Preparing Teachers for Urban Students Who Have Been Labeled as Having Special Needs

Abstract

Preparing teachers to work in urban public schools -and to remain there -is a daunting challenge. In an age plagued with the overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students placed in special education programs, it is important that teacher preparation programs within the field of special education devote attention to the devastating effects of deficit thinking. The current focus on the achievement gap and poor graduation rates has highlighted the challenges facing urban schools and their teachers in our nation. Many colleges and universities have ill-prepared or unprepared to work with CLD students in general and special education. This article discusses how teachers and service providers can be prepared to work with urban children and youth with and without special needs.

Collective Teacher Efficacy and Culturally Responsive Teaching Efficacy of Inservice Special Education Teachers in the United States

“…The assumptions of interface between CTE and CRT are particularly relevant to understanding improvement in students' learning outcomes in general and special education. In addition, research has revealed that teachers in urban settings may garner a low sense of efficacy as a result of challenges faced in such environments (Bank et al, 2013;Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). As the majority of CLD students are educated in urban schools (Jacob, 2007), this study extends the existing literature on CTE by examining efficacy beliefs of urban special education teachers, a population that has not yet been investigated.…”

“…However, the majority of teachers who work with students with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) communities receive limited preparation on effective instruction for this population, leading teachers to question their ability to improve learning for these students (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008;Muller, Singer, & Carranza, 2006;Paneque & Barbetta, 2006). When special education teachers do not feel well prepared to provide culturally/ linguistically responsive instruction (e.g., Muller et al, 2006), they may be more likely to select instructional strategies based on students' disabilityrelated needs with little consideration of students' sociocultural and/or linguistic backgrounds (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004;Bank, Obiakor, & Algozzine, 2013;Garcia & Ortiz, 2008, 2013. This low teaching efficacy (personal teaching efficacy or self-efficacy, as well as outcome expectancy or teaching efficacy) is a concern because teachers with low efficacy are likely to be reluctant to try different ways to respond to unique needs for students with special needs (Accardo, Finnegan, Gulkus, & Papay, 2017;Chu, 2011;Chu & García, 2014;Hartmann, 2012;Woodcock & Vialle, 2010).…”

“…Urban schools are characterized as those serving students in large central cities, who represent diverse ethnic/cultural identities, tend to be from low-income families/ communities, may have limited proficiency in English, and who exhibit low academic performance (Foote, 2005;Jacob, 2007). Teacher attrition is also challenging within urban school settings which contributes to a student achievement gap, placing an imperative to adequately prepare all teachers, including special educators, to meet the students' diverse learning needs (Bank et al, 2013;Borman & Dowling, 2008;Darling-Hammond, 2003). Therefore, research is urgently needed on individual and collective teaching efficacy in general, and in particular, for teachers who serve students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds.…”