EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION:
FIRST-AND SECOND-YEAR TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR
PREPARATION FOR WORKING WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
A Dissertation
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
In
Educational Leadership
By
Marybeth Murray
2019
SIGNATURE PAGE
DISSERTATION: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION: FIRST- AND SECOND-YEAR TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PREPARATION FOR WORKING WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
AUTHOR: Marybeth Murray
DATE SUBMITTED: August 2019
College of Education and Integrative Studies
Dr. Betty Alford ______Dissertation Committee Chair Department of Educational Leadership
Dr. Eric Haas ______Director, Professor California State University, East Bay
Dr. Felton Williams ______Board President, Member Long Beach Unified School District
ii DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my village. First, my loving son John, this is for you so that you will know the fruits of my labor and know the role you played in my journey.
It is my life’s work to be a model for you to understand the importance of arming yourself with education as a weapon. It is my hope that I have modeled for you that the application of knowledge is power. You have taught me so much, and I am so blessed to have been chosen to be your mom.
To my mother, Mary Alice, thank you for always believing in me. You have been a constant motivation for me to continue to reach for the stars. To my dad, thank you for always being proud of my accomplishments and encouraging me to be aware of the ways of the world. I love you, and I am so glad I can give back what you’ve given me. To my sisters, thank you for believing in me and encouraging me to stay on this journey. Even when you didn’t understand the “why,” you never gave up on me. You rearranged schedules for me, and I love you for it. To my brothers for being my brothers and always being there when I needed you and knowing I am always here when you need me, thank you. I hope I have inspired you to lead by example.
To Darlene for loving Kiko on Fridays and Mondays when I couldn’t, thank you.
Your belief in me and this dream, your love, support, and sacrifices that allowed me to go to class right after work instead of coming home first for her helped me make it to the finish line. I am so thankful to call you my friend. To my LBUSD colleagues, the students at Barton Elementary, and to my SOE, it is because of you and my experiences as your friend and leader that I worked to accomplish this. I did this for all of you because you believed in me, just as I believe in you.
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Betty Alford for her guidance, support, and patience throughout my doctoral program and dissertation process. She stepped in and spent countless hours reviewing and rereading my dissertation drafts and shared her extensive knowledge and expertise about relevant literature pertaining to my study.
Many heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Felton Williams for his support as an educational leader of color in the Long Beach Unified School District. Dr. Williams taught me the importance of advocating for students of color in a large urban school system. His words of encouragement continue to resonate with me as I lead in a culturally responsive manner to provide equitable educational experiences for children of color.
I would like to thank Dr. Eric Haas for his continual support throughout this process. His willingness to continue to serve on my committee, even after accepting a promotion at California State University East Bay, demonstrates his caring attitude toward my success. He pushed me outside of my comfort zone, and his continued guidance with my doctoral dissertation has allowed me to see potential in myself that I never knew existed. His level of cultural proficiency and understanding of working in complex, diverse educational systems serve as a model of excellence in leadership, equity, diversity, and social justice. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Nancy Hurlbut for her wealth of knowledge and expertise in the field of Early Childhood Education and her guidance in preparing this study. Finally, I would like to thank Cohort 5 for your supportive and nurturing friendships. We built a solid foundation that allowed us to persevere through many obstacle in the pursuit of our degree. I am forever grateful for the experiences I have had at Cal Poly Pomona.
iv ABSTRACT
Preschool and early education teachers play a critical role in children’s development; yet, there is little agreement about how to codify teacher knowledge and skill (Whitebook & Ryan, 2011). There has been debate in the field of early childhood education regarding teacher preparation, skills, competencies, and education level. Early childhood education is defined as the growth, development, and education of children from birth through age 8, according to the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC).
The U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services Office of Special Education Programs (2014) stated that there are approximately half a million early childhood intervention teachers employed in public preschool programs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), 1,312,700 childcare teachers provide care to children from birth to 5 years of age. Adequate preparation of teachers is becoming increasingly necessary as greater numbers of students with learning disabilities, behavior problems, and special needs are integrated into the general education environment as a result of the highly qualified teacher provisions and inclusive practices mandates of No Child Left Behind (Oliver & Reschly, 2010) and the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). This inclusion has introduced a need for teachers, including those who teach early childhood, who have the knowledge and the ability to work with special education children in a typical early learning setting. Early childhood teachers across early childhood settings are becoming more likely to have at least one child with an identified disability in their classrooms (Chang, Early, & Winton,
2005). The findings of this study identified the vital need for emphasis in undergraduate
v degree programs for individuals who are planning to teach to include the development of candidates’ knowledge and skills in working with children with special needs.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv ABSTRACT ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... x LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background of the Problem ...... 3 National Association for the Education of Young Children ...... 5 Council for Exceptional Children ...... 6 Purpose of the Study ...... 8 Research Questions ...... 8 Definition of Terms...... 9 Assumptions ...... 12 Limitations ...... 12 Significance of the Study ...... 12 Summary and Organization of the Study ...... 13 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 14 Organization of Review ...... 15 Teacher Preparation in Early Childhood...... 16 Inclusion ...... 20 Inclusion and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support ...... 23 Early Childhood Programs ...... 25 Quality in Early Childhood Programs...... 27 Quality Measures ...... 27 Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) ...... 30 Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) ...... 31 Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) ...... 32 National Accreditation...... 32 The Role of Federal Funding in Quality in Early Childhood Program Development ...... 33
vii Theoretical Frameworks ...... 35 Teacher Self-Efficacy ...... 36 Teacher Expertise...... 38 Summary ...... 41 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 42 Rationale for Selection of the Method ...... 43 Setting ...... 45 Participants ...... 45 Interviews and Data Collection ...... 47 Data Analysis ...... 48 First Interview Analysis ...... 49 Subsequent Interview Analysis ...... 49 Coding Process...... 50 Provisions of Trustworthiness...... 52 Positionality ...... 53 Summary ...... 54 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS ...... 56 Descriptions of the Participants ...... 57 Kiara ...... 57 Angela ...... 58 Marissa ...... 60 Leslie ...... 61 Michelle ...... 62 Luis ...... 63 Research Questions ...... 64 Findings for Research Question One ...... 67 Lack of Opportunities for Hands-On Practice Working with Children with Special Needs ...... 68 Limited Opportunities to Increase Teacher Self-Efficacy in Working with Children with Special Needs in Preparation Prior to Beginning Teaching ...... 71
viii Findings for Research Question Two ...... 73 Enrollment in Credential Programs Provides Access to Learning How to Work with Children with Special Needs ...... 74 Supportive Relationships Foster Confidence and a Sense of Self-Efficacy ...... 76 Findings for Research Question Three ...... 80 Need for More College Coursework Offered for Working with Children with Special Needs ...... 81 Professional Development Needed that Addresses Working with Children with Special Needs ...... 83 Summary ...... 85 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 87 Conclusions ...... 91 Need for College Coursework that Educates New Teachers on How to Work with Children with Special Needs ...... 92 Professional Development that Addresses Working with Children with Special Needs ...... 92 Discussion ...... 93 Implications...... 96 Recommendations for Preparation and Practice ...... 99 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 100 Concluding Statement ...... 100 REFERENCES ...... 102 APPENDIX A ...... 120
ix LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participant Profiles...... 47 Table 2: Initial Coding of Questions by Category ...... 64 Table 3: Research Question 1: Codes and Themes ...... 67 Table 4: Research Question 2: Codes and Themes ...... 73 Table 5: Research Question 3: Codes and Themes ...... 81
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: MTSS Pyramid ...... 24 Figure 2: Coding Process ...... 51
xi CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Many children are entering early childhood settings with special needs that have not yet been diagnosed, and an early childhood teacher may be the first person to become aware of concerns about a child’s behavior, development, or health (Sokal-Guiterrez,
2001). Early childhood education is defined as the growth, development, and education of children from birth through age 8, according to the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (National Association for the Education of Young
Children, n.d.). There has been debate in the field of early childhood education regarding teacher preparation, skills, competencies, and education level. Currently, educational preparation programs play a critical role in preparing educators to meet the needs of students in the classroom and to meet a set of teaching standards (Griffin, Garderen, &
Ulrich, 2014). However, individuals without certification as a teacher can begin serving as a teacher or as an intern in the field of early childhood education with little or no preparation to work with children with special needs (Whitebook, Phillips, & Howes,
2014).
The U.S. Department of Education and Rehabilitative Services (2014) stated that there are approximately half a million early childhood intervention teachers employed in public preschool programs, and according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019),
1,312,700 childcare teachers provide care to children from birth to 5 years of age.
Adequate preparation of teachers is becoming increasingly necessary as greater numbers of students with significant learning disabilities, behavioral problems, or other special needs are integrated into the general education environment as a result of the highly
1 qualified teacher provisions and inclusive practices mandates of No Child Left Behind
(Oliver & Reschly, 2010), and the principles of inclusive education that stem from policies of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Inclusion has brought about a need for teachers, including those who teach early childhood, who have the knowledge and the ability to work with special needs children in a typical early learning setting.
Early childhood teachers across early childhood settings are becoming more likely to have at least one child with an identified disability in their classrooms (Chang, Early, &
Winton, 2005).
The purpose of this qualitative study was to ascertain the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs of first- and second-year early childhood educators in regard to their preparation to enter the field of early childhood education and work with children with special needs. This research also examined what supports were needed for them to fully acquire the knowledge and skills about how to serve these children.
Answering questions about the role their undergraduate degree and subsequent preparation played in developing their abilities to form relationships and provide guidance and instruction for children with special needs, as well as the coursework and experiences they believed were important to their professional development, allowed them to reflect on their current practice and education and focus on identifying ways they contribute to closing student achievement gaps. This study contributes to the literature by providing teachers’ perspectives of the preparation they received for teaching students with special needs while attaining an undergraduate degree and later in working toward attaining a California teaching credential through a preparation program.
2 Background of the Problem
The Condition of Education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009) is a congressionally mandated annual report from the National Center for Education Statistics that contains key indicators of the condition of education in the United States at all levels, from prekindergarten through postsecondary education. These indicators summarize and provide an in-depth analysis of important developments and trends using the latest statistics, which are updated throughout the year as new data become available. In the
2017–18 school year, the number of students aged 3–21 who received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was 7 million, or
14% of all public school students, as reported in the Condition of Education (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
In 1975, Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL
94-142) to support states and localities in protecting the rights of children with disabilities. This law was also meant to meet the individual needs of infants, toddlers, children, and youths with disabilities and their families. PL 94-142 guaranteed a free, appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country. In 1997, the law was amended and is now known as IDEA. IDEA makes available a free, appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures the provision of special education and related services to those children. IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youths with disabilities (California Department of
Education, 2014).
3 In the 25 years since the passage of PL 94-142, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services (U.S.
Department of Education, 2016). Before IDEA, many children were denied access to education and opportunities to learn. For example, the U.S. Department of Education
(2016) stated that, in 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or what was referred to then as mentally retarded.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2016), early intervention programs and services are now provided to almost 200,000 eligible infants and toddlers and their families, while nearly 6 million children and youths receive special education and related services to meet their individual needs. This is provided in what is specified and outlined in IDEA as the least restrictive environment. Least restrictive environments are part of the IDEA and require that children who receive special education services should be allowed to learn in the same settings as much as possible with peers who do not receive special education services (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004).
Congress reauthorized IDEA in 2004 and most recently amended IDEA through PL 114-
95, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), in December 2015. In this law, Congress stated the following:
Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the
right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving
educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our
4 national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent
living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities. (Section
1400(c)1)
National Association for the Education of Young Children
With the implementation of laws that recognized the importance of early education, several organizations have worked to advocate for young children with and without special needs. One such organization is the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The NAEYC was formed in the 1920s in response to growing concerns about the varying quality of emerging nursery school programs in the United States. A group of prominent figures in the field of education and childcare gathered to decide how to best ensure the existence of high-quality nursery programs. This group created a manual, titled Minimum Essentials for Nursery
Education, which set out standards and methods of acceptable nursery school education.
Three years later, the group formed the existence of a professional association of nursery school experts named the National Association for Nursery Education (NANE). NANE changed its name to the NAEYC in 1964 (National Association for the Education of
Young Children [NAEYC], n.d.)
In 1986, the NAEYC developed a position statement to promote excellence in early childhood education by providing a framework for best practices. This framework was grounded in research in child development and in the knowledge base regarding educational effectiveness to promote young children’s optimal learning and development.
The framework came to be known as the Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP;
Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).
5 The DAP represents a commitment to promoting excellence in the ever-changing and rapidly evolving field of early childhood education and early childhood special education.
The NAEYC has developed seven standards of professional preparation:
1. Promoting child development and learning
2. Building family and community relationships
3. Observing, documenting, and assessing to support young children and
families
4. Using developmentally effective approaches to connect with children and
families
5. Using content knowledge to build meaningful curriculum
6. Becoming a professional
7. Early childhood field experiences. (NAEYC, 2011, para.1)
Council for Exceptional Children
The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) was organized in 1922 to focus on the “educational success of children and youth with disabilities and/or gifts and talents”
(CEC, 2011, para. 1). The development of professional standards for special educators was identified as one of the primary goals of the CEC (CEC, 2011). The CEC standards provide direction in the field, focusing on the knowledge and skills special educators must have, and the council has made it a point to recognize that one of the critical factors in providing an education for children with special needs is a well-prepared workforce.
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing is currently revising the Early
Childhood Education Special Education Standards. As part of the work to update and
6 strengthen preparation for California’s early childhood education workforce, the commission has developed drafts for teaching performance expectations, administrating performance expectations, and preparation program guidelines in collaboration with a technical advisory panel of early childhood education professionals. The commission is seeking statewide stakeholder feedback on these draft documents to further inform its work.
There are many benefits of high-quality early education for young children, specifically that high-quality early childhood education programs contribute to desired outcomes for children, as outlined in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Early
Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, 2017). The Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five (ELOF) presents five broad areas of early learning, referred to as central domains. The framework is designed to show the continuum of learning for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. It is grounded in comprehensive research around what young children should know and be able to do during their early years (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start
Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, 2019).
With the inclusion movement, many advocates for children with special needs believe children with disabilities should be educated alongside their nondisabled peers. In response to federal legislation, sixty three percent of those millions of students with disabilities, currently spend the majority of the day in general education classrooms; yet, historically many colleges of education offered just one or two courses on special education (Will, 2018). Twenty years ago, the lack of professionals prepared to provide
7 quality inclusive services to students with disabilities and their families was one of the primary barriers to serving students in the least restrictive environments (Buell et al.,
1999), and this problem continues to persist (Mader, 2017).
