Preparing general education teachers for inclusive settings: the role of special education teachers in the professional development school context.

Abstract. Despite the widespread growth of professional development schools (PDS), few reports have examined the professional development school context -- and the role of special educators within these contexts -- as catalysts for the professional growth of inservice and preservice teachers with respect to meeting the needs of students with disabilities. The present study sought to expand the knowledge base in this area by examining the perceptions of special educators in professional development schools regarding their contributions to the preparation of preservice general educators, as well as their perceptions of how the PDS relationship has enhanced their own professional growth.

**********

The professional development school (PDS) concept has been widely implemented by many colleges and schools of education across the country as part of reform efforts designed to improve teacher education and professional practice. According to Teitel (1999), "they have spread like wildfire, with more than 46% of the country's teacher preparation institutions aligning with over 600 PDSs" (p. 6). As described by Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster, and Cobb, PDS relationships are "collaborations between schools and universities that have been created to support the learning of prospective and experienced teachers while simultaneously restructuring schools and schools of education" (1995, p. 87). Likewise, Teitel described professional development schools as "innovative types of school-college partnerships designed to bring about the `simultaneous renewal' of schools and teacher education programs -- restructuring schools for improved student learning and revitalizing the preparation and professional development of experienced educators at the same time" (1999, p. 6).

Professional development schools are conceptualized as learning communities that involve school personnel (i.e., teachers, principals), university faculty, teacher interns, and K-12 students. Through the PDS relationship, teacher interns have the opportunity to develop their pedagogical skills by working under the tutelage of mentor teachers. School personnel grow professionally through interaction with teacher interns, as well as through interaction with university liaisons who support teacher interns and facilitate a variety of professional development activities for inservice teachers. It is believed that all parties in the PDS relationship benefit -- teacher preparation programs are enhanced through ongoing relationships with practicing professionals; K-12 schools and students benefit from inservice teacher professional development and enhanced school reform efforts. Even though the precise nature of PDS relationships varies from setting to setting and evolves over time, the common goal of improving professional practice simultaneously with teacher education is a unifying theme (Metcalf-Turner, 1999; Wesson, Voltz, & Ridley, 1993).

Increased efforts have been undertaken to examine the extent to which professional development schools have accomplished the goals for which they were designed. Although research in this area has been described as "still in its infancy stages" (Cobb, 2000, p. 65), most studies have yielded favorable results. For example, in an analysis of teacher leadership skills, Reinhartz (1999) found that preservice teachers prepared through PDS relationships exceeded their peers prepared through traditional programs in terms of leadership qualities. Likewise, Walling and Lewis (2000) found that preservice teachers prepared through a PDS model compared favorably with peers prepared through a traditional model in terms of professional identity. In a case study of one PDS program, Nierstheimer, Taylor, Lloyd, Moore, and Morrow (2000) analyzed benefits accrued to preservice teachers, inservice teachers, and students in the PDS site and found that all participating groups of stakeholders (e.g., teachers, teacher educators, administrators, preservice teachers) perceived that the PDS relationship had strengthened the quality of education provided to students at the PDS site, as well as enhanced the professional growth of both preservice and inservice teachers working at the site. On a larger scale, Kochan (1999) found that various stakeholders (e.g., teachers, teacher educators, administrators) in professional development schools across the country viewed this model "as having a positive impact on restructuring the education of preservice teachers and preparing them to be successful teachers" (p. 185). In brief, these reports suggest that the PDS concept has great potential.

Despite the widespread growth of professional development schools, however, there is a dearth of research on the professional development school context as a catalyst for the professional growth of inservice and preservice teachers with respect to meeting the needs of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. This is a critical area of need, given the increasingly broad array of students whom classroom teachers must be prepared to serve. According to Fager, Andrews, Shepherd, and Quinn (1993), "The Professional Development School movement and other teacher education reform projects provide a significant opportunity to advance the integration agenda" (p. 57). However, the extent to which this opportunity has been realized is questionable. To date, there has been minimal examination of the potential of professional development schools in this arena, or of the role of special educators within the PDS context in working toward this end.

