifies the
authors (the names(s) of the author(s) should not
appear anywhere on the manuscript, except on the
title page),
{ Be written in clear, straightforward language,
avoiding jargon and technical terms,
{ Conform to APA format (see Appendix B of APA
Publication Manual, 6th edition, 2010), particularly:
Entire manuscript is double spaced, with
margins.
All pages are numbered in sequence, starting
with the title page.
All references in text are listed and in
complete agreement with text citations.
All author identification information, including
professional title and affiliation, address, and
phone number, is on the title page only.
Cover letter states the manuscript is original,
not previously published, and not under
consideration elsewhere.
{ Include at the beginning an Executive Overview in
lieu of an abstract consisting of 3–5 bulleted major
points made in the article,
{ Use subheadings but not the traditional ones such
as ‘‘Introduction’’; use, instead, ‘‘The Future
Challenge’’ or ‘‘Do Seamless Delivery Systems
have a Future?’’
{ For the purpose of documentation, cite notes in the
body of the paper using superscript note numbers,
{ Include a biographical sketch of each author that
includes name, title, place of employment address,
and email address.
{ Be double-spaced and no more than 20–25 pages in
length, including figures. When questions arise
regarding issues of grammar or style, authors should
refer to the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association, 6th edition, 2010.
Authors are encouraged to get feedback from
colleagues and practitioners on early drafts. A paper
can be improved dramatically when knowledgeable
N 66
reviewers are asked for reactions in advance of
submission.
Journal of Special Education Leadership is
published two times per year. The issues vary with some
being thematic. Each issue includes 4–5 articles and 1–2
administrative briefs/technical notes/commentaries.
Review Process
Selection of manuscripts for publication is based on a
blind peer review process. However, all manuscripts
are screened first by the editor. Those manuscripts
that do not meet the manuscript requirements, or that
are not consistent with the purpose of the journal, are
not forwarded for peer review. The author is either
notified that the manuscript is not acceptable for
Journal of Special Education Leadership, or is
requested to make changes in the manuscript so that
it meets requirements. Copies of the manuscript are
not returned to the author in either case.
Manuscripts that are consistent with the purpose
of the journal are sent out electronically for peer review.
Reviewers will not know the identity of the author.
Based on the blind reviews, the Journal of Special
Education Leadership editor will communicate the
results of that review to the author. The decision that
is communicated to the author will be one of the
following:
{ Acceptable, with routine editing
{ Acceptable, with revisions indicated by editor
{ Unacceptable
When a decision is made that a manuscript is
unacceptable for Journal of Special Education
Leadership, it may be recommended that it be sent to
a journal of one of the CEC Divisions. This
recommendation does not mean that the manuscript
would be automatically accepted by a Division
journal; the manuscript would have to go through the
review process again.
Author Responsibilities Following
Publication Acceptance
After a manuscript is accepted for publication in
Journal of Special Education Leadership, the author
is responsible for completing, the following:
{ Obtaining publication clearance, if needed, for a
manuscript first presented at a professional meeting,
{ Acknowledging the funding agency for supported
research.
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
N N
{ Verifying the authenticity of all quoted material
and citations and for obtaining permission from
the original source for quotes in excess of 150
words or for tables or figures reproduced from
published works.
{ Preparing camera-ready copies of all figures
included in the article.
{ Assigning literary rights to CASE by signing a
Copyright transfer Agreement.
{ Sending an electronic copy of the revised
manuscript to Journal of Special Education
Leadership’s Editorial Office.
{ Sending one full copy and one blind copy of the
manuscript to the Editorial Office via email if
possible to jsel@educ.umass.edu, or send on a CD-
Rom, with the document saved in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, or Adobe Acrobat.
Author Checklist
Before sending a manuscript for review, please
complete the Author Checklist below. This will help
ensure that your manuscript is not screened out or
returned before review.
{ Manuscript is consistent with the purpose of the
journal.
{ Manuscript is no longer than 20–25 pages total.
{ Manuscript conforms to APA format (see APA
Publication Manual, 6th edition, 2010).
{ Cover letter states that the manuscript is original
and not previously published, all authors have
given consent to submit the manuscript to the
Journal of Special Education Leadership, and the
manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere
{ The cover letter also indicates if the data from this
manuscript are part of a larger study or if any part
of the data has been included in another
manuscript. The cover letter must provide a full
explanation if either of these situations exist.
If all of these items are met, submit your material
via email to jsel@educ.umass.edu. If you are unable to
email your material you may send a CD with 2 copies of
the manuscript, one full copy and one blind copy, to:
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
Journal of Special Education Leadership
175 Hills-South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
jsel@educ.umass.edu
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 24(1) N March 2011
Acknowledgment of receipt of your manuscript
will be sent to you within 2 weeks. Review of your
manuscript will occur within 8 weeks.
Subscriptions
Journal of Special Education Leadership is published
by the Council of Administrators of Special
Education. Copy requests should be made to CASE,
Osigian Office Centre, 101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E,
Warner Robbins, GA 31088. Single copies may be
purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be
purchased at a reduced rate. Members receive a copy
of Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of
their membership fee. Subscription form is found on
the back cover of the journal.
Advertising
Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer
advertising for employment opportunities,
conference announcements, and those wishing to
market educational and administrative publications,
products, materials, and services. Please contact the
editor for advertising rates.
Copyright
The Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal
for professionals in the field of special education
administration, is published by the Council of
Administrators of Special Education to foster the
general advancement of research, learning, teaching,
and practice in the field of special education
administration. The Council of Administrators of
Special Education retains literary property rights on
copyrighted articles. Any signed article is the personal
expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is
the responsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily
carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth
by adopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this
journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution
without permission from the publisher.
Permissions
Journal of Special Education Leadership allows
copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes
without permission or charge by the publisher. For
information on permission to quote, reprint, or
translate material, please write or email the editor.
March 9, 2011.
67 N
N N

Notes

N
N 68