Purpose of the Study
The inclusion of children with a variety of special needs in early childhood general education classrooms is becoming commonplace across the country. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how first- and second-year early childhood educators perceived their undergraduate and post-baccalaureate preparation to teach and work with children with special needs in the field of early childhood education and how these new teachers learned to support students with special needs if their university undergraduate degree did not adequately teach them the necessary skills to be effective with this student population.
Research Questions
The underlying goal of this study was to examine how early childhood educators perceived their preparation for teaching young children with special needs. The following research questions were used to explore teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about their preparation for working with children with special needs:
1. In what ways, prior to beginning teaching, did these teacher’s undergraduate
degrees and credential programs prepare them to meet the special needs of
children in their classrooms?
2. What supported their learning in practice?
8 3. What are these teachers’ recommendations for what is needed for new teachers to
attain the knowledge and skills to support children with special needs in their
classrooms?
These questions helped the researcher develop an understanding of early childhood teachers’ perceptions of formal teacher training and preparation as well as their beliefs about what teachers need to be prepared to meet the needs of the young children with special needs they serve based on early experiences.
Definition of Terms
A list of common definitions and acronyms used in this study is provided below.
A more detailed explanation of these terms is presented throughout the study.
California Department of Education (CDE): An agency within the state of
California responsible for overseeing public education.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: This refers to the agency
responsible for setting the standards for educator preparation and accrediting
programs that offer educator preparation.
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC): This refers to an advocacy organization
for special education policy.
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): This refers to an evaluation
system that measures the quality of instruction and interactions between teachers
and children in early childhood programs.
Desired Results Developmental Profile: This refers to a formative assessment
instrument developed by the CDE for young children and their families to be used
to inform instruction and program development.
9 Early childhood: The growth, development, and education of children from birth through age 8. It is during this phase of life that the foundations for cognitive, physical, and emotional development are built in a child. This is a period of rapid growth and development for children.
Early childhood education: The National Education Association defines early childhood education as a branch of education theory that relates to the teaching of children from birth to age 8, which is traditionally up to third grade.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): This refers to a U.S. law passed in December
2015 that governs the United States K–12 public education policy and replaces the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Inclusion: This refers to an educational model where students with special needs spend most of their time with peers who do not have special needs in a general education classroom or educational setting.
Individualized Education Plan (IEP): A written legal document developed for each public school child who is eligible for special education services. The IEP is created through a team effort that includes professionals and parents and is reviewed at least once a year.
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA): This refers to a law that makes available a free, appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures the provision of special education and related services to those children.
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): In California, MTSS is an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on Common Core state standards, core
10 instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized
student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic,
behavioral, and social success.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC): This is a
professional membership organization that works to promote high-quality early
learning for all young children from birth through age 8 by connecting early
childhood practice, policy, and research.
Special needs: For the purpose of this study, special needs describes individuals
who require assistance to access an educational curriculum due to disabilities that
may be medical, physical, mental, or psychological.
Teacher efficacy: Teacher efficacy is a construct that refers to an individual
teacher’s judgment of their own capability to “bring about desired outcomes of
student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be
difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p. 783).
Transitional kindergarten: A publicly funded program for 4-year-olds who turn 5
between September 2 and December 2 that serves as a bridge between preschool
and kindergarten.
Universal design for learning: This refers to a set of principles for designing
curriculum that provides all individuals, regardless of ability, disability, age,
gender, or cultural and linguistic background, with equal opportunities to learn.
Assumptions
This study began with the assumption that all teachers participating in the study were enrolled in at least one course focused on teaching children with special needs in
11 their undergraduate degree programs and subsequently in a post baccalaureate teacher preparation program in California. It was also assumed that these teachers have had some experience teaching at least one child with special needs.
Limitations
The research in this study was limited to six participants who were in the first or second year of their teaching careers. Another limitation was that the study participants were all prepared at multiple universities in one state, so the results are not generalizable to all contexts.
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study was that the findings may inform decision makers in educational settings of the needs of new teachers entering early childhood education.
There is limited research on first- and second-year early childhood teachers’ perceptions about their preparation for working in early childhood education. This issue warranted research, as it described differing perceptions of support and preparation, and teachers’ beliefs in regard to meeting new teachers’ preparation needs.
Summary and Organization of the Study
This research study is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 includes the introduction and background of the study, the purpose, the research questions, the definition of terms, assumptions, limitations, the significance of the study, and the organization of the study. Chapter 2 describes relevant literature and research on teacher preparation in early childhood education, early childhood programs, quality in early childhood settings, inclusion, and teacher self-efficacy. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in this study. The chapter begins with an overview of the research
12 study, a rationale for the selection of the research method, the setting of the study, data sources, data collection, provisions of trustworthiness, the role of the researcher, limitations, and a summary of the chapter. Chapter 4 presents the study’s findings.
Chapter 5 provides an overview of the research as well as conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research.
13 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Early childhood educators play a crucial role in supporting the development of young children, and early childhood education programs are responsible for designing learning environments that stimulate and encourage the development of each child’s abilities to successfully navigate the world around them and develop the skills necessary for them to succeed in school and in life (LiBetti, 2018).
The national push to include students with disabilities in the educational community has resulted in such students spending the majority of their days in general education classrooms that provide the least restrictive environment rather than in separate special education classes. This means more general education teachers are teaching more students with disabilities, but some training programs are not fully preparing these general education teachers to take on this responsibility (Mader, 2017).
Least restrictive environments are part of IDEA, which states that children who receive special education services should learn in the same settings as much as possible with peers who do not receive special education services (IDEA, 2004). Many children are entering early childhood educational settings with special needs that have not yet been diagnosed, and early childhood teachers may be the first people to become aware of concerns about a child’s behavior, development, or health (Sokal-Gutierrez, 2001).
Societal values now promote opportunities for development and learning and a sense of belonging for every child, including those with disabilities, and reflect a reaction against the previous educational practices of separating and isolating children with disabilities
(DEC/NAEYC, 2009). Several studies have examined the classroom teaching
14 experiences of new teachers but have not gone much farther than examining students’ satisfaction and whether they meet specific learning outcomes (Woullard & Coats, 2004).
In recent years, much of the focus in research and policy has been on teacher qualifications as a means of identifying the teachers who are best prepared to deliver high-quality experiences for young children. The Early Childhood Care and Education
Workforce (2012) report stated that this research has sought to determine the relationship between teacher degrees and types of training and the quality of teachers’ caregiving and teaching, as well as with children’s developmental outcomes. Debate concerning whether early childhood teachers should be required to hold bachelor’s degrees has been fueled in part by mixed research findings on the topic (Early et al., 2007; Helburn, 1995;
Whitebook & Ryan, 2011). The literature review of research on teacher preparation for working with children with special needs presented historical information linked to teacher preparation and current preparation perspectives.
Organization of Review
This literature review is organized by topics that are relevant to the issue of teacher preparation and working in early childhood education. The review will begin by discussing teacher preparation in early childhood, preparation for inclusion, and early childhood programs. Quality measures for early childhood programs will be discussed next. The role of federal funding sources in influencing early childhood quality programs will be discussed. Teacher self-efficacy and teacher expertise serve as the theoretical framework for the study. This chapter reviews and examines these conceptual frameworks using the Institute of Medicine’s Transforming the Workforce for Children
Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation (Allen & Kelly, 2015).
15 A 2015 report from the National Academies, titled Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation (Allen & Kelly, 2015) reviewed the research on early childhood teaching, identified key skills and competencies that early childhood educators need for the education of children 0–8 years of age, and called for increased credentials and compensation of early childhood educators to reflect the importance and complexity of their work, including requiring a bachelor’s degree for all lead teachers of children ages 0–8 (LiBetti, 2018).
Several databases were used to find information relevant to the research topic, including ERIC, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, JSTOR, and SAGE. The terms used to search these databases included Teacher Preparation, Teacher Perceptions, Inclusion, Early
Childhood Education, Special Needs Children, Teacher Efficacy, and others. The search was then expanded to include first- and second-year teachers. It became evident that there is a lack of research on first- and second-year early childhood teachers, supporting the position that further research is necessary to understanding the perceptions of these teachers once they have entered the early childhood teaching field.
Teacher Preparation in Early Childhood
There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that graduates of programs that connect theory to practice—both through well-designed clinical experiences, often in professional development schools, and through the use of case methods, action research, and performance assessments—feel better prepared, are rated as more effective by their supervisors, and contribute more to student learning (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb,
& Wyckoff, 2008; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The past two decades have witnessed a remarkable amount of policy directed toward teacher education and an
16 intense debate about whether and how various approaches to preparing and supporting teachers make a difference (Darling-Hammond, 2009).
Race to the Top, President Obama’s $4 billion state-level grant competition for school improvement, emphasized recruiting and retaining effective teachers, particularly in disadvantaged schools and districts (Engel, Claessens, Watts, & Farkas, 2016). It introduced a renewed focus on teachers as a key element of education reform that stemmed, at least in part, from a substantial body of research indicating that teachers make an important contribution to student achievement and that teacher quality varies
(Engel et al., 2016).
In 2009, the Government Accountability Office conducted, designed, and implemented a web-based survey to gather information on the extent to which teacher preparation programs administered by higher education institutions require preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners. The population from which they drew their sample consisted of higher education institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. They defined general classroom teachers as non-specialist teachers of the general education curriculum in mainstream classrooms; they did not include special education teachers within the scope of this research.
Four states were visited by the Government Accountability Office (California,
Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas), and each state set varying requirements for teacher preparation programs. Despite recent steps by higher education programs to better prepare teachers for instructing children with special needs, the report discovered that
17 many early childhood education programs face challenges in providing teacher training, including time constraints and identifying appropriate instructional strategies.
The report also surveyed participating teachers to obtain information regarding the required courses and field experiences, the challenges programs face in preparing general classroom teachers for working with children with special needs, program improvements, and the additional assistance received and needed in these areas. For the sections of the questionnaire pertaining to curricula requirements, the researchers focused primarily on traditional programs offered by higher education institutions that prepare elementary and secondary general classroom teachers. Questions regarding alternative routes to certification were also included. All the institutions within the sample offered traditional teacher preparation programs for either prospective elementary or secondary school teachers or both. It was found that most traditional teacher preparation programs at higher education institutions nationwide required at least some training for prospective general classroom teachers on teaching students with disabilities. It was also found that the majority of programs required at least one course entirely focused on students with special needs. Additionally, more than half of the programs required field experiences with students with disabilities.
California has several routes for those interested in education to begin teaching in a classroom without a teaching credential, and there are several routes that an individual may use to earn a credential in California. These include traditional routes, such as college and university teacher preparation programs and internships. However, there are additional routes available, including eminence credentials, private school experience, early completion internship options, and teaching permits. Approved intern programs are
18 sponsored by colleges, universities, school districts, or county offices of education. To qualify for intern program participation, an individual must possess a bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited college or university, satisfy the basic skills requirement, meet the subject matter competence and U.S. Constitution requirement, and obtain character and identification clearance (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
2016). The intern program provides teacher preparation coursework and an organized system of support from college and district faculty. Completion of an intern program results in the same preliminary teaching credential as is earned through a traditional teacher preparation program route. Since a teacher in California may be hired to teach early childhood with an undergraduate degree only and then enroll in a teacher preparation program, knowledge attained in an undergraduate degree regarding ways to meet the needs of children with special needs is important.
Providing teachers with high-quality professional learning can positively impact student learning outcomes (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson,
& Orphanos, 2009; Desimone, 2009; Jaquith, Mindich, Wei, & Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). In the United States, teachers participate in formal professional and informal learning experiences to gain knowledge through learning experiences designed to bring about change in teaching practice, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, and student learning (Guskey, 2002).
Early childhood preparation programs play a critical role in preparing teachers to work with young children (Sumrall et al., 2016). Teacher education and teacher professional learning require a new conceptual framework to provide teachers with powerful, transformative learning opportunities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Darling-
19 Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). This involves gaining an understanding of teacher learning and viewing teacher learning as a sustained process that involves active teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection (Darling-
Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Darling-Hammond (2009) stated that teacher qualifications and teachers’ knowledge and skills make more difference for student learning than any single factor. Knowledge of ways to meet the needs of children with disabilities must be an important part of the preparation (Huang & Diamond, 2009).
Children are already learning at birth, and they develop and learn at a rapid pace in their early years. This provides a critical foundation for lifelong progress, and the adults who provide for the care and education of young children bear a great responsibility for these children’s health, development, and learning (Allen & Kelly,
2015).
Inclusion
The need for teachers who have the knowledge and ability to teach children with special needs is more critical than ever before (Mader, 2017). The belief that children with disabilities should participate in natural environments alongside their peers without disabilities is a shared value for many early childhood education programs worldwide
(Odom, Teferra, & Kaul, 2004). The United States was an early adopter of legislation that ensures the right of children with disabilities to a public education (Frankel, Gold, &
Ajodhia-Andrews, 2010). National legislation for the education of all children with disabilities was enacted in 1975 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L.
No. 94-142, EHA) and mandated that all school-aged children with disabilities be provided a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment based on an
20 IEP. The least restrictive environment refers to the right of children with disabilities to be educated in classrooms with children who are not disabled (Guralnick & Bruder, 2016).
The U.S. government released a policy brief that described inclusion as a core value and very important feature of early childcare and learning for all young children and ensured that state policies support high-quality instruction.
In their report, Frankel et al. (2010) explained that four core principals of inclusion form the foundation for the bridge that spans the divide between vision and practice:
1. Solidarity of philosophy represents unity and the democratic belief that all
children belong and should be educated within their communities. Democratic
participation in providing inclusive services necessitates that all participants,
families, educators, administrators, policy makers, and support staff
understand and embrace the philosophy of inclusion. In a social constructivist
framework, each participant is allowed a voice in developing inclusive
programs that incorporate and validate the social, historical, and cultural
constructions of their subjective views and experiences (Creswell, 2014;
Skritc, Sailor, & Gee, 1996).
2. International mandates and conventions protect the right of children with
disabilities to an education. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, Article 7, declares that children with disabilities
have human rights and freedoms equal to those of any other child (United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2014). Article 24
of this convention also stipulates that children with disabilities have equal
21 access to “inclusive, quality and free primary education” within their
communities (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, 2014). This coincides directly with the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which asserts that all children have
fundamental rights to an education and to experience full societal involvement
(United Nations, 1995). The Salamanca Statement also reaffirms the pledge of
“Education for All,” recognizing the rights of children, youths, and adults with
disabilities to obtain an education within any regular education system (United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2014).