The present study sought to expand the knowledge base in this area by examining the perceptions of special educators in professional development schools with respect to their contributions to the preparation of preservice general educators, as well as their perceptions of how the PDS relationship has enhanced their own professional growth.

THE CONTEXT

The study took place at nine public schools that were engaged in PDS relationships with a metropolitan university. Most of these relationships had been established for three or more years when the study was conducted. Of the nine participating schools, two were middle schools; the remaining were elementary. Six of the nine schools were a part of a large, metropolitan school district; the remaining were from rural/suburban districts within a 30-mile radius of the university. The six schools from the metropolitan district included minority enrollment of approximately 30%, with approximately 10% of the student population made up of students with disabilities. The remaining rural/suburban schools included minority enrollment of approximately 10%, and approximately a 9% enrollment of students with disabilities.

As a part of the PDS relationship, each school worked with two to six students in a Master's of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program leading to certification in elementary or middle school general education. No special education teacher interns were assigned. MAT students were assigned to general education classes in PDS schools for both fall and spring semesters of their final year in the program. Each MAT student worked in the classrooms of mentor teachers who guided their professional development. In addition, a university liaison with a background in elementary or middle school general education was assigned to each school to provide feedback to MAT students and coordinate other PDS activities designed for preservice and inservice teachers. Special educators at the professional development schools did not play a formally assigned role in mentoring MAT students, nor did they interact with university liaisons in any formally articulated manner.

METHODS

Participants

All the special education teachers (N = 38) at each of the nine professional development schools were invited by letter to participate in the study. Twenty-four (63.2%) consented to participate. Of these, 22 served students with learning disabilities as well as students with other high-incidence disabilities, such as mild mental retardation and emotional/behavioral disorders. The remaining two teachers served students with low-incidence disabilities, including sensory impairments and physical disabilities. The majority (66.7%) of the teachers taught in resource or collaborative models, as opposed to self-contained special education settings. Other teacher demographic information is shown in Table 1.

Data Collection

Interviews of approximately 30 minutes were conducted with each participating teacher. The following questions were used:

1. Were you aware that (name of school) is a professional development school in collaboration with the university?

2. What do you think it means to be a "professional development school"?

3. To what extent have you worked with MAT students placed at (name of school)? What has been the nature of your interactions with these students?

4. In what ways, other than those mentioned, do you think MAT students SHOULD work with special education teachers in order to better prepare them to teach students with disabilities in regular classes? What barriers, if any, do you see to this happening?

5. In what ways, if any, has being a teacher in a professional development school contributed to your own professional growth? In what other ways -- and by what means -- do you think your professional development COULD be enhanced by your school's participation as a professional development school?

6. What impact, if any, do you think being a professional development school has had on students at (name of school)?

7. What additional suggestions or comments do you have regarding planning or coordinating professional development school activities at (name of school)?

These interviews, which were conducted at the school sites, were audiotaped and transcribed.

Data Analysis

After the transcription process was complete, a content analysis procedure was conducted (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Transcripts of interviews were analyzed to determine recurring themes that emerged within and across responses to interview questions. Transcripts were then coded based on the themes identified. As a reliability check, a trained graduate assistant also independently coded the transcripts based on the emergent themes. Interrater reliability (agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements) was calculated at .88 (Kazdin, 1982). Percentages were computed of respondents who made statements consistent with each of the themes. Percentages do not total 100 since respondents may have made numerous statements, each consistent with different themes, in response to a single item.

FINDINGS

The overwhelming majority (95.8%) of the teachers interviewed indicated that they were aware of their school's status as a professional development school in collaboration with the university. Table 2 shows the emerging themes in these educators' responses to the remaining interview questions.

Special Educator Perceptions of What It Means to Be a Professional Development School

When asked what they thought it meant to be a professional development school, most teachers (70.8%) made comments related to preservice teacher preparation. For example, a middle school special educator stated: "I think it means that the MAT students from U of L come over here, or a portion of them anyway, and work with our faculty and we work with you to develop a good program so that when they graduate, they're ready to be teachers." For most of those interviewed, the notion of supporting preservice teacher development by serving as a placement site was a critical defining factor in their conceptualization of being a professional development school.

