Critical features of special education teacher preparation: a comparison with general teacher education.

Policy and program decisions involve choices among different ways of preparing teachers. These choices are shrouded in increasingly contentious debates as teacher shortages reach crisis proportions. Yet, research on special education teacher education is almost nonexistent. Findings from comparative research documenting the characteristics of effective teacher education programs can inform these choices, but these findings should be grounded in what we know from previous research in general teacher education. To assist educators, we have analyzed literature in general and special teacher education toward two ends. First, we present a framework, derived from work in general education, for analyzing teacher education programs. Second, we use this framework to analyze practice in teacher education in special education. Specifically, we conducted an exhaustive review of special education program descriptions and evaluations. We conclude by describing steps necessary to improve the special education teacher education research base.

**********

Chronic teacher shortages in special education, as well as concerns about a dwindling teacher workforce in general, have led to a variety of alternative routes to the classroom. The nature of these alternative routes is largely unknown, as is their capacity for ensuring that qualified special education teachers are available to serve students with disabilities (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2001). Moreover, the development of alternative routes comes at a time when teacher education is under fire for its perceived inability to prepare quality teachers.

Critics argue that teacher education programs make no contribution to K-12 student achievement, are not intellectually challenging, and act as deterrents to bright, young people interested in entering the classroom (Finn & Kanstroom, 2000; Walsh, 2001). The federal government recently lent considerable credence to this position. Specifically, the U.S. Secretary of Education, in a highly controversial report (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), claimed that a teacher's verbal ability and subject matter knowledge are key factors in improving student achievement, whereas the role of teacher education is questionable.

Teacher education advocates counter that positive correlations exist between teacher certification status and student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999, 2000; Felter, 1999; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002). For example, Darling-Hammond (1999) reported that states with the highest proportions of certified teachers tended to have the highest National Assessment of Educational Progress scores. Additionally, in a study controlling for student socioeconomic status and school characteristics, Laczko-Kerr and Berliner found that students taught by certified teachers performed significantly better on standardized tests of reading and language arts (but not mathematics) than those taught by undercertified teachers.

Parallel to the debate about certification and teacher quality, a spate of national reform reports have targeted teacher education since the mid-1980s. These include such reports as A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), A Nation Prepared (Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986), Tomorrow's Schools of Education (Holmes Group, 1995), A Call for Change in Teacher Education (National Commission on Excellence in Teacher Education, 1985), and What Matters Most: Teaching and America's Future (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996). Although the recommendations vary, each report focused on the importance of a high-quality teaching force and on the quality of teacher preparation. Valli and Rennert-Ariev's (2000) review of nine of these reports found the strongest consensus for the importance of disciplinary preparation (content) and multicultural emphasis. They also found strong consensus for (a) the use of authentic (i.e., field-based) pedagogy; (b) the existence of a clear programmatic vision; (c) a programmatic emphasis on learning and development, curriculum and assessment, and reflection and inquiry; and (d) the use of performance assessment. Moreover, the reviewers found a consensus (but less support) for emphasis on students with special needs, collaboration, and technology and for the use of professional development schools.

Although the reform reports accept the premise that teacher education makes a difference, the national debate continues because we lack definitive studies about the impact of teacher education on student achievement. Studies demonstrate that teachers with pedagogical and content preparation are better able to engage students in the learning process (Kennedy, 1999; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001), but data generated in most studies are limited to small samples, single institutions, and, often, single courses or programs within an institution (Wilson et al., 2001). Thus, making generalizations about the features of effective teacher education courses or programs is difficult.