3. Respect for the cultural and linguistic diversity of all children with disabilities
and their families. Inclusive values respect each child as a unique individual
within the group, validating his or her contribution to society regardless of
abilities (Crippen, 2006). Practitioners must maintain an attitude that is open,
nonjudgmental, and sensitive to the cultural beliefs and experiences of
families and be willing to implement specific programs and goals that respond
to the family’s priorities for their child.
4. Approaches that are developmentally based, exceptionality focused, and
embedded in all learning opportunities and routines are valued as best
practice. This includes therapeutic interventions, such as speech and language
therapy, occupational therapy, and intensive behavioral interventions, which
are provided within early care and education settings and natural
environments within the community (Irwin, Lero, & Brophy, 2004). Goals
established for children and their families reflect their unique abilities and
22 developmental needs. This requires team collaboration to support the
development of individualized education and family support plans. (p.4)
In a study by Huang and Diamond (2009), the authors pointed out a consistent finding from studies in the United States that “many early childhood teachers report they are not confident in their ability to teach children with disabilities in their classroom designed for typically developing children” (p. 171). The authors went on to discuss several explanations that have been offered to articulate an inconsistency between teachers’ positive attitudes toward inclusion and their reluctance to include children with disabilities in their classrooms. First, the authors stated that many attitude studies only address the moral and legal aspects of inclusion but fail to address the practice or child levels of inclusion. Second, the authors stated that given public advocacy efforts, whether teachers’ responses to surveys about their attitudes toward inclusion are accurate reflections of their ideas or biased toward socially desirable responses is doubtful. The third explanation given by the authors is the instrument that measures teachers’ attitudes about individuals with disabilities because there are often broad disability categories and insufficient information about the individuals and their disabilities in this attitude research (Huang & Diamond, 2009).
Inclusion and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
In California, MTSS is an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on
Common Core State Standards, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social success. MTSS offers the potential to create needed systematic change through intentional design and redesign of services and
23 supports that quickly identify and match the needs of all students (CDE, 2014). The general number of students involved in each level of MTSS is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. MTSS pyramid.
MTSS emphasizes multiple levels of instruction and support for all learners, including students with advanced skills or struggling students who may not be eligible for special education services. It is an integrated, comprehensive framework for local educational agencies that aligns academic, behavioral, and social-emotional learning in a fully integrated system of support for the benefit of all students (CDE, 2014).
In the three tiers of MTSS, Tier 1 represents research-based core instruction that occurs in a general education classroom. All students are taught with methods that research has shown to be effective. All students are screened to see who is and is not responding to these strategies. Students may be broken into small groups that address different strengths and areas of need. Tier 2 consists of small group interventions. Some students receive more targeted support in small groups. The scheduling of these interventions is important. The goal is to keep students from missing any core instruction
24 or other Tier 1 activities that might make it more difficult to catch up. Tier 3 provides intensive, individualized support. A few students who move up to this most intensive level of support continue with Tier 1 activities. Their break-out groups are smaller than in
Tier 2, and these sessions last longer and are more narrowly focused (Rosen, 2019).
Early Childhood Programs
The demand for highly qualified teachers in every classroom has become a major topic of mainstream conversations (Boe & Cook, 2006). There is a growing demand for early childhood education personnel with bachelor’s degrees. Federal policy is embodied in the definition of a highly qualified teacher put forth in the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB, 2002), which requires all teachers to have full state certification (Boe &
Cook, 2006). Standardizing the requirements to be qualified to practice is one way to improve the quality of professional practice among educators. These standards are typically set through systems that establish and administer legal licenses to practice or credentials, certificates, or endorsements that may be a legal requirement, a condition for funding, or voluntarily adopted by an employer as a condition of employment.
The current systems vary widely in what is required to be an early childhood teacher (Whitebook, Phillips, & Howes, 2014). Each of the 50 states (as well as the U.S. territories) sets its own qualifications for public school teachers and teachers, assistant teachers, and directors in licensed early childhood care and education programs. In most of these settings, state licensing standards set the basic level of health and safety requirements for facilities and the education qualifications for teaching and administrative staff. Most of these programs also are supported by federal, state, and/or
25 private funds that prescribe widely varying expectations for pre-service and ongoing training, as well as certification.
State public school licensure systems encompass professional roles that entail working with young children. These systems use several different age ranges and combinations of grade levels; some extend from birth through age 5 or up to age 8, while others cover ages in public school settings, extending from prekindergarten or kindergarten to sixth grade or higher in the same license. The structure of licenses also influences how teacher preparation programs prepare prospective educators. Bornfreund
(2011) indicated that states with overlapping licenses also have overlapping teacher preparation programs.
Vu, Jeon, and Howes (2008) conducted an analysis of California’s state-funded preschool programs to examine the relationship between teachers’ education and classroom quality in the context of other variables, such as program setting (i.e., childcare centers, Head Start, and public schools) and program leaders’ qualifications. While data on bachelor’s degrees is mixed, they found that a bachelor’s degree was associated with higher quality instruction for teachers who worked in childcare and Head Start programs, but not for those in public schools. The authors theorized that public school systems may have the capacity to offset lower education by providing more supports, such as supervision and classroom materials.
There is also considerable variation among professional roles working with younger children. Degrees are becoming required in some early childhood settings because of requirements in Head Start and other publicly funded prekindergarten programs that require educators to obtain preschool through early elementary certification
26 (Allen & Kelly, 2015). These new policies are resulting in a job market where educators who are able to obtain higher education that qualifies them for better-paying positions leave programs that serve young children to work in schools with older children, leaving preschools and childcare settings with fewer resources for those with better resources.
This affects the workforce, resulting in possible inequities for children across and within states and local communities, possibly continuing a cycle of disparity in the quality of the learning experiences of young children.
Quality in Early Childhood Programs
The early childhood education field is experiencing a period of significant transformation, especially in the area of funding for quality programs. Child development and early learning are recognized on many levels as a public good with benefits for society as a whole, and there is a long tradition of public investments for achieving these benefits, especially for children and families who are disadvantaged (Allen & Kelly,
2015).
Quality Measures
Over the last decade, federal early childhood policy has worked to improve the quality of early care and education. For example, the 2007 Head Start Act and the 2014
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act made great strides to improve the early education experiences of young children. A key aspect of these laws is a focus on better defining and measuring the quality of early childhood settings through assessments. In his
2014 State of the Union address, President Obama repeated his call for expanding access to “high-quality” preschools (White House, 2014). The Pre-K Now initiative sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts focused on advancing “high-quality, voluntary pre-
27 kindergarten for all three- and four-year-olds” and supported a doubling of state funding and almost a doubling of children served by state pre-kindergartens (pre-K) throughout the first decade of the 21st century (Gordon et al., 2015, p. 1088). Many state quality rating and improvement systems (QRISs) provide childcare programs with higher childcare subsidy reimbursements based in part on their scores on the CLASS or the
Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised (ECERS), and most state pre-K programs use the measures to monitor programs (Gordon et al., 2015).
Accreditation and quality improvement systems with a focus on the quality of a center or program are increasingly being used in early childhood settings. Given the importance of the working professionals to the quality of the learning environment, these systems can drive standards for education requirements and other qualifications and include assessments of and, in some cases, feedback for these professionals. The
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 required Head Start grantees to re-compete for funding when they scored below a specific cutoff on the CLASS (Pianta,
La Paro, & Hamre, 2008).
Several states, including California, use a quality rating system to determine quality in early childhood education settings. Professional learning is often incorporated in the context of quality assurance and improvement systems such as QRISs.
A 2014 report called for a review and expansion of the conceptual framework for
QRISs to include not only the child outcomes that are central to those systems but also outcomes related to increasing family engagement and the professionalization of the early care and education workforce and improving early care and education systems (Zaslow &
Tout, 2014). Coaching in the context of a QRIS is another opportunity to align with
28 broader early education professional learning goals. The intent of this coaching can be related to the rating process by preparing educators for rating, facilitating the rating process, or improving the rating system itself. Coaching is often focused on overall quality improvement rather than enhancing specific content areas, skills, or curriculum.
Coaching in the sense of the QRIS context usually lasts longer than non-QRIS coaching.
Data are not currently available on the impact of coaching on program-level or child outcomes (Isner et al., 2011).
Young children are commonly assessed through everyday observation and documentation of their behaviors and performance against clear performance benchmarks or indicators or through one-on-one assessments of specific skills, both of which require educators to interact with students in small groups or individually (National Early
Childhood Accountability Task Force, 2007; National Education Goals Panel, 1998;
Snow, 2011).
These measures of student achievement, however, are not used in K–12 evaluation systems in some educator evaluation systems and do not take these skills into account for children of any age, potentially missing significant aspects of early educators’ competencies as professionals. QRISs are designed to measure, improve, and communicate the quality of early childhood education settings. Currently, QRISs vary based on the unique needs and priorities and geographic location. A QRIS in California early childhood settings is not likely to meet the needs of a QRIS in New York; however, it is important to note that most QRISs in all states include environmental ratings and observation tools, such as the CLASS, ECERS, and national accreditation. All of these have some component of family engagement, child assessments, and the recognition of a
29 child with special needs. Currently, 37 states’ QRISs attach financial incentives to a program’s overall quality rating, the majority of which include the Early Childhood
Environment Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R) as a key component (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance, 2019). These instruments have now become common tools for measuring and assessing the quality of early education (Winterbottom
& Jones, 2013).
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). The CLASS is an observation and rating tool that measures the interactions between teachers and children and their effects on child learning and development. The CLASS observation system
(Pianta et al., 2008) was created to provide a research-based framework for assessing interactions between teachers and children and the effects of instructional quality in prekindergarten and primary classroom environments (Hamre & Pianta, 2007). Since its publication, CLASS has been used extensively in evaluation and research in more than
3,000 early childhood classrooms (Hamre, Goffin, & Kraft-Sayre, 2009). As part of the
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, the Office of Head Start selected the CLASS as one of the primary observation scales piloted to assess the quality of Head Start classrooms nationwide (Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center,
2008). Head Start now utilizes CLASS scores to determine the accreditation of new prekindergarten centers around the nation (Hamre, Hatfield, Pianta, & Jamil, 2013). The purpose of CLASS is to measure the quality of teachers’ interactions with their students
(La Paro, Pianta, & Stuhlman, 2004).
It contains separate areas for differing age groups, often examining the differences in how children ages 0–5 learn. The CLASS assesses the quality of the relationships and
30 interactions, routines, the physical environment, and the way language is used and the quality of relationships between young children and their caregivers (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). The Office of Head Start uses CLASS to measure classroom quality, as required by the 2007 Head Start Act (Goldberg, 2008).
Desired Results Developmental Profile. The CDE developed a system to improve the quality of programs and services provided to all children from birth through
12 years of age who are enrolled in early care and education programs. This scoring measure of quality is known as the Desired Results and is a developmental profile that is a formative assessment instrument developed by the CDE for young children and their families to be used to inform instruction and program development (CDE, 2015). Desired
Results are defined as conditions of well-being for children and families. Each Desired
Result defines an overall outcome. The Desired Results system was developed based on six Desired Results—four for children and two for their families (CDE, 2015).
The six results are
DR1: Children are personally and socially competent
DR2: Children are effective learners
DR3: Children show physical and motor competence
DR4: Children are safe and healthy
DR5: Families support their child’s learning and development
DR6: Families achieve their goals. (CDE, 2015, p. 1)
The Desired Results system implemented by the CDE is a comprehensive approach that facilitates the achievement of the Desired Results identified for children and families. California is one of very few states that has developed its own system
31 designed specifically for measuring children’s progress toward desired outcomes. The system is aligned to both the state’s learning and development foundations for early care and education programs and the content standards for kindergarten (CDE, 2015).
Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS). The ECERS measures include multiple items on which programs are rated and includes space and furnishings, activities and interactions in the classroom, personal care routines, and family engagement (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2015). First published in 1980 and revised in
1998, the measures reflect the early childhood education field’s concept of developmentally appropriate practice, including a predominance of child-initiated activities selected from a wide array of options—a whole-child approach that integrates physical, emotional, social, and cognitive development and highly trained teachers who facilitate development by being responsive to children’s age-related and individual needs
(Gordon et al., 2015).
National accreditation. With the growing need for quality early childhood education, professional organizations concerned with the well-being and appropriate education of young children offer recommendations for minimum standards of quality, most of which address features of program design and infrastructure (Winterbottom &
Jones, 2013). The National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education
Programs (2019) offers early childhood leaders the opportunity to demonstrate and document quality performance using research-based criteria and evidence-based practices. According to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies (2004), the NAEYC is the largest accrediting organization for preschool programs in the United States. Accreditation is a voluntary process that centers undergo
32 to prove that they meet certain quality standards. Each accrediting process includes a self- study, an application (and fees), a validation visit to verify information, and yearly certification through written documentation. Upon receiving official accreditation, the provider receives a certificate that verifies its status. Achieving NAEYC accreditation is a four-step process that involves self-reflection and quality improvement to meet and maintain accreditation over a five-year period. Directors, teachers, and families all participate in the process. Programs are required to meet standards grouped into ten areas: relationships with children, curriculum, teaching approaches, child assessment, nutrition and health, staff qualifications, relationship with children’s families, relationship with the community, physical environment, and program leadership and management. Early childhood settings that obtain national accreditation are viewed as programs that have gone above and beyond what is necessary by state regulators to be licensed centers and are often considered to have a higher level of quality (Workman & Ullrich, 2017).
The Role of Federal Funding in Quality in Early Childhood Program Development
In the Learning Policy Institute’s report Understanding California’s Early Care and Education System, it was stated that early childhood programs rely on a complex array of federal, state, and local funding sources (Melnick, Tinubu, Gardner, Maier, &
Wechsler, 2017). On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which was designed to stimulate the economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education, in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Roughly $100 billion of the ARRA was allocated for education, with $4.35 billion set aside for the establishment of Race to the Top, a competitive grant program designed to encourage states to support education innovation
33 (Howell, 2015). The Race to the Top Fund was designed to encourage and reward states for creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas:
Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in
college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
Building data systems that measure student growth and success and
inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and
principals, especially where they are needed most; and
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools. (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009, p. 2)
Race to the Top rewarded states that demonstrated success in improving student achievement and had the best plans to accelerate their reforms in the future (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009).
The Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge focused on improving
California’s early learning and development programs and increasing access to high- quality programs for high-needs children. The Race to the Top – Early Learning
Challenge (RTT-ELC) initiative was announced on May 25, 2011 by the U.S.
Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The $500- million state-level grant competition rewarded states that created comprehensive plans to
34 transform early learning systems for children from birth to age five with better coordination and assessment mechanisms, clearer learning standards, and meaningful workforce development and family engagement initiatives. California was one of the states to receive this award.
The RTT-ELC grant competition focused on improving early learning and development programs for young children by supporting states’ efforts to:
1. increase the number and percentage of low-income and disadvantaged children in
each age group of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are enrolled in high-
quality early learning programs;
2. design and implement an integrated system of high-quality early learning
programs and services; and
3. ensure that any use of assessments conforms with the recommendations of the
National Research Council’s reports on early childhood (California Department of
Education, 2019).
With the growing population of very young and diverse children, the need for high-quality early childhood education continues to grow. Research has demonstrated a link between the quality of early childhood education and children’s school readiness
(Howes et al., 2008; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2002–2003).
Theoretical Frameworks
Two theories served as the theoretical frameworks for this study: Teacher Self-
Efficacy and Teacher Expertise. These will serve as a lens for analyzing the data and overall conclusions.
35 Teacher Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a person’s judgment of their capability to organize and execute a course of action (Bandura, 1986). There is a great deal of focus on teacher efficacy as a form of assessing teacher quality with an even deeper focus on collective efficacy.
Teacher self-efficacy is defined as “teachers’ confidence in their ability to promote students’ learning” (Hoy, 2000, p. 33). The efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers have been linked to attitudes toward children and control (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Teacher self-efficacy is a teacher’s belief in their own ability to guide their students to success
(Concordia University Room 241, 2018), and researchers have questioned the validity and reliability of existing measures of self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001). According to the book Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on
Learning (Hattie, 2012), teacher efficacy has the greatest impact on student achievement—even higher than factors like teacher–student relationships, home environment, or parental involvement.
A teacher who lacks confidence is less likely to push students, try new methods, or push through difficulty. When teachers are confident in their ability, persistent through challenges, and innovative in their practices, students can significantly benefit (Concordia
University Room 241, 2018). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs relate to effort, goal setting, persistence, and resilience (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Self- efficacy has also been linked to teachers’ level of professional commitment and desire to develop their teaching practice. This is evidenced by a willingness to try a variety of materials and approaches, as well as implementation of progressive and innovative methods. Enthusiasm, fairness, and teachers’ willingness to work with students who are
36 experiencing difficulties were also correlated with teacher self-efficacy (Tschannen-
Moran et al., 1998).
When assessing beliefs about their teaching capability in a particular context, teachers make two related judgments: the requirements of an anticipated teaching task and an assessment of their personal teaching competence in light of those requirements
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The assessment of the teaching task requirements includes the resources available; student factors such as their perceived ability, motivation, and socioeconomic status; and contextual factors, such as school leadership, collegial support, and the availability of resources. Judgments of personal competence are those a teacher makes about his or her capabilities based on an assessment of internal strengths and deficits (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). It is important to note that self-efficacy is a motivational construct based on self-perception of competence rather than actual level of competence (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007).
Effective teaching requires well-rounded instructors who are confident in the material they teach and in themselves, and being genuine is one of the most important personal characteristics a teacher can possess (Creemers, Kyriakides, & Antoniou, 2012).
The degree to which an individual believes in his or her own self-efficacy influences his or her functioning. Individuals with high self-efficacy believe in their capabilities and view challenges as learning opportunities. According to Bandura (2001), self-efficacy is the foundation of human motivation, well-being, and accomplishments. Unless people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to act or persevere in challenges (Bandura, 2008).
37 There are additional personal and professional characteristics that are necessary for effective teaching (Creemers et al., 2012). Teachers should be knowledgeable about the subject they are teaching and understand the concepts they are teaching thoroughly to explain and articulate them in detail. They require knowledge to engage students and to judge where and how to be of assistance. They also need to have practical, hands-on experience with the subject matter they are teaching (Creemers et al., 2012). In the article
Before Student Teaching: How Undergraduate Students in Early Childhood Teacher
Preparation Programs Describe Their Early Classroom-Based Experience (Maynard,
Paro, & Johnson, 2013), the authors focused on the preparation of new teachers exploring the field of early childhood-based experiences. The researchers suggested that by preparing and exposing new teachers to early childhood classrooms, teachers will receive the knowledge necessary to succeed; however, this study raised questions for further research of teacher development and identity in the pre-service years.
Teacher Expertise
Teachers have important roles in organizing student learning, including organizing studying, directing conversation, and affecting students’ lives in many ways.
Studies on the nature of teacher knowledge show that teachers seem to develop situation- specific action patterns for classroom instruction (Boshuizen, Bromme, & Gruber, 2004).
Teacher expertise is partly intuitive and artistic and partly learned interventions and can be assumed to make a difference in student learning (Gage & Lieberman, 1978).
One research strategy for describing expertise in domain fields similar to teaching is to identify typical differences between experts and novices (Ropo, 1990). Several studies have produced a list of factors or characteristics that seem to differentiate expert
38 teachers from novice teachers. It is important to approach teacher expertise from a more contextual point of view (Ropo, 1990). Ropo (1990) stated that one example of this type of theorizing is the stage model first proposed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986). According to this model, the development of expertise proceeds in five stages: novice, advanced beginner, competent performer, proficient performer, and expert (Dreyfus & Dreyfus,
1986; Haroutunian-Gordon, Dreyfus, & Dreyfus, 1988). Berliner (1988) described novices, advanced beginners, and competent performers as rational, proficient performers as intuitive, and experts as irrational. Experts possess intuition with which they can create an overall representation of a situation. Their actions are flexible and fit the situation at hand. Experts seem to know what to do without necessarily being able to describe to an outsider the grounds for their actions or how their thinking proceeds. Thinking seems to be rational in the sense that there is logic behind it. However, the rules of decision- making are hidden and intuitive, especially for an expert. A person is an expert because he or she seems to understand the requirements of the situation better and is able to fit his/her own decisions, actions, and interactions into the context.
Dreyfus (2004) described the stage 1 novice as one who is just at the beginning stages of learning a task or skill. In stage 2, the authors described how the stage 1 novice is beginning to learn to cope with situations and understand a situation relevant to the context it is presented in using examples or other meaning they construct for themselves.
Dreyfus described stage 3 as a level of competence due to repeated and varying experiences that the learner has come in contact with and explained this could be overwhelming; however, the student, either through instructions or experience, makes a decision about what is important and what can be ignored in the performance of a task or
39 duty. The student develops his or her own rules and reasoning, and since the results depend on the student’s choice, the student feels responsible for the choice he or she makes. This could turn out well, or the choice could lead to further confusion, but the competent student feels a sort of elation that is not felt or experienced by the novice in stage 1 or the beginner in stage 2.
In stage 4, Dreyfus (2004) stated, “As the competent performer becomes more and more emotionally involved in a task, it becomes increasingly difficult for him or her to draw back and adopt the detached, rule-following stance of the beginner” (p. 179).
Both positive and negative emotions strengthen the successful and unsuccessful tasks, and the student’s belief about the skill he or she has acquired and demonstrated now starts to allow the student to develop feelings of proficiency, which is seen in the student’s actions. The student plans and recognizes the important aspects of a task much quicker and easier without the hesitation of waiting and adopting a perspective, as he or she would have done prior to stage 4. Dreyfus believed that at this stage, one becomes an involved, experienced performer who sees goals and important aspects but is not quite sure of what to do to reach these goals. The authors described this as inevitable because there are much fewer ways of seeing what is going on than there are ways of reacting.
They explained that the “proficient performer” has not had enough experience with the outcomes of possible responses to situations he or she can now differentiate to react spontaneously, so he or she will still need to decide what to do. In that decision-making process, he or she must fall back on the rule making process used in the previous stages.
Dreyfus (2004) explained that, in stage 5, the proficient performer has gained skills and now sees what needs to be done but decides how to do it. The expert not only
40 sees what needs to be done because of his or her many experiences but also sees how to immediately reach this goal. The expert now has an ability to make more subtle and refined decisions, and this is one characteristic that distinguishes the expert from the proficient performer. The expert has learned to determine which situations require one reaction from those that demand another.
With enough experience in a variety of situations, all seen from the same
perspective but requiring different tactical decisions, the brain of the expert
gradually decomposes this class of situations into subclasses, each of which
requires a specific response. This allows the immediate intuitive situational
response that is characteristic of expertise. (p. 180)
Based on this model, the process of becoming an expert at anything can take years of practice and time to move through the stages described here.
Summary
Chapter 2 presented a literature review of the research on teacher preparation in early childhood, preparation for inclusion, early childhood programs, quality measures, the role of federal funding, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher expertise. Chapter 3 will present the methodology of the study, including the rationale for utilizing a basic qualitative study methodology.
41 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the design of the study and the data collection methods used to examine how early childhood education teachers are trained to work with students with special needs. This chapter also describes the setting and the participants selected for the study.
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify how six first- and second- year early childhood teachers in Los Angeles County describe their classroom experiences and their undergraduate and post baccalaureate preparation in university programs to work with children with special needs. The study investigated how the teachers described and interpreted their training and preparation in relation to their experiences in the classroom and how they learned to develop these skills. Merriam
(2009) explained, “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (p. 5). Creswell (2012) said of interviews, “Researchers ask one or more participants general, open-ended questions and record their answers. The researcher then transcribes and types the data into a computer file for analysis” (p. 217).
Researchers rely on interviews to find out information that cannot be directly observed, such as feelings, thoughts, and intentions. The purpose of utilizing interviews in research is to allow the researcher the opportunity to view a situation from another person’s perspective (Merriam, 2009). A priori coding and open coding are used to identify themes from interview data (Lichtman, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2018).
42 The following research questions were used to explore teachers’ attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about their preparation for working with children with special needs:
1. In what ways, prior to beginning teaching, did these teacher’s undergraduate
degrees and credential programs prepare them to meet the special needs of
children in their classrooms?
2. What supported their learning in practice?
3. What are these teachers’ recommendations for what is needed for new teachers to
attain the knowledge and skills to support to children with special needs in their
classrooms?
Rationale for Selection of the Method
To gain an understanding of how six first- and second-year early childhood education teachers felt they were prepared to work with children with special needs in undergraduate and teacher preparation programs, the participants were interviewed to interpret their perceptions of their own preparation for working with children with special needs and how they reflected upon and understood their own issues of practice in their work with children, families, and other professionals. In a basic qualitative study,
Creswell (2014) and Merriam and Tisdell (2015) explained that knowledge is accessed by engaging in a participant’s experiences and then interpreting their experiences to make meaning of how they are ascribing a problem. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) stated,
Qualitative researchers conducting a basic qualitative study would be interested in
(1) how people interpret their experiences, (2) how they construct their worlds,
43 and (3) what meaning they attribute to their experiences. The overall purpose is to
understand how people make sense of their lives and their experiences. (p. 24)
Creswell (2014) further explained that social constructivists process the interactions among participants’ specific contexts and settings and believe that the participants and their experiences have complex views. By addressing their views, researchers can generate a pattern of meaning. The benefit to the participants of this study is the ability to participate in a reflective process and add to the body of knowledge regarding early childhood teacher preparation.
Basic qualitative studies can be found throughout the disciplines and in applied fields of practice. They are probably the most common form of qualitative research found in education (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). By employing qualitative methods to produce needed data, the researcher was able to learn more about the participants’ teacher preparation programs and how these programs addressed working with children with special needs. The researcher was also able to gather valuable insight on how these teachers gained knowledge, skills, and expertise in areas they believed were missing in their preparation programs.
A qualitative study design format was used to establish a framework to explore the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs the participants commonly experienced in their work with children and families with special needs. The findings of this study provide descriptive data of first- and second-year teachers’ attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about their preparation for working with children with special needs in an early childhood setting.
44 Setting
According to Merriam (2009), qualitative researchers construct their theory by being in the field. For this study, the setting was within the boundaries of Los Angeles
County with first- and second-year early childhood teachers. The researcher awaited approval from the Cal Poly Pomona Institutional Review Board before beginning the data collection for this study. Once approval was received, the participants were invited to meet at a convenient location to answer semi-structured interview questions.
Participants
The method used to obtain participants was based on Creswell’s (2014) characteristics of a qualitative design where participants are asked to provide predetermined criteria information. The predetermined criteria included the participants’ level of education, their work locations and type of early childhood education setting, and the type of degree they had obtained in a formal college setting. The participants in this study were six early childhood teachers in Los Angeles County, currently serving in their first or second year of teaching after obtaining their bachelor’s degree. These teachers all held a bachelor’s degree or higher in early childhood education, child development, or a closely related field. The participants were all teachers working in a public or private early childhood setting in Los Angeles County and were recruited through snowball sampling, also known as purposeful sampling. Beginning with a request explaining the purpose of the study with the researcher’s contact information, an email was sent to the
Los Angeles County Training and Research Director for distribution to an email list database developed for early childhood educators in the region and used by the organization. This email request included an informational flier along with the request for
45 teachers who met the study criteria of being a first- or second-year early childhood education teacher in Los Angeles County with a bachelor’s degree to contact the researcher if interested in volunteering for the study. To protect the privacy of the participants, each were given pseudonyms. All participants received their degrees in
California from an accredited university. Five participants were female, and one was male. Three of the participants were teachers in public schools. Of those three, one was a transitional kindergarten teacher. Transitional kindergarten is a publicly funded program for 4-year-olds who turn 5 between September 2 and December 2. Transitional kindergarten is designed to be a bridge between preschool and kindergarten. Children who are enrolled in transitional kindergarten can enroll in traditional kindergarten classes the following year. There is no mandated curriculum for transitional kindergarten.
Transitional kindergarten uses a modified kindergarten curriculum that is age- and development-appropriate. Of the other two public school teachers, one was a preschool teacher who was teaching children 3–5 years old in a self-contained classroom. The other taught kindergarten. The remaining two teachers served young children in private schools. One of the private school participants was a kindergarten teacher at a charter school, and the other taught preschool students aged 3 to 5.
The ethnic background of the participants was diverse: two participants were
African American, three were Hispanic, and one was Caucasian. Table 1 provides a brief description of each participant. Each of the participants were currently serving in settings consisting primarily of children of color located within predominately low-income neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The data collection for this study was from two one-on-one interviews in which each participant described the demographic
46 makeup of the students in the class to the researcher. Once the interviews were concluded, the information was transcribed and coded. After coding, emergent themes were recognized and separated according to the research questions.