Aside from preservice teacher development, some of those interviewed (20.8%) made comments related to inservice teacher development or renewal. For example, a middle school special educator said: "Well, to me that means assistance from the university as far as helping us develop new strategies, new procedures." These teachers' comments reflected the notion that professional development schools should also support the professional development of practicing teachers. In fact, the concept of mutual benefit was explicitly articulated by a few teachers (16.7%). An elementary special educator noted: "So it's kind of a two-way street where both parties gain."

The idea that PDSs are exemplary schools, selected because of their excellence in education, was reflected in the comments of a minority of the teachers (16.7%) interviewed. In the words of one elementary special educator, "Basically, I think it's a school that has a lot of expertise.... I think we're an excellent school to learn from." These educators expressed the idea that "it's an honor to be selected."

Finally, the concept of school improvement was mentioned by a few teachers (12.5%), who seemed to see PDS status as a catalyst for positive schoolwide change. For example, a middle school special educator felt that being a professional development school meant they needed "to keep working towards making the school better."

Actual Roles in Supporting MAT Student Preparation for Inclusion

Even though no formal structures were built into the program to support interaction between MAT students and special education teachers, the majority of those interviewed (79.2%) indicated that they had had some professional contact with MAT students at their school sites. Many teachers (45.8%) reported working with MAT students in consultative roles. For example, an elementary special educator said: "If the MAT is on my team, I'm constantly giving tips on how they could change the lesson to meet the needs of all the students." These teachers also provided suggestions related to behavior management issues involving students with disabilities. For example, an elementary special education teacher had this to say: "I went to them [MAT students] directly and offered suggestions -- `When a kid reacts like this, you might look at that.'"

Other roles commonly cited by teachers involved helping MAT students collect information for special education case study assignments (33.3%) and teaching in collaborative settings with MAT students (20.8%). In both of these roles, special education teachers indicated that they worked with MAT students in understanding issues such as IEP development, the role of special education teachers in inclusive settings, and collaborative planning.

Desired Roles in Supporting MAT Student Preparation for Inclusion

In addition to the ways in which special educators reported that they were working with MAT students, these teachers also noted additional ways in which they felt MAT students should interact with special educators in the PDS context in order to better prepare them for inclusive settings. Specifically, many teachers (58.3%) indicated a desire for MAT students to be involved in observations or experiences in the special education setting. For example, a middle school special educator suggested "... a week of shadowing or a couple of days shadowing, a couple of days teaching" in a special education setting. These teachers believed that such activities were needed to develop a better understanding of what occurs in special education settings, as well as how student behavior and performance may vary across settings.

Participating in collaborative planning and problem solving with special educators was also recommended by some teachers (29.2%). These teachers supported the idea that MAT students should be required to consult with special educators and collaboratively plan instruction with them in order to support the success of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. An elementary special educator noted: "(MAT student) was really good. at coming to me if she had a problem with one of the students in the room or something like that. She came to me to ask for advice on how to handle certain situations ... I see that as kind of their role -- just like a regular teacher would come to me." The teachers believed that encouraging these practices during the MAT student's tenure at the PDS would enhance the likelihood that these practices would continue in the MAT student's own teaching after graduation. In the words of an elementary special educator, "They could have the experience of collaboration before they go into the school as the teacher, so that it's not something that's foreign to them. It would be something that they've already experienced."

Working with IEPs was also mentioned by some teachers (20.8%) as an important way for MAT students to interact with special education teachers. A middle school special educator made the following suggestion: "If they're going to be here for a long term, sit down with the [special education] teacher and look at the folders and examine the folders and how the IEPs are done, what kinds of information is gathered. Sit in on IEP meetings."

Behavior management issues were raised by several teachers (12.5%), who noted the need for special focus on this area for students with challenging behaviors. A middle school special educator stated: "I think management of the classroom is essential and what I found is that usually you have maybe two to three students who need particular help and might need some type of specialized behavior plan." This was cited as an area in which special educators should work collaboratively with MAT students.

