Preparing General Educators to Work Well with Students Who Have Disabilities: What's Reasonable at the Preservice Level?

Abstract

The restructured teacher education program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is described specifically with regard to its commitment to prepare general educators to work effectively and responsibly with students with disabilities. Background information is provided about the program, including the features that support a strong relationship between special and general educators. The authors discuss reasonable outcomes for initial teachers in general education and highlight some of the challenges in program implementation. ALISON FORD, Ph.D., is associate professor of special education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. MARLEEN C. PUGACH, Ph.D., is professor of teacher education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. AMY OTIS-WILBORN, Ph.D., is associate professor of special education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. As the result of a grass-roots teacher education reform effort, preservice teacher preparation for the primary/middle grades at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has been restructured as a collaborative partnership between special and regular education faculty. The genesis of this work has been documented in detail elsewhere (Hains et al., 1997; Otis-Wilborn & Pugach, in press; Pugach, Winn, Ford, & Jett-Simpson, 1997). In short, we scrapped the longstanding traditional structure of our programs, created a set of shared core values and design principles focused on preparing teachers for urban schools, and now have five years' experience implementing a restructured preservice program predicated on these core commitments. Chief among them is that our graduates in the primary/ middle level program in general education will embrace their responsibilities to work with students with disabilities in urban schools and be well prepared to do so by the time they complete their preservice experience.The purpose of this article is to describe our program redesign efforts specifically with regard to our commitment to prepare general educators to work effectively and responsibly with students with disabilities. We begin by providing some background information about our restructured teacher education program, including a brief discussion of features that support a strong relationship between special and general educators. We follow this with what we propose as reasonable outcomes for our general education graduates. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges we face in implementation and the impact we expect this program will have on the preparation of special educators. BackgroundThrough a process of extensive recursive dialogue among faculty and community members, we began the restructuring process with consensus on seven core values. These shared core values became the anchor for our ongoing decision making and resultant program called Volume 24, Fall 2001 275 Sage Publications, Inc.

Demographic differences in changing pre‐service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education

“…It has been posited that a process of affirmative and rewarding personal engagement with people with disabilities is most likely to continue the furtherance of inclusivity (Forlin, 2006). Initial findings from institutions who have been attempting to implement such an approach have been very positive (Ford et al, 2001;Campbell Pre-service training for inclusion 207 et al, 2003;Carroll et al, 2003;Forlin, 2003). Training courses that offer these opportunities are to be highly recommended.…”

“…The initial attitudes of pre-service teachers are, hence, considered critical to the success of inclusion (Wilczenski, 1992) with preservice teacher education being viewed as the principal vehicle to ensuring teachers acquire the appropriate attitudes and skills to enable inclusion to be successful . One of the most effective ways of doing this has been found to combine formal lessons with direct contact with people with disabilities (Ford et al, 2001;Campbell et al, 2003;Carroll et al, 2003;Forlin, 2003), although there is limited empirical evidence to date to identify whether this addresses the needs of all pre-service teachers.…”

Preservice and Early Career Teachers' Attitudes Toward Inclusion, Instructional Accommodations, and Fairness: Three Profiles

“…Such information may be useful to teacher educators as they seek to (a) understand what these teachers bring to inclusion contexts and (b) provide course content and educational experiences that will help teachers develop the knowledge and dispositions that will prepare them to be successful teachers for all students (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002). This includes knowledge of how to provide instruction that meets the needs of a wide range of students, how to access and effectively manage resources (e.g., time, special education expertise), and a strong commitment to teaching students with disabilities (Ford, Pugach, & Otis-Wilborn, 2002).…”

Construction de la notion d’« élève à besoins éducatifs particuliers » par de jeunes enseignants durant leur première année de pratique professionnelle : du sens individuel au sens collectif

“…Dans le cas des jeunes enseignants ayant participé à cette recherche, la formation initiale dans le domaine de la prise en charge des élèves ayant des besoins éducatifs particuliers n'a visiblement pas réussi à ébranler la vision individuelle et médicale adoptée relativement spontanément par les futurs enseignants (Ford, Pugach et Otis-Wilborn, 2001 ;Jordan, Schwartz et McGhie-Richmond, 2009 Apparue dans un contexte sociohistorique complexe, l'articulation entre ces deux approches n'implique pas que l'une se soit substituée à l'autre, bien au contraire. La question du sens ne semble ainsi pas pouvoir être traitée séparément de l'histoire collective du moment que, comme l'affirme Plaisance (2009), « l'histoire de l'éducation destinée aux enfants handicapés ou en grande difficulté est fondamentalement une histoire de séparation par rapport aux circuits réguliers de l'éducation » (p. 13).…”