Table 1
Participant Profiles
Participant Years Degree(s) Attained Current Position Pseudonym Teaching Kiara 1 Bachelor of Arts Pre-K Teacher Liberal Studies Public School Angela 1 Bachelor of Arts Kinder Teacher Child Development Public School Marissa 1 Bachelor of Arts Preschool Teacher Liberal Studies Private School Leslie 1 Bachelor of Arts Kinder Teacher Ethnic and Family Charter School Studies Michelle 2 Bachelor of Arts TK/Kinder Teacher Child Development Public School Luis 2 Bachelor of Arts Preschool Teacher Sociology Private School
Interviews and Data Collection
During the initial meeting as a basis for establishing trust and rapport, the participants were interviewed using a protocol that included semi-structured questions developed by the researcher. Follow-up interviews were conducted to obtain additional responses from the participants using semi-structured questions as the researcher scribed notes. Once contact was made with potential participants, a consent form was given to each participant, and meetings were scheduled for interviews. A mutually agreed upon meeting place free of distractions was determined for the interviews. The researcher met with the participants and used a handheld recording device to keep a record of the
47 interview. The researcher digitally voice recorded each interview, and the recordings were transcribed by a transcription service. At the initial meeting, the participants received a handout indicating the purpose of the study and how the participants could contact the researcher for additional questions or information. Appendix A is a copy of the semi-structured interview questions.
Data Analysis
Data collection and data analysis are interactive processes in qualitative research
(Creswell, 2014). The two processes informed each other and allowed the researcher to shape the study as it progresses (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). The questions were designed to elicit the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the participants’ preparation for working with children with special needs. Prior to starting the data analysis, the researcher reviewed the research questions to ensure alignment with the data and used deductive and inductive analysis. Patton (2015) explained, “Inductive analysis involves discovering patterns, themes, and categories in one’s data. Findings emerge out of the data, through the analyst’s interactions with the data” (p. 453). Deductive analysis determines “the extent to which qualitative data in a particular study support existing general conceptualizations, explanations, results, and/or theories” (Patton, 2015, p. 533).
The researcher deductively analyzed the data with a set of existing a priori codes derived from themes found in the literature review and the research questions. The completed interview transcripts were provided to the participants for approval prior to coding.
As the research progressed, careful consideration was given to flexibility in discovering emerging themes and patterns. Direct quotations of responses were used to convey the perspectives of the participants. Before and after the interviews, the researcher
48 reviewed the research questions as a reminder of the purpose of the study in preparation for data analysis. To answer the research questions, the data analysis was conducted concurrently with and at the completion of the data collection using a combination of deductive and inductive analyses.
First Interview Analysis
After each interview was completed, the researcher reviewed the research questions and purpose of the study and then reviewed the transcript of the interview and the additional field notes taken during the interview. This researcher read and reread the interview transcripts while making marginal notes and comments on the transcript data.
The researcher made note of any additional questions to ask during the second interview.
This process was repeated for the second interview to organize and refine the data. The researcher then compared the interview datasets in preparation for coding (Creswell,
2014; Merriam, 2014; Patton, 2015; Saldana, 2013).
Subsequent Interview Analysis
An additional interview was held with each participant over the phone after careful review of the initial interview data to gather any further information the participants felt was left out or that they wanted to add. As in the initial analysis, the researcher read and reread the interview transcripts while making marginal notes and comments on the transcript data. After all the interviews were completed, the researcher compared the interview datasets (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2014; Patton, 2015; Saldana,
2013). The researcher coded the interview data throughout the process (Lichtman, 2013).
49 Coding Process
Saldana (2013) wrote, “A code in qualitative inquiry is most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (p. 3). The researcher used Lichtman’s (2013) six-step iterative process of open coding, categorizing, and developing concepts for the data (see Figure 2):
1) Initial coding
2) Revisiting initial coding
3) Developing an initial list of categories and subcategories
4) Modifying the initial list of categories and subcategories
5) Revisiting categories and subcategories
6) Developing concepts from categories. (p. 329)
Modify Initial Develop List of Revisit Develop Revisit Initial List of Initial Coding Categories & Categories and Concepts for Coding Categories and Subcategories Subcategories Categories Subcategories
Figure 2. Coding process.
50 In the first step of the open coding process, the researcher read the interview transcripts twice prior to initial coding for the purpose of conceptual understanding.
Initial codes can be marginal notes, annotations, and/or analytic ideas (Lichtman, 2013;
Saldana, 2013). The researcher also wrote new analytic memos to record the significance and relevance of emergent thoughts and ideas throughout the coding process (Lichtman,
2013). The researcher continued this initial coding process with each interview. In addition to the open coding process, the initial set of a priori codes was predetermined from a deductive approach using key areas of the literature review on teacher education, teacher efficacy, expertise, and QRIS data to inform the coding (Lichtman, 2013).
In step two, the researcher revisited and modified the initial coding by collapsing redundant codes and renaming or clarifying like terms. In the third step of this iterative process, the researcher organized the codes into an initial listing of categories of major topics and any categories considered to be a subset of major categories. As recommended by Lichtman (2013), the researcher implemented the fourth step in the coding process by continuing to modify and combine the initial list of categories “to move from coding initial data through identification of categories to the recognition of important concepts or themes” (p. 254). In step five, the researcher continued to revisit the list of categories to determine redundancies and the identification of emerging critical elements. In the sixth step, the researcher moved from the categories to identifying key concepts. Lichtman
(2013) stated, “Fewer well-developed and supported concepts make for a much richer analysis than many loosely framed ideas” (p. 254).
The common themes that emerged from the concepts were based on quantity and impact and formed the basis for the findings and conclusions (Lichtman, 2013). Twenty-
51 six separate codes emerged from the interviews. From the data themes emerged for each interview question.
Provisions of Trustworthiness
Qualitative researchers must address the research validity, which refers to qualitative research that is “plausible, credible, trustworthy, and therefore, defensible”
(Johnson, 1997, p. 282), which is often referred to as just trustworthiness. As part of this study, the researcher has provided written examples and descriptions of the process. The trustworthiness of this study was built into the research design through confidentiality, clear and appropriate research questions, purposeful sampling, and systematic data collection and management (Creswell, 2012). The trustworthiness of the study was strengthened by the researcher’s active listening during the interviews, recording and transcribing accurately, member-checking, initiating early writing, including data in the final report, being candid, seeking feedback from the dissertation committee, attempting to achieve balance, and writing accurately (Wolcott, 1990). The researcher brought her own academic and experiential knowledge into the study, as this is an advantage for the study overall. Marshall and Rossman (2016) explained the purpose of determining the validity. Because the purpose of the study is to interpret the participants’ experiences, prolonged engagement with participants, followed by triangulation and descriptive data, recursive member-checking, and accuracy (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) were important steps taken by the researcher to establish the trustworthiness of the participants’ stories and experiences.
The implementation of pseudonyms for individuals and places to protect the participants’ identities (Creswell, 2014) and their anonymity (Marshall & Rossman,
52 2016) is an important ethical component of research (Creswell, 2014; Marshall &
Rossman, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The researcher, aside from the written consent from the participants, ensured confidentiality in this study through the implementation of pseudonyms to protect the participants’ information and locations from being identifiable.
Positionality
According to Lichtman (2013), “The researcher plays a pivotal role in the qualitative research process . . . [and] is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis” (p. 21). Working with young children is a passion that is near and dear to me.
As a young adult in 1990, I began working as an instruction aide in a classroom of special needs children between the ages of three and five. There were twelve children in the classroom with varying abilities. Some students were orthopedically handicapped, some had cerebral palsy, some students were fed using G-tubes, and some children were completely ambulatory with cognitive deficits. This was my first experience working with children with special needs. During this time, I observed the classroom interactions between the children and the teachers and aides in the classroom, and I noticed a remarkable difference in the interactions between the children and certain adults. One student, Cameron, who needed to be diapered and fed through a G-tube was incredibly happy, outgoing, and talkative when he was wheeled from the classroom to the changing area for diapering or the feeding area to be tube fed. He and his caregiver, Anne, had developed a relationship that was clearly one of warmth and caring.
During the feeding or changing, they would sing songs, Anne would ask him questions, which he always answered, and he would tell her as best he could about things
53 that excited him. Once the reason they were away from the classroom was over and it was time to return, Cameron became a totally different child. He rarely said or did anything in the classroom other than sit in his wheelchair. His classroom teacher, who was always on her cell phone, even when the children were in the room, showed very little interest in Cameron or any of his peers. The classroom teacher spent most of her morning directing the instructional aides, myself included, on where we were to take the children for inclusion for the day.
Today, I serve as an assistant principal in a K–5 school in a large urban school district and recognize the impacts of the relationships teachers have with their students. In addition to serving as an administrator in a K–5 school, I also serve as a faculty member of a state university working to prepare the next generation of early childhood educators to enter the field prepared to work with a wide range of diverse students. My knowledge of children with special needs and the need to prepare the next generation of early childhood educators is a driving force behind this study. While conducting this study, I accessed reflexivity. Creswell (2014) defined reflexivity as when “the inquirer reflects about how their role in the study and their personal background, culture, and experiences hold potential for shaping their interpretations, such as themes, they advance and the meaning they ascribe to the data” (p. 186).
Summary
The significance of this study is its contribution to the field of preschool teacher preparation programs. Chapter 3 provided the methodology of the study, a discussion of the rationale for utilizing a qualitative research study design, the data collection procedures, and the role of the researcher. The data analysis and data collection
54 procedures were included, and a description of the participant selection process and the semi-structured interview questions was provided. It also explained how the data were initially coded and how those codes were used to develop emergent themes. Chapter 4 will describe the findings of this study.
55 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how six first- and second- year early childhood educators perceived their undergraduate and post baccalaureate preparation for teaching and working with children with special needs in the field of early childhood education in California. The research questions that guided this study helped to identify how these new teachers perceived the educational training and experiences they received prior to entering the classroom and how this training (or lack thereof) affected their ability to teach a diverse group of students, including those with special needs. The participants were asked to describe their preparation for working with children with special needs in their undergraduate degree and through their post baccalaureate or credential programs, the types of training and coursework they had received, and the format of their course delivery. Five of the six participants were prepared traditionally and attended local community colleges and universities in southern California in a face- to-face format. One participant completed an online degree program. A description of each of the six participants follows. Only two of the participants completed undergraduate degrees in child development. The other participants completed degrees in liberal studies, sociology, and ethnic and family studies. Only one of the teachers interviewed completed a teacher preparation program and attained certification prior to beginning as an early childhood teacher.
Each research question will be addressed, and the themes that emerged from the data analysis will be discussed. The words of the participants will be provided to explain each theme.
56 Descriptions of the Participants
The participants in this study were purposely selected because they met the following criteria as described in Chapter 3. Each participant was serving their first or second year in the early childhood education field, had obtained a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and was teaching in Los Angeles County. The participants shared personal stories about why they became teachers, how they viewed their preparation for teaching in early childhood education, their beliefs in their abilities to teach children with special needs, and their current feelings about being a teacher.
Kiara
Kiara was an African American, first-generation college student. She was in her first year of teaching and taught preschool students in a pre-K through fifth grade public elementary school. She has lived in California all of her life and attended school in the same city where she obtained her bachelor’s degree. She lived with her parents and two brothers in the same home she grew up in. She explained that she felt connected to the city, the community, and the school system. She explained that her parents did not go to college but pushed her to attend and earn her degree. She discussed how proud her parents were of her at her graduation ceremony and how her entire family supported her as she embarked on her new journey as a public school teacher. She described her desire to move into her own apartment once she had achieved a full-time teaching position. She took the traditional route of obtaining her bachelor’s degree, attending face-to-face classes on a college campus. She did not work while taking classes. Her bachelor’s degree was in liberal studies. She stated that she took the liberal studies route because her college advisor suggested she take it so she could choose the field she wanted to work in
57 later. She was a star athlete in high school and college and had not intended to become an early childhood teacher. She explained that because liberal studies was her major, she was required to take a fieldwork course to complete her degree and was selected by the local school district to serve at a school as a college aide. She said that once she started serving as a college aide in classrooms to complete her fieldwork hours, she loved being around the students and decided to pursue a credential to teach in public schools. She said that as a college aide she worked in all grades at the elementary school she performed her fieldwork at. The school was a pre-K to fifth grade school. She chose early childhood because of all the grades she worked with, she most enjoyed the preschool classes. She explained that the preschool children she worked with were just learning skills like social development, and she especially enjoyed watching them interact with each other to create and build with their imagination. At the time of this study, she was enrolled in a credential program to earn a multiple-subject credential.
Angela
Angela was a teacher of Hispanic descent and identified as a Mexican immigrant.
She was in her first year of teaching and taught kindergarten in a K–5 public school. She described her family’s background and how she came to the United States when she was eight years old. When she moved to the U.S., she came with her father and two siblings.
She shared that her family came to the U.S. by crossing the border illegally, and her father worked hard to make sure she attended school and became a citizen. Her father relied on the family they came here to live with. She explained that she grew up in her cousin’s home, who were already living in the U.S. for eight years before her family arrived. She discussed the difficulty of living in the U.S. without her mother and how
58 much she longed for the weekends that her father would take her back to Mexico to see her mom once Angela had gained her citizenship. She said she always knew she wanted to be a teacher.
She reminisced of playing school with her brothers before coming to the U.S. and how she would pretend to read tourist books written in English that were left by visiting
Americans in Mexico. She explained that her childhood was difficult, especially because she did not have her mother with her, and she was always worried about when and if they would ever live together again. She explained that this hardship drove her to want to teach. She said that she knew there would be children who needed what she needed growing up: love from a mother figure—a regular, consistent, caring person in their lives—and she wanted to be that for someone. She talked about her college journey and how she ran into obstacles that made it difficult for her to complete her degree. She took child development courses at her local community college at night while working as a cashier at McDonald’s. She then transferred to the university where she completed her coursework and received a bachelor’s in child development, and she continued to take classes to earn her multiple-subject credential, which allowed her to teach in public schools in California. She discussed being a second-language learner and how she often did not understand some of the material she was being taught in her college classes. She discussed the stress she felt trying to complete her coursework while working a job to help support her family, but she was determined to complete her degree to earn a better living for them. She described what she termed a “negative political climate” toward immigrant children and said she wanted to advocate for children and families and believed she could do this as a public school teacher.