Barriers to Desired Roles

Predictably, in looking at the barriers to the above suggestions, the most common was lack of time, alluded to by a quarter of the teachers interviewed. Some of the time constraints had to do with limitations on the MAT students' time. In the words of an elementary special educator, "Probably time, because I know the MAT students. I know they're probably packed in now as far as requirements. Having to fit in yet another requirement would be difficult." Other time constraints involved limitations on special educators' time. In that vein, an elementary special educator noted: "There's not time in the day, really, to meet and do these things."

Other barriers were also cited. These included perceived lack of knowledge or experience on behalf of MAT students (12.5%); lack of specific requirements related to special education interaction (12.5%); issues related to confidentiality or the special education process (e.g., reviewing IEP documents or other confidential student records) (12.5%); and issues related to the general education classroom (12.5%). In terms of the latter constraint, an elementary special educator had this to say: "Some teachers have their own way of doing things and are not open to other techniques or methods." Speaking to other issues related to general education classrooms, another elementary special education teacher noted: "... here, we don't have [special education] kids in every class. So, you might be assigned to a mentor teacher who doesn't have [special education] kids."

In contrast to these comments, a good portion of teachers (29.2%) saw no barriers to the performance of desired roles in preparing MAT students for inclusion. In the words of one middle school special educator, "I don't think there's any problem."

Perceptions of the PDS Context as a Catalyst for the Professional Growth of Special Educators

When asked in what ways being a teacher in a professional development school had contributed to their own professional growth, 33.3% of the teachers interviewed responded that their interaction with the MAT students had enhanced their professional development. An elementary special educator noted: "It is nice to see and hear new ideas from people that are fresh." Likewise, another elementary special educator stated: "Some of the observations that I've done in the regular class where there have been MAT students, they were very refreshing. It's good to see people excited about teaching."

Other special educators (20.8%) mentioned contact with the university or the university liaison as a factor that enhanced their professional development. For example, an elementary special educator stated: "It has brought other people into our building that have shared ideas.... it was nice to have someone to talk to and bounce ideas off of and to provide support." Another elementary special educator said: "There are always people in the building who have access to resources that I might not necessarily know about, or have the time to locate. And just other people, especially people in the university, they're generally up on the latest research and those types of things, so it's always a fresh idea that they share, the latest research on education."

Still other teachers (12.5%) spoke of an increased desire to excel, which they associated with their school's PDS status. In the words of one middle school special educator, "I would say, in general, in the school it makes us more aware of trying to put forth our best foot."

Although most teachers indicated that some aspect of the PDS relationship had enhanced their professional development, a substantial number (37.5%) were unable to cite any factors related to their school's PDS status that contributed to their professional growth. The majority of these teachers were those who had earlier indicated that they were not familiar with the PDS concept, or noted that they had had very limited contact with the MAT students placed in their schools.

Ideas for Enhancing the Professional Growth of Special Educators in the PDS Context

In discussing other ways in which the professional growth of special educators could be enhanced through the PDS relationship, 16.7% of the teachers interviewed recommended some form of seminars or study groups. An elementary special educator commented: "... I would dearly love study groups or discussion groups where you might be reading something and then you both sit down and talk about it.... I think as professionals ... we have to have a theme and then do some sort of reading or some sort of research on it a little bit and then come together and take our experience and add it to the information and see what we can come up with."

Some teachers (16.7%) suggested that increased sharing of information about the MAT program or university activities would be helpful. For example, a middle school special educator suggested: "Maybe a newsletter or some way to let us know -- I know the university has people come in. Maybe if we knew more about those kind of things. We have the Internet now. Maybe they could keep us abreast of those things. I know there are all kinds of different organizations with newsletters and chat rooms and that kind of thing."

A few special educators (12.5%) suggested that more of a focus on special education teacher preparation and special education issues would improve their ability to grow professionally through the PDS relationship. For example, an elementary special educator noted, "... the only thing with professional development is that the [special education] teachers, our issues are very different from the regular program teachers. And we don't necessarily have a [university liaison] here just for [special education]."

Many teachers (37.5%) were unable to suggest any means by which their professional development could be enhanced through the PDS relationship. About half of these teachers had previously indicated that they had minimal contact with MAT students or were unfamiliar with the PDS concept. One middle school special educator commented, "It's hard for me to say because ... I'm not integrated exactly into all that's going on between the teachers and what the roles might be."

Special Educator Perceptions of PDS Impact on Students

In addition to positive impact on preservice and inservice teachers, the PDS concept implies benefit to students in these schools. When asked what impact being a professional development school has had on students at their school, 37.5% of the teachers interviewed indicated that their students had benefited by having an additional person in the classroom. For example, a middle school special educator stated: "Oh, I think students have the benefit of learning from different individuals. I think each individual brings with them special gifts and talents." Another middle school special educator noted: "I think definitely for the kids, just having another person that can work with them if I'm not there."

An equal number of teachers (37.5%) also felt that students had the benefit of new ideas or better teaching because of the PDS relationship. A middle school special educator stated it this way: "I think they're getting the benefit of having -- at each level, they're always having somebody fresh in school right now ... new ideas. The students are benefiting from new ideas." Likewise, an elementary special educator commented that teachers were "more focused and more on their toes" because professional development school status created a desire to "always meet the standard, to meet the expectation."

Some teachers (20.8%) were unable to cite any ways in which they felt that being a professional development school had an impact on students at their school. Once again, many of these teachers had had minimal exposure to MAT students. A middle school teacher reported, "Not working with them, I don't have any idea if they've done any good or not."

DISCUSSION

In looking at the responses of the participating teachers across the various questions, three overarching themes emerge: (a) the integral role that special educators play in preservice teacher preparation, (b) the importance of special education in MAT students' experiences, and (c) the positive regard the teachers held for the collaborative partnership with the university. Each of these overarching themes will be further explored below.

Integral Role of Special Educators

Although none of the special educators had MAT students formally assigned to them, 79.2% of them mentioned, at some point during the interview, that they had engaged in professional activities with MAT students. In fact, because many special educators worked with multiple classrooms, they often interacted with several MAT students. When asked about the extent to which she worked with MAT students, one elementary special educator said it this way: "I've worked with each one, not for long periods of time, but I've probably worked with almost every one of them." Likewise, another elementary special educator reported: "Well, I've worked with some more than others because I'm fortunate that all the classes that I collaborate in have MAT students in them. So I've worked closely with those particular people." Additionally, no special educator interviewed expressed an unwillingness to work with MAT students in helping to prepare them for inclusive settings, even in those instances where the teacher was not currently working with MAT students in any way. When asked for additional comments, an elementary special educator had this to say: "I'd be glad to provide any input or help or assistance that you decide you want to help them [MAT students] get more [special education] background."

These teachers' comments reflect the substantial contributions they have made to the process of preparing the MAT students in their schools for inclusive settings. Also evident in their comments is a willingness to assume these roles. In looking at the PDS literature, few prior efforts have been made to document the role of special education teachers in the PDS context with respect to the preparation of preservice general education teachers.

Importance of Special Education in MAT Students' Experiences

Another message that resounded in the comments of the teachers interviewed was the importance of special education preparation in the MAT students' experiences. Thus, at some point during the interview, 75% of special educators mentioned the need for experiences designed to prepare MAT students for inclusive settings. For example, when discussing the extent to which he'd worked with MAT students, a middle school special educator asserted: "They're going to have at least some even regular ed kids [with learning problems], as well as learning disabled youngsters in their classrooms, and they need to ... have some kind of knowledge of how to work with these kids. It'll make their job a little bit easier. I'll tell you that right now." Likewise, in discussing barriers to MAT students working with special educators, an elementary special educator stated: "I think you need to have some kind of contact with teachers who are chapter teachers, title teachers, maybe the gifted teacher and the special ed. teacher, because your teachers, your MATs, are going to be facing all those kinds of students in a classroom and I feel that we can enhance their ability to have a broader picture in the classroom." Finally, in providing additional comments, an elementary special educator shared the following scenario: "I think we've got some kind of difficult kids this year ... and one of the MATs said, `I'm going to have a kid like this in my classroom?,' and I was like, `Quite possibly.'"