59 Marissa
Marissa identified as a third-generation Mexican American and referred to her family heritage as Hispanic. She was in her first year of teaching and taught preschool at a private school that serves students from pre-K through eighth grade. Her parents and grandparents were born in California, and her mother was a teacher. She displayed pride in her heritage and culture and explained that this is one thing she really wanted to instill in her students. She stressed that she speaks two languages and that she wanted to encourage her students’ families that speak Spanish to teach the language to their children to give them an advantage in life. She said it felt natural for her to become a teacher since her mother was one. She explained that she would accompany her mother to work at her mother’s school, and she loved the feeling of being in the school environment. She attended a high school that was within walking distance to the school where her mother worked. She talked about how she would walk to her mother’s school after she was dismissed from her classes and would sit in the classroom doing her homework while her mother cleaned her classroom and prepared lessons for the following day. She explained how her mother’s colleagues would often come to her mother’s room while she was there just to chat or complain about students or other things around the school, and they would sometimes ask her mother for advice on how to handle different situations. She said she learned a lot about the ups and downs of the teaching field and the school system this way. Marissa attended college in a traditional four-year program as a liberal studies major. She had recently enrolled in courses to earn her multiple-subject credential, and she was considering taking courses to become certified to teach special education students. She expressed a desire to leave the private school setting
60 and someday teach in a public school like her mother, but it was much easier for her to get the job at the private school without her credential.
Leslie
Leslie was an African American kindergarten teacher at a charter school. She said that she did not choose teaching; teaching chose her. She discussed how she became a young single mother at the age of 18 and knew she needed to do something to provide a better life for her and her daughter. She shared that she was raised by her grandmother because her parents died when she was 11. She explained that her goal was to become a social worker and help families that were experiencing similar circumstances to hers. She shared that when she was growing up, she felt alone a great deal of the time because her grandmother was very ill and had difficulty raising her. Leslie was an ethnic and family studies major, and her coursework was not geared toward teaching or working with children in any way. She explained that she became a teacher because once she had completed her degree, she took several jobs that she did not like and did not think she would ever do. She found that her bachelor’s degree was not enough to get her the job she wanted as a social worker and realized she needed a master’s degree to make the amount of money she needed to support herself and her daughter. She was unable to take more classes because she was not able to afford them in addition to childcare. She explained that she had jobs at a bank, a museum, and a law firm before she decided to look into teaching. One of her friends was teaching at a charter school and would bring her child to work with her. Leslie thought that she could benefit from having a job where she could be with her daughter, so she decided to apply at the school. The school hired her immediately, even though she did not have a teaching credential, and at the time of
61 the study she had been teaching there for one year. She said that the school provided her with a coach to teach her how to teach, and although there are challenges with being a teacher, she said she enjoyed it and that she was happy her daughter could be close to her.
She talked about the types of children that would be assigned to her class and how some of them appeared to have needs that she did not learn about as an ethnic and family studies major, but she said she loves “all of my kids.”
Michelle
Michelle was a Caucasian teacher in her second year of teaching. She held a bachelor’s degree in child development and was working on getting her teaching credential. Her preparation program was at a traditional four-year college. She taught a combination transitional kindergarten/kindergarten class at a public school. Her students were all African American, and there were twelve boys and eight girls in her class. She said that teaching was always her career plan and that she felt fortunate to be able to teach at the school she was assigned to. She shared her background of living with a single mother after her parents divorced when she was seventeen due to her father’s mental illness. During her time in college earning her bachelor’s degree, her mother’s health was a constant struggle, and she spent a great deal of time caring for her mother. She explained that while she was in college, her mother was in the hospital several times, and she often had to miss class and turn in assignments late because she was trying to support her mother. She eventually decided to take hybrid courses in an effort to complete the requirements for her degree and graduated with her bachelor’s in child development. She said she was very happy with teaching and planned to go into administration once she acquired enough experience in the school system.
62 Luis
Luis identified as a Mexican American. He was born in the U.S., and both of his parents were from Mexico. He held a bachelor’s degree in sociology, which he earned at an online college. He was in his second year of teaching preschool at a private school. He shared that his mother was always pushing him to earn his college degree and to “become someone” in life, so he pursued his degree in sociology. He expressed that he wanted to become a lawyer and had not given up on that goal but decided that his teaching job was one he could see himself doing for a long time. He shared that he wanted to go back to school to pursue his law degree but was currently happy teaching at his school. He explained that decided to pursue his degree online because he was engaged to be married and his fiancée was earning her degree online, and she convinced him to do the same. At the time of the study, he was enrolled in a face-to-face introductory special education class to earn his teaching credential. He explained that his mother was a big part of his life and that she did not want him to earn his degree online but instead wanted him to attend the local community college. He said that at times he wished he had taken his mother’s advice to go the traditional route because the program he enrolled in was not an accredited college program, and although he had his bachelor’s degree, he said he was unable to get a job in a public school because the three districts he tried to get a teaching job at said they do not honor degrees from the school he attended. He shared that when he returns to school for his law degree, he will make sure that his college is an accredited college.
63 Research Questions
To gain insight into these teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about their preparation for working with children with special needs, this study was guided by the following research questions:
1. In what ways, prior to beginning teaching, did these teacher’s undergraduate
degrees and credential programs prepare them to meet the special needs of
children in their classrooms?
2. What supported their learning in practice?
3. What are these teachers’ recommendations for what is needed for new teachers to
attain the knowledge and skills to support to children with special needs in their
classrooms?
Table 2 includes a list of the interview questions as they pertain to the overarching research questions.
Table 2
Initial Coding of Questions by Category
Research Question Open-ended Interview Questions (not all Codes questions were used in all interviews) 1. In what ways, prior to 1. How would you describe your Teaching and Learning beginning teaching, preparation for working with children did these teacher’s with special needs? Lecture undergraduate 2. Tell me about how you learned to degrees and credential work with children with or without Children with special programs prepare special needs. needs strategies rarely them to meet the 3. Tell me about your knowledge and taught in prep program special needs of exposure to children with special children in their needs that you learned in your teacher Academic assessment classrooms? prep program.
64 Table 2, continued
Research Question Open-ended Interview Questions (not all Codes questions were used in all interviews) 1. In what ways, prior to 4. What was a strong point of your Lack of feeling prepared beginning teaching, preparation program? to work with children did these teacher’s 5. What did you enjoy about your with special needs undergraduate preparation program? degrees and credential 6. What was an area of weakness or Formal training for programs prepare something you would like to have advanced degree them to meet the changed about it? special needs of 7. Tell me about your knowledge of No hands-on practice children in their IDEA. classrooms? 8. Tell me about your experience with Number and types of IEPs. courses required 9. How were you trained in your preparation program to manage behavior of children with or without special needs? 2. What supported their 1. How do you feel when you are Degree program provided learning in practice? teaching children with special needs? limited exposure to 2. Do you feel confident to teach special needs students, children with special needs? now receiving more 3. Do you believe you can easily assess exposure or recognize a child with special needs? Enrolling in credential 4. Can you tell me about any strategies programs; education you learned in your preparation beyond BA degree program for working with children with special needs that you have tried UDL in your classroom? 5. How often do you get other MTSS professionals or parents involved in working with you in your classroom? Fieldwork provided 6. How do get your students excited support from a master about learning? teacher 7. How do you get parents involved in supporting you in your classroom? Wanting to teach all the 8. What happens when things don't go as kids in their room, planned in your class? regardless of ability 9. Have you sought help from other people to help you with working with Desire to learn skills that any children with special needs in could help the students your classroom? If so, who? assigned to their 10. Do you believe you can get all your classrooms students to feel they are scholars or capable of learning anything? Leadership/Principals provided support and knowledge of challenges faced in gen ed classrooms with special needs children
65 Table 2, continued
Research Question Open-ended Interview Questions (not all Codes questions were used in all interviews) 2. What supported their 11. Did you or do you have a mentor Communication between learning in practice? teacher or someone to guide you, train colleagues helped you or serves as a model or improve feelings of expert/master teacher on your resilience and teacher campus? self-efficacy 12. How did you learn the skills you Master teachers, needed to work with children with instructional coaches, and special needs? colleagues helped guide 13. What are your experiences talking to reflection on teaching other teachers that teach children with practices special needs or that have children with special needs in their class? Mentors/ administrators/ colleagues/other teachers/fieldwork supervisors
Keep trying, don’t give up 3. What are these 1. What skills, techniques, and/or Provide more chances to teachers’ strategies that you learned in your practice strategies with recommendations for preparation program or on your own the children. what is needed for do you use most often? new teachers to attain 2. What performance feedback have you Provide multiple types of the knowledge and received from your administrator or training programs offered skills to support to other colleagues on your teaching for early childhood children with special (children with special needs)? teachers. needs in their 3. What feedback have you received classrooms? from parents on your teaching Require college classes (children with special needs)? that cover specific 4. What are your experiences taking strategies for addressing coursework or attending professional challenging behaviors development on teaching children with special needs? Provide ongoing feedback 5. What professional development do is missing. you need for more success with working with children with special Provide information and needs? understanding of students special needs
Provide professional development specific to working with children who exhibit overt behaviors.
Provide less generic professional development centered on Common Core State Standards
66 Findings for Research Question One
The first research question pertained to the types of education and training received by the participants. It asked: In what ways, prior to beginning teaching did teacher preparation programs prepare the participants in this study to meet the special needs of children in their classrooms? The main themes that were revealed in response to this question were a lack of opportunities to practice working with children with special needs and limited opportunities to increase teacher self-efficacy in working with children with special needs. See Table 3 for the codes and themes that emerged for the first research question.
Table 3
Research Question 1: Codes and Themes
Codes Emergent Themes Teaching and learning Lack of opportunities for Lecture hands-on practice working with children with special needs Children with special needs strategies rarely taught in prep program
Academic assessment Limited opportunities to Lack of feeling prepared to work with increase teacher self-efficacy in children with special needs working with children with special needs in preparation Formal training for advanced degree program prior to beginning teaching No hands-on practice
Number and types of courses required
The participants in this study discussed their preparation to work with children with special needs. It is important to note that five of the six participants began teaching
67 without having their teaching credential or meeting the requirements outlined by the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Whether they worked in a private preschool or charter school, they lacked knowledge of working with children with special needs that could have been provided by a formalized preparation program.
Lack of Opportunities for Hands-On Practice Working with Children with Special
Needs
The participants were asked about their required coursework during their undergraduate degree attainment and/or preparation programs and the opportunities to participate in practicum-based experiences with general and special education students.
Four of the participants responded that they had received no experience working with children with special needs in their undergraduate degree programs before being assigned to their classrooms.
When asked about a weakness of their initial undergraduate and/or preparation programs, the teachers described not knowing or learning enough about working with children with special needs. The teachers stated that they would have liked to have had training specific to working with children with special needs prior to being assigned to a classroom. Their perceptions toward children with special needs were positive, and they all had positive attitudes about inclusion.
One participant, Marissa, shared an example of how she did not have opportunities to practice working with children with special needs in her undergraduate degree program, but now that she is in her credential program, she is attaining new knowledge about working with children with special needs. She stated,
68 I feel like my classes that I am taking now that I am in a credential program are
more helpful and are preparing me better than my regular undergraduate classes.
At work I have to ask a lot of questions. I am constantly asking people questions
about some of my students who seemed to have a problem, like not focusing on
what I was teaching or just being obsessed with things in the class and not
following the rules or my direction for lining up or coming back inside from
outdoor play. I am worried that the other people I ask think I’m not smart or a
good teacher, but that’s okay. I know I am, and I know I can do a good job, and I
know that my students will learn. I do feel like I was prepared to come to work in
a school with typically developing preschoolers and kinder kids, but honestly I
had, and, at times, still have no idea how to work with kids like the ones that run
out of the class or cause these huge disruptions. And when I say huge disruptions,
I mean like the one that hits other kids because he wants something, and then
when he can’t have it or has to share he will start screaming at the top of his lungs
and hit me or try to fight me. What was missing in my courses was having
chances to practice what we were learning. I saw a sample IEP in that class, but
what we learned was really a brief overview, so I don’t feel like I know enough
about them. I know I will learn more as the year goes by, though.
Leslie earned her degree in ethnic and family studies and discussed how she felt about being prepared to work with students with special needs in her undergraduate degree program:
My college program didn’t really prepare me to work with children with special
needs. I did have some theory class that discussed child development as part of
69 the family studies, but I didn’t take any coursework on special education, even
though it was an option; many of my friends did. We talk about it now, and they
tell me how things they learned in their classes were so outdated that they can’t
put any of what they learned to use. They tell me that they didn’t really learn what
to do when they have kids with behavior problems, and when they call and ask
me, I can’t help them because I don’t know.
In contrast, Angela had completed her credential courses that were a requirement for teaching. She stated,
I can say my undergraduate was the most rewarding for me, now that I have my
credential. I had really good mentors in the general education program. Then
when I started learning more about special education, I had good people teaching
me stuff that I can really apply in my class, like creating social stories for the kids
to help them understand concepts. To get my credential, I had to do twelve weeks
in general education and twelve weeks in special education.
When reflecting on the resources and support she needed, Michelle shared that she had learned more strategies that she found useful with her students because of her own proactive approach to teaching her students with special needs. She stated,
I have a few tricks that I use now that I didn’t have before, especially leaving
from college. I think what was missing was learning about how to work with
children with behavior problems. I took that one class in special education, but it
didn’t teach us how to work with children with behavior problems. I learned about
the special education laws and the types of disabilities children have, but I didn’t
70 learn what to do when a child has problems listening to the teacher or following
adult direction.
Limited Opportunities to Increase Teacher Self-Efficacy in Working with Children with Special Needs in Preparation Prior to Beginning Teaching
A growing body of evidence support Bandura’s (1977) theory that teachers’ self- efficacy beliefs are related to the effort teachers invest in teaching, the goals they set, their persistence when things do not go smoothly, and their resilience in the face of setbacks (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). A strong sense of efficacy influences one’s choices, effort, perseverance, and resilience (Bandura, 1977).
The participants in this study discussed not feeling totally confident in their ability to meet all their students’ needs because of their lack of experience, knowledge, and training for working with children with special needs. They described having a higher level of confidence with general education students and less confidence in their ability to teach children with special needs in their classrooms. This shed light on their own perceptions of their efficacy. With their undergraduate degree preparation, specific strategies for working with children with special needs was not acquired by five of the six participants. As these participants gained knowledge and skills of Multi-Tiered Support
Systems (MTSS) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in their credential classes taken while teaching, their confidence grew.
Marissa discussed having learned about MTSS and how she was attempting to implement it in her class and how this was beginning to strengthen her self-efficacy:
I learned about MTSS, and I think it was one of the best things I learned and still
use today. I spend a lot of time trying to decide how I can best help students using
71 that approach. When I learned about it, I learned about it as a way to support a
student with special needs and difficulties in their environment. I am finding that
as I use it more, it is helping me to identify possible students with disabilities or
special needs. I didn’t realize I would be using it as much as I am now.