Although they were not directly asked about the importance of special education in the experiences of MAT students, the comments of the teachers interviewed strongly reflected their belief in the need for such experiences, as well as the importance of their role in facilitating these experiences. While the need to prepare general education teachers for inclusive settings is well documented in the teacher education literature, little attention has been given to the role of PDSs, or the role of special educators within PDSs, in accomplishing this goal.

Time constraints were commonly cited by teachers in this study as barriers to performing desired roles in working with MAT students. Paucity of time is also a barrier commonly cited in other studies of the PDS context (Cobb, 2000; Kachan, 1999; Wesson, Voltz, & Ridley, 1993).

Positive Regard for PDS Partnerships

A final theme that emerged from the comments of the teachers interviewed was the positive regard the teachers seemed to have felt for the MAT students and the collaborative partnership with the university. At some point during the interview, the vast majority of teachers (83.3%) made statements that reflected this sentiment. For example, when asked what it meant to be a professional development school, an elementary special educator had this to say about the professional development school relationship: "Well, I certainly think it helps everybody involved. It helps teachers. It helps the students. It helps the MAT students. It helps the staff. Everyone that's affected by it. You can't but be enhanced by its program." Likewise, when asked how being a teacher in a professional development school had enhanced his own professional growth, an elementary special educator responded: "... just working with her [MAT student], knowing the latest ... research. Seems like wonderful lessons that they come in with and how they're teaching across the curriculum. Excellent ideas, fresh ideas. That's all really exciting." Similarly, when asked what impact being a professional development school had on students, an elementary special educator reported: "I see the MATs come in and teach lessons that sometimes are real innovative and it sets other teachers on fire, as far as, `Ooooo, let's try this!' It really is a motivating factor for teachers and for students."

Many of the comments of the special educators interviewed seemed to reflect several of the ideas that have been set forth in the literature regarding what it means to be a professional development school. For example, the notion of preservice and inservice teacher development is evident. The concept of school improvement or renewal can also be heard in the comments of teachers interviewed. Less evident was the idea that "restructuring of schools and schools of education" (Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995, p. 87) is inherent in the PDS relationship. Teachers did not mention restructuring efforts related to PDS at their schools or any perceived impact on the School of Education as an entity. Many teachers did, however, voice the belief that their PDS relationship had enhanced their own professional growth in a variety of ways.

IMPLICATIONS

The vast majority of the special education teachers participating in this study reported being actively involved, or expressed a willingness to be involved, in the experiences of preservice general education teachers, despite the lack of formal mechanisms to support such involvement. Too often, special education teachers within professional development schools are viewed as "peripheral players," rather than as an integral part of the team supporting the development of preservice general education teachers. Likewise, special educators themselves can grow professionally through the PDS relationship, thus accruing reciprocal benefits.

In order to facilitate the active participation of special education teachers in the PDS context, overtures of inclusion should be made. For example, in the words of one special education teacher, "I think making that personal touch with those people [special education teachers], letting them know that they're part of the team, encouraging the principals to include them in the team is important. If you have meetings, make sure that they are invited and know that they are welcomed." By explicitly inviting the participation of special educators, the foundation can be laid for including these teachers as significant players in PDS initiatives.

Providing mechanisms that support the involvement of special education teachers is another important step in facilitating their active participation. It is important to express to teacher interns the expectation that they collaborate with special education teachers as a part of their work at the PDS site. Such expectations might be communicated through formal assignments. For example, it could be suggested that teacher interns consult with special educators regarding adaptations for lesson plans they submit. Specific assignments, such as shadowing special education teachers, observing in the special education setting, or profiling a student with a disability are additional examples of activities suggested by participants in this study as ways to work with special educators in preparing teacher interns to teach in inclusive settings.

CONCLUSION

Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms is not easy. The participants in this study shared helpful perspectives on how special educators can be active partners within professional development schools in the preparation of preservice teachers for inclusive classrooms. The participation of special educators in this process should not be left to chance. As we work to refine the implementation of the professional development school concept, it is important to invite the contributions of special education teachers in a very deliberate way, and to capitalize on the resources these teachers have to offer.

Table 1

Teacher Demographics

Gender
Male                                      16.7%
Female                                    83.3%

Race
African American                          12.5%
White                                     87.5%

Highest Degree Earned
B.S./B.A.                                 29.2%
M.S./M.A./M.Ed                            70.8%

Grade Level
Elementary                                66.7%
Middle School                             33.3%

Service Delivery Model
Self-contained                            33.3%
Resource                                  50.0%
Co-teaching in general education class    16.7%

Disability Type Served
High-incidence (learning disabilities,
  emotional/behavioral disorders,
  mild mental retardation)                91.7%
Low-incidence (hearing impairments,
  orthopedic and health impairments)       8.3%

Years' Experience as Special Educator
1-3                                       41.7%
4-7                                       16.6%
7-10                                      12.5%
Over 10                                   29.2%
Table 2

Trends in Teacher Responses

What it means to be a professional
development school
Preservice teacher preparation                70.8%
Inservice teacher development/renewal         20.8%
Mutual benefit                                16.7%
Exemplary schools                             16.7%
School improvement                            12.5%
Don't know                                     8.3%

Actual roles in supporting MAT student
preparation for inclusion
Consultative roles                            45.8%
Special education assignment assistance       33.3%
Collaborative teaching                        20.8%
No role                                       20.8%

Desired roles in supporting MAT student
preparation for inclusion
Hosting observations/other experiences
  in special education setting                58.3%
Collaborative planning/problem solving        29.2%
Providing information related to IEPs         20.8%
Providing information about
  behavior management                         12.5%

Barriers to desired roles
No perceived barriers                         29.2%
Time constraints                              25.5%
Confidentiality issues/constraints
  of special education                        16.7%
Perceived lack of MAT student
  knowledge/experience                        12.5%
Issues related to the general education
  classroom                                   12.5%
Program constraints                           12.5%

PDS as catalyst for special educator
professional growth
Unable to cite any factors contributing
  to professional growth                      37.5%
Interaction with MAT students                 33.3%
Interaction with university liaison           20.8%
Increased desire to excel                     12.5%

Suggestions for enhancing the professional
growth of special educators in PDSs
No suggestions                                37.5%
Seminars/study groups                         16.7%
Sharing information about
  MAT program/university                      16.7%
Focus on special education                    12.5%

Impact on students
Additional person in the classroom            37.5%
New ideas/better teaching                     37.5%
Don't know                                    20.8%

NOTES

This project was supported by funds from the Nystrand Center of Excellence in Education

REFERENCES

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cobb, J. (2000). Impact of a professional development school on preservice teacher preparation, inservice teachers' professionalism, and children's achievement: Perceptions of inservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 22(3), 64-76.

Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 87-106.

Fager, P., Andrews, T., Shepherd, M. J., & Quinn, E. (1993). Teamed to teach: Integrating teacher training through cooperative teaching at an urban professional development school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 51-59.

Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kochan, F. K. (1999). Professional development schools: A comprehensive view. In D. M. Byrd, & D. J. Mylntyre (Eds.), Research on professional development schools (pp. 173-190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Metcalf-Turner, P. (1999). Variable definitions of professional development schools: A desire or dilemma? Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 33-41.

Nierstheimer, S., Taylor, F., Lloyd, R., Moore, M., & Morrow, S. R. (2000). Infusing INTASC principles into teacher preparation at a professional development school: Assessing benefits to stakeholders. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 47-55.

Reinhartz, J. (1999). Teachers as leaders. In D. M. Byrd & D. J. MyIntyre (Eds.), Research on professional development schools (pp. 157-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Teitel, L. (1999). Looking toward the future by understanding the past: The historical context of professional development schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 6-20.

Walling, B., & Lewis, M. (2000). Development of professional identity among professional development school preservice teachers: Longitudinal and comparative analysis. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2A), 65-72.

Wesson, C. L., Voltz, D., & Ridley, T. (1993). Developing a collaborative partnership through a professional development school. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 116-121.

DEBORAH L. VOLTZ, Ed.D., is associate professor, University of Louisville.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Deborah Voltz, University of Louisville, Department of Teaching and Learning, Louisville, KY 40292.