California has provided numerous systems of support over the years, including intervention supports for special education, Title I, Title III, support services for English learners and American Indian students, and services for those in gifted and talented programs. California’s MTSS is a framework that aligns the Response to Instruction and
Intervention with the state standards and the systems necessary to ensure academic, behavioral, and social success.
During her interview, Michelle discussed how she was prepared to work with students with a variety of learning styles. She shared that her confidence grew as she was able to use principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to guide her teaching:
The thing I found helpful and that prepared me to work with all my students was
UDL. When we learned that, I focused on how I could plan and teach my
students. I wasn’t really expecting to have special needs children in my room, but
now that I have them, I think my room is a good place for them, and I think I can
teach them. It might take me (and them) longer, but I wouldn’t want them to be
taken out from my class. I love them. I use the three principles of UDL in my
work, and it has really helped me with filling in some of the other things I didn’t
learn. I focus on the principles of UDL to plan things that will keep my students
engaged, even the silliest things like bringing a rainbow wig and singing while
wearing it to help the more challenging students in my room to stay focused on
72 me and what I’m trying to teach them. I totally rely on the principles of UDL and
am always thinking about how it can help me with any child in my room. I’ve
found that when I set up lessons using this format, I am able to teach my students
who may learn different ways, like auditory versus visually, and I believe I have a
more positive relationship with my students because they are totally engaged, and
they want to explore and learn more.
Teachers’ efficacy beliefs relate to their behavior in the classroom (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The teachers in this study believed they could teach their students with special needs with additional support and training but were more than willing to work with all the children in their room with the knowledge they had or were obtaining.
Findings for Research Question Two
The second research question asked: What supported these teachers’ learning in practice? The themes that arose from the responses to this question were related to successful supports, relationships, and credential programs (see Table 4).
Table 4
Research Question 2: Codes and Themes
Codes Emergent Themes Degree program provided limited exposure to special needs students, now receiving more Enrollment in credential exposure programs provide access to Enrolling in credential programs; education learning how to work with beyond BA degree children with special needs
UDL MTSS
73 Table 4, continued
Codes Emergent Themes Fieldwork provided support from a master teacher Wanting to teach all the kids in their room, regardless of ability Desire to learn skills that could help the students assigned to their classrooms Leadership/Principals provided support and knowledge of challenges faced in gen education classrooms with special needs children Communication between colleagues helped Supportive relationships improve feelings of resilience and teacher self- foster confidence and a efficacy sense of self-efficacy Master teachers, instructional coaches, and colleagues helped guide reflection on teaching practices Mentors/administrators/colleagues/other teachers/fieldwork supervisors Keep trying, don’t give up Asking lots of questions
The teachers described what they believed helped them to be successful in their teaching careers. They discussed some of the challenges they experienced when they were assigned to their classrooms and how they were able to overcome those challenges.
Enrollment in Credential Programs Provides Access to Learning How to Work with
Children with Special Needs
The participants reflected on their credential preparation programs and pointed to a positive aspect of teaching children with special needs. Four of the six participants were working toward earning a teaching credential. One participant was currently holding a multiple-subject credential, and another participant expressed that she did not want to obtain a credential yet and did not need one, as she worked in a charter school that did
74 not require her to have one as a basis for employment. The participants who were currently attending classes to obtain their credentials pointed out that their credential programs were providing them with a layer of support to work with children with special needs and giving them opportunities to learn about the skills necessary to meet these students’ needs.
Luis shared the following:
I didn’t have any classes on working with kids with special needs until I got in my
credential program because I was a sociology major and didn’t plan to teach.
Now, in this course I am taking with my fiancée, it is interesting. I’ve only had
one class so far about children with special needs, but in that class I’m learning
about monitoring kids to assess what is appropriate for each kid and that each kid
would have different needs and I am learning about how to address different
behaviors.
Kiara discussed her credential program and specific coursework on serving students with special needs. Kiara shared,
When I talked to friends who have a special education credential, they tell me
about their classes and how they learned a lot about working with kids with
special needs, I realize that there is where I will learn the most, in my credential
program. Now I’m in my credential class, I am getting a lot of information, even
hands-on activities, because I’m going out to observe a special education class,
which is one of my assignments. That makes me feel like I’m getting better at my
job and that all my students will learn a lot by the end of the year.
75 The teachers discussed obtaining resources for success and indicated that the majority of assistance and support they needed was sought out by themselves.
The participants reported that the courses they were taking to obtain their teaching credentials were providing them access to information about children with special needs; however, they said they would have liked to have learned more about working with children with special needs earlier and throughout their degree programs.
Supportive Relationships Foster Confidence and a Sense of Self-Efficacy
The relationship between the study participants and their leadership was a factor that was evident in the participants’ data. The beliefs that the participants shared about developing relationships with their supervisors, colleagues, and other leadership appear to have contributed to their actions to build positive relationships with their students, create positive learning environments, and enhance their development of their own self-efficacy.
The participants’ responses to the second research question varied in terms of who provided the support, but a supportive relationship with a knowledgeable person was evident in all the participants’ responses. Public school teacher Kiara reflected on her experiences from the previous year and her ability to get the support she needed in her first year of teaching. She stated,
I had to go find things that helped me teach the students in my class with needs
that I didn’t know much about. For instance, I had one student who would not
stay seated during circle and would step on everyone’s hands or body and really
hurt them. I guess I was just expecting all the children to sit during circle and
listen to me. Most of them did, but this girl refused to sit, and I didn’t know what
to do. I went to one of the kinder teachers in my hallway and asked her for ideas
76 and suggestions. But I realized that having to find things out on my own proved to
me that I could be a good teacher and that I will be a good teacher.
The participants discussed how they were supported by the principals at their schools, indicating that principals play a key role in supporting new teachers as they gain experience and expertise and move from novices to experts. Kiara continued:
I really connected with the school principal, too, and she was willing to mentor
me and help me finish my student teaching. She was always there checking on
me. She actually connected me with the school’s behavior specialist, who came in
my room and did an observation and gave me strategies on how to work with the
one girl who just would not sit down.
Many principals have teaching experience and understand the challenges faced by new teachers. Principals provide resources and support for new teachers, including providing them with strategies and ideas to help them feel more secure in their role and increase self-efficacy.
Michelle expanded ways that an instructional coach was strengthening her knowledge and skills as a teacher. She stated,
I have recently been assigned an instructional coach by my principal to help me
with learning even more strategies for teaching my students with special needs . . .
and it is really helping me feel like I can be a good teacher, and it is encouraging
me to not give up when the going gets tough.
Other professionals worked to make the participants feel better about the challenges of working with children with special needs. The participants mentioned receiving support
77 from college professors, mentors, and colleagues, but some were not helpful in some instances. Kiara described a scenario with her support providers:
When I did my student teaching, my professor came out and observed me and met
with me a lot. If I needed help with something, I could always ask her. I didn’t
really connect with my master teacher because most times she made me feel like I
didn’t know anything, so I was not comfortable asking her questions, so I just
didn’t ask her stuff. I think that was bad, too, because there was a girl in the class
who I thought had special needs, but the teacher never told me anything. She was
supposed to be my mentor, but she wasn’t very nice to me. I connected with the
school principal, and she was wonderful. She mentored me and helped me with
finishing up my student teaching. She was always asking me if I needed help with
anything and always made me feel special. She really was a good person and
made me feel like I can and will be a good teacher. She was a great role model for
me. I just wish my master teacher was doing that.
Angela, a kindergarten public school teacher who held a multiple-subject credential, described some mentors who were helpful for her. She stated,
I learned about IDEA, and I had a mentor who was very knowledgeable about
special ed and took the time to walk me through it. I actually had a couple of
mentors who helped me to be reflective of what I knew and didn’t know about
teaching and what I felt I wanted and needed to learn more about. One was the
Sunday school teacher at my church. I work with her every Sunday because she
takes care of the children in the Champion Club, which is the room for the special
kids that can’t be in the sanctuary with their parents during service. When I
78 worked with her, I learned how to interact with the kids with special needs and
how to get them to work cooperatively with the activities that she has planned for
them. I also learned that there are certain things they just can’t do, so I have to be
realistic about what I am asking of them. I carry that over into my classroom, too,
the things I’ve learned. It has helped me so much.
Similarly, Leslie discussed her lack of training and how she sought to acquire the knowledge she needed to fill in what she felt were gaps. This description provided insight on her sense of self-efficacy. She shared,
As I told you before, I have not had any training on how to work with children
with special needs but believe I can work with them. I think that once I get to
know my students and form a relationship with them, I can teach them just about
anything. I know I may get students that have disabilities or special needs that is
outside of my area of knowledge, but I feel like I can get support to work with
them from the people here at the school who know more about working with them
than I do. As for resources that I use to support my students, I decided to educate
myself by taking additional courses on my own not related to my credential or to
obtaining a degree and attending conferences about working with young children.
Leslie particularly described professional development opportunities that were beneficial to her. She stated,
I especially sign up for the classes that are focused on children who learn
differently or who have a disability like autism. I know it’s hard to work with
these kids, but I think and hope that as I get more experience teaching, I will learn
more ways of helping the special ed kids in my class.
79 She showed initiative in seeking mentors who could further assist her in attaining knowledge and skills:
When I need to know something, I go ask the director or someone else what I
should do when I have a problem with a child in my room. One thing I learned
from my own research and actually being on the job is the importance of
classroom management. I feel that establishing behavioral systems and rules that
are easy for my students to follow helps me with teaching them and having a true
learning environment. I created a binder with all the documents and things I use to
help me keep all the information I am getting organized. I like what I’m learning,
though.
Whether they went directly to an administrator, friend, or colleague, enrolled in additional coursework, or engaged in individual professional development or research, each teacher shared the realization that they needed support beyond what they learned in their undergraduate degrees and were proactive about getting their own needs met. Their mentors, administrators, and colleagues contributed to the participants’ ability to develop professional relationships and led to their positive feelings about being a teacher in the field of early childhood education.
Findings for Research Question Three
The final research question asked: What are these teachers’ recommendations for what is needed for new teachers to attain the knowledge and skills to support children with special needs in their classrooms? Two main themes emerged from the participant interviews that relate to the literature discussed in Chapter 2.
80 College coursework for working with children with special needs and professional development for working with children with special needs offered by their employers were the major themes that arose from the data analysis. See Table 5 for the codes and themes that emerged for the third research question.
Table 5
Research Question 3: Codes and Themes
Codes Emergent Themes More chances to practice strategies with the children. Need for more college coursework offered for working with children Provide multiple types of training programs with special needs offered for early childhood teachers.
Require college classes that cover specific strategies for addressing challenging behaviors
Provide ongoing feedback Professional development needed Provide information and understanding of that addresses working with students’ special needs children with special needs
Provide professional development specific to working with children who exhibit overt behaviors.
Provide less generic professional development centered on Common Core State Standards
Need for More College Coursework Offered for Working with Children with
Special Needs
The participants were asked about the types of coursework they had in their undergraduate degree programs as well as their experiences in those courses. Four of the six participants stated that they took a required introduction to special education course
81 while in their undergraduate studies, however, they did not feel as well prepared to teach children with special needs as they did to teach children without special needs. These participants stated that they wished they had learned more about working with children with special needs in their college coursework early into their preparation programs and continually throughout their programs. Kiara discussed her college coursework:
I didn’t learn what to do with children in my room with behavior problems. In the
one introduction to special education class I took, I mostly learned about IDEA,
which is the special ed law, but it didn’t teach me how to work with students that
might have severe behavior problems. I think if my program focused on all
children, even those with special needs, the whole time, I think I could have
learned to help kids with special needs, too, but because we were planning to
teach general education students, there wasn’t really an emphasis on special needs
students.
This was a sentiment shared by all the respondents. They appeared to understand the value of application of the theory they learned in their coursework but discussed how that theory was not always applicable in their classroom settings. They said they did not have very much “in the moment” feedback relating to what they learned in their undergraduate programs to work in the early childhood field and recommended that this could be addressed through coursework that was specifically tailored to working with both general education and special needs children in their credential programs.
82 Professional Development Needed that Addresses Working with Children with
Special Needs
When asked about the types of professional learning they had received since beginning their teaching careers, five of the six participants stated that they have not been offered any professional development focused on working with children with special needs through their employers. Kiara shared a representative comment:
I think if we had training on working with children that are special ed, [that]
would help a lot of teachers. No special ed training or professional development is
offered at my school. I wish it was. We have a lot of professional development,
but most of it is focused on Common Core state standards and not on how to work
with children with special needs.
One participant discussed quality measures and how those measures are incorporated into how the staff at her school are trained to provide high-quality learning experiences for their students. Marissa stated,
The trainings that we usually get are mostly about the ECERS and how we can
get our scores up to get money for Race to the Top and other QRIS grants, but the
training isn’t about how to specifically work with kids with special needs. It’s
strange, too, because I think that in order for us to score well, the people
observing us need to see that we are able to work with a variety of students, and
we would be able to show that if we were trained regularly on how to work with
all children.
83 Leslie reflected on the lack of professional development around special needs students and learning strategies in her workplace. She described her experience by saying,
My school does have a lot of meetings and teacher training and professional
development, but our professional development is mostly on running the school
and the operations of the school, not so much the curriculum and never about
teaching children with special needs.
Every teacher shared some level of frustration with not knowing exactly how to work with children with special needs and not receiving specific professional development to address the special needs of their students. They expressed that they were surprised by their classroom-based experiences with children with special needs and that these early career experiences were not as they first thought they would be. Michelle stated,
Everything I’ve learned about that I had to learn on my own, and the behavior
management things I’m doing now I learned by observing other teachers and
asking lots of questions.
From the concerns the participants experienced, they all recommended that professional development be provided that would address working with children with special needs.
This was especially needed when teachers began as interns who had not yet attained a teaching credential. While each participant expressed some level of surprise that they had students with special needs in their classrooms, none of them spoke negatively about having children with special needs in their classrooms or the experiences they have had with these students aside from not knowing how to meet their special needs.
84 Summary
Chapter 4 reflects the stories of the six participants in terms of their preparation programs to teach in early education, along with their knowledge, practice, and beliefs.
This chapter presented conversations with each participant within the context of their experiences to elicit their perceptions of their preparation for working in the early childhood field with children with special needs. The frameworks discussed in Chapter 2 were utilized as a lens through which to analyze the connection between the research questions and the emergent themes. By comparing the information gathered from the participants, the findings show that these participants all believed there was a gap in the training and preparation received compared to what they believed they needed to have prior to entering the classroom. A study by Huang and Diamond (2009) that found that many early childhood teachers report a lack of confidence in their ability to teach children with disabilities in their classrooms is consistent with this study’s findings.
The participants’ reflections on their undergraduate and post baccalaureate preparation provided insight on the positive aspects of their programs, including relationships and how those programs helped them believe in their ability to teach all children. The self-reporting of how these teachers obtained resources and support for students with special needs is reflective of their beliefs in their ability to meet the needs of the students in their classrooms and their own self-efficacy.
The results of this study offer insight into the perceptions of early childhood educators who are dedicated to serving all young children placed in their classrooms, regardless of ability. Some of the participants were pessimistic about their ability to effectively teach children with special needs; however, all of the participants expressed a
85 desire to learn how to best support their students. The results also demonstrated the effect a relational approach to working with students can have on a teacher’s self-efficacy.
These results showed how administrators, mentors, and teacher leaders can support teachers to provide learning opportunities for students with special needs, even if the teacher lacks training in this area.
The completion of a pre-service preparation program requires teachers who wish to obtain a teaching credential to apply for state certification and licensure to teach in public schools. It is assumed that once a teacher acquires a credential, they have provided evidence of their teaching competence; however, not all beginning teachers have completed a credential program prior to teaching as evidenced by the participants in this study. Five of the six participants began teaching without a credential or full certification.
Instead, the only requirement for them to begin teaching was that they had obtained a bachelor’s degree, which resulted in a lack of alignment between state certification requirements in regard to what education, training, and competencies are needed to teach young children in an early childhood setting. A recent review of credentialing requirements across all 50 states found that in comparison with all other disciplines, early childhood certification processes presented the most variability, as there were 25 different age levels addressed by early childhood teacher certifications (Chen & Mickelson, 2015).
Chapter 5 will offer conclusions based on the participants’ interviews, along with discussions and implications for further research. Recommendations based on the data analysis and literature review from this study will also be discussed in the chapter.
86 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2015), children with disabilities and their families continue to face significant barriers to accessing inclusive, high-quality early childhood programs, and many preschool children with disabilities continue to receive special education services in separate settings. This delay in progress is troubling for many reasons:
Being meaningfully included as a member of society is the first step to equal
opportunity, one of America’s most cherished ideals, and is every person’s
right—a right supported by law.
A robust body of literature indicates that meaningful inclusion is beneficial to
children with and without disabilities across a variety of developmental
domains.
Preliminary research shows that operating inclusive early childhood programs
is not more expensive than operating separate early childhood programs for
children with disabilities.
Meaningful inclusion in high-quality early childhood programs can support
children with disabilities in reaching their full potential, resulting in societal
benefits more broadly. (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, para. 2-5)
Young children with disabilities and their families reap substantial benefits from participating in regular early learning and development programs, as do their peers without disabilities, and in the last quarter century, the number of children with
87 disabilities being educated in inclusive early childhood programs has increased (Cate,
DeFosset, Smith, & Whaley, 2014).
The problems with teacher preparation extend beyond the initial preparation of first- and second-year teachers’ experiences. There are approximately half a million early childhood teachers employed in public preschool programs (U.S. Department of
Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Office of Special
Education Programs, 2014), and 1,312,700 child care teachers are providing care to children from birth to 5 years of age (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). The ability of teachers to meet the needs of all children in their classrooms relies on factors that include the knowledge and skills they learn in their preservice programs (Guralnick &
Bruder, 2016), however, individuals can begin teaching without their credential or certification attained.
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how six first- and second- year early childhood educators perceived their preparation for teaching and working with children with special needs in the field of early childhood education. An increasing number of children with disabilities are being served in inclusive early childhood education settings rather than in specialized programs (U.S. Department of Education,
2016). According to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for
Education Statistics (2019), in fall of 2015, 95% of students with disabilities aged 6 to 21 years old were served in general schools; 3% were served in a separate school for students with disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
The participants in this study were asked questions regarding their preparation for working with children with special needs through their undergraduate and teacher
88 preparation programs. These six new teachers identified what they perceived they needed to feel prepared to enter the early childhood workforce and meet the needs of students with special needs. Although this was a small scale, local research project, the findings offer evidence of the need to provide first- and second-year early childhood education teachers with experiences that address the changing population of young children being served in early childhood education programs.
To illuminate the voices of first- and second-year teachers and describe their preparation experiences, the study was guided by the following research questions:
1. In what ways, prior to beginning teaching, did these teacher’s undergraduate
degrees and credential programs prepare them to meet the special needs of
children in their classrooms?
In regard to the extent that these six teachers felt their teacher undergraduate degree prepared them to meet the special needs of children in their classrooms, the majority expressed that their undergraduate degrees did not prepare them adequately to meet the needs of special needs children in their classrooms. They cited a lack of hands- on experiences in their courses and limited opportunities to increase teacher self-efficacy.
However, these teachers perceived their undergraduate degrees as providing adequate preparation to meet the learning needs of general education students, and they expressed positive perceptions about the training received in their undergraduate degrees for teaching general education students. Only one participant, Angela, had completed a credential program prior to beginning teaching. While Angela expressed feeling prepared, the other participants expressed needing information earlier in their preparation in order to increase their knowledge of individual strategies that were beneficial.
89 2. What supported their learning in practice?
Nearly all the participants interviewed emphasized obtaining the information and education they needed to meet the needs of the special needs children in their classrooms independently. They discussed that they enrolled in credential courses that helped them get a better understanding of the diversity that can occur in their classrooms, including children with special needs. The themes the participants identified that supported their learning in practice were the credential programs they participated in after they began teaching and their relationships with colleagues, mentors, administration and others who provided support in increasing the participant’s knowledge of ways to meet the needs of their special need students.
3. What are these teachers’ recommendations for what is needed for new early
childhood teachers to attain the knowledge and skills to support to children with
special needs in their classrooms?
The participants in this study discussed ways they learned what they needed to know to support the special needs children in their classrooms. The themes that were identified as recommendations for new early childhood teachers in learning what they needed included college coursework and specific professional development. These participants pointed out that professional development is an important way that learning can be fostered, but they did not experience learning opportunities that were specific to working with children with special needs. Five of the six participants began teaching prior to obtaining their teaching credentials which indicated a need for ensuring a statewide system that ensures all teachers entering the early childhood teaching field have training and preparation for working with children with special needs before beginning
90 teaching. At the time the participants began teaching, most were not part of an induction program, nor were any of their professional development offerings tailored to working with children with special needs. They relied on colleagues, administration, or other professional they had formed relationships with in order to attain support. While four of the respondents were in credential programs at the time of the interviews and expressed that they were now learning strategies to effectively teach children with special needs, this training was needed immediately as they first began teaching. The requirement of an undergraduate degree in order to be hired to teach children as an intern had not ensured that they had knowledge of ways to work with children with special needs. Their undergraduate degrees were in diverse fields such as sociology and liberal studies.
This study used a basic qualitative design to focus on the stories and experiences of the participants. The research questions were answered by the various themes that emerged from the interviews with the participants, as reported in Chapter 4.
Conclusions
An important outcome of pre-service programs is to adequately prepare teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to make the transition from pre- service to in-service teaching. However, when these teachers began teaching with only undergraduate degree attainment, they were ill-prepared. In addition, what teachers learn in the college classroom and practice among themselves with no children present or in a controlled environment is often substantially different from the reality of their first teaching assignments (Melnick & Meister, 2008). Individuals may be hired as teachers before attending a teacher preparation program and will pursue coursework for a teaching credential while they are teaching. It is important for teacher preparation programs to
91 include specific content related to educating children with special needs in early childhood settings early in the teacher preparation program.
In recent years, additional expectations have been placed on general education teachers to provide inclusive instruction and curriculum for students with varying needs and abilities. With the changing expectations in early childhood education, teacher preparation programs will need to change to meet those expectations and consider how they provide pre-service teachers with the skills necessary to teach general education students and special needs students. Additionally, since teachers can be hired as interns without attaining a teaching credential prior to employment, it is important to recognize that many undergraduate degrees in diverse fields do not prepare those individuals for meeting the needs of children with special needs in their classrooms.
Need for College Coursework that Educates New Teachers on How to Work with
Children with Special Needs
Based on the interviews with the six teachers in this study, general education teachers need significant exposure to college coursework and a curriculum that teaches them how to work with children with special needs early on in their preparation programs and as part of their undergraduate degree. They need this early and often in their preparation programs to be prepared to meet the special needs of students in their classrooms.
Professional Development that Addresses Working with Children with Special
Needs
Providing teachers with professional learning experiences, including hands-on opportunities to practice, is crucial to preparing teachers to meet the needs of all children
92 in their classrooms, including those with special needs. Ongoing opportunities to consider new teaching approaches, testing them over time, and determining how they might be improved are critical if better outcomes for students are to be obtained (Donohoo, 2017).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) discussed key findings from a professional development study conducted by researchers and found that most teachers did not have access to effective professional development, and collaboration tended to be weak and not focused on strengthening teaching and learning. In this study, the teachers also reported that most of the professional development in which they participated was not useful to what they were experiencing daily in their classrooms.
Discussion
When educators engage in continuous learning, student learning is improved
(Donohoo, 2017). The participants in this study discussed their need for more opportunities to have hands-on experiences working with children with special needs.
They discussed ways their credential programs were allowing them the opportunity to be exposed to further knowledge of how to provide support to all students in their classrooms, including those with special needs.
Federal mandates require more inclusive educational settings for children with special needs; however, most teachers reported that they were not prepared to teach in inclusive settings and implement interventions when needed (Able, Sreckovic, Schultz,
Garwood, & Sherman, 2014; Stader, 2013). The participants in this study echoed this.
The participants felt that they did not receive adequate professional development in their current teaching assignments to meet the needs of their students with special needs and
93 each had a desire to work with all students in their classrooms, including those with special needs who were placed in their classes.
Teacher self-efficacy refers to a teacher’s belief that he or she can perform the necessary activities to influence student learning (Donohoo, 2017). The Road to
Resilience, published by the American Psychological Association (2014), stated that relationships that create love and trust, provide role models, and offer encouragement and reassurance help bolster a person’s resilience. They offered ten ways to build resilience:
1. Make connections with families.
2. Avoid seeing crises as insurmountable problems.
3. Accept that change is a part of living.
4. Move toward your goals.
5. Take decisive actions.
6. Look for opportunities for self-discovery.
7. Nurture a positive view of yourself.
8. Keep things in perspective.
9. Maintain a hopeful outlook.
10. Take care of yourself. (para. 1-10)
The teachers in this study demonstrated their ability to form relationships, and those relationships helped them build resilience to work in the field of early childhood education when faced with the uncertainties of student abilities and knowledge and skills they attained increased their self-efficacy in teaching children with special needs.
Marissa’s use of MTSS, although not directly stated, was a way to view her ability to build relationships with her students. MTSS focuses on aligning initiatives and
94 resources within an educational organization to address the needs of all students. She discussed how the use of these strategies helped her support all her students, including those with special needs. She explained how she used these strategies with her students and was learning how each tier can be a resource to support student learning. She stated that she keeps things in perspective and maintains a hopeful outlook, demonstrating some of the resilience characteristics listed above.
Day and Gu (2014) emphasized resilience in teachers as the capacity to manage the unavoidable uncertainties inherent in the reality of teaching. It is driven by teachers’ educational purpose and moral values and is influenced by their biographies and the social, cultural, organizational, and policy conditions of their work and lives.
The characteristic of resilience was noted in each participant as they spoke of the challenges they faced when having students with identified and unidentified special needs placed in their classrooms. The participants spoke of their desire to succeed in the teaching profession regardless of the challenges faced by their lack of knowledge on how to work effectively with a child with special needs. Some of the participants shared stories of acquiring knowledge on their own to improve their effectiveness in teaching all their students, including those with special needs. The teachers in this study demonstrated resilience as a key characteristic. Although they did not believe they were prepared to fully work with children with special needs in their undergraduate degree programs, they did believe they could and would learn the skills necessary to succeed in teaching the children in their classrooms. The American Psychological Association (2014) described resilience as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats,
95 or significant sources of stress, such as family and relationship problems, serious health problems, or workplace and financial stressors.
Implications
This study addressed the topic of preparation and the perceptions of first- and second-year early childhood education teachers. The results of this study offer implications for improvements in the higher education system, including sufficient numbers of full-time, early childhood-trained faculty who are knowledgeable about current research- and evidence-based practices, appropriate course offerings, the application of appropriate accreditation criteria for higher education programs, and articulation programs between two- and four-year colleges (Bueno, Darling-Hammond,
& Gonzales, 2010; Hyson, Tomlinson, Biggar, & Carol, 2009).
The study also identified how these six teachers obtained the knowledge necessary to successfully teach children with special needs in their classrooms. Based on the interviews in this study, early childhood education programs would benefit from the following three implications. First, programs need to prepare pre-service teachers to have experiences with special needs students as they spend time in the classroom to gain the skills necessary to meet the needs of students across the special needs spectrum. Second, higher education undergraduate degrees for those who are desiring to attain teacher credentials should develop courses that allow pre-service educators opportunities to practice typical procedures in relation to providing services to children and families with special needs, including the development and implementation of IEPs and collaboration with other professionals in holding IEP meetings. Finally, policy makers and faculty at institutes of higher learning must rethink the values of their programs and include
96 experiences and coursework that allow more practice-based courses focused on working with children with special needs, given the changing times in early childhood education.
Integrated and merged-model approaches would benefit teacher preparation programs. In an integrated model, separate general education and special education programs are retained, but faculty work together to develop a set of courses and field experiences in which special education candidates learn about general education curriculum and instruction and vice-versa (Fullerton, Ruben, McBride, & Bert, 2011).
In addition, this study illuminated that while requiring an undergraduate degree for early childhood professionals is a step in the right direction toward increasing the knowledge and skills of early childhood teachers, an undergraduate degree that has no focus on teacher preparation would have limited value in ensuring that teachers who begin teaching without attaining a credential in California are equipped to teach children in California.
Children from birth through age 8 learn in diverse ways from their older peers.
Young children generally thrive in environments and learning experiences that are designed to encourage them to explore their interests, initiate their own discoveries, and progress along specific learning and developmental pathways, and high-quality early childhood education settings provide those opportunities. There is evidence of the influence of teacher beliefs on the process of learning to teach; however, there is very little research that follows teachers into their first few years of practice in early childhood teaching (Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005). This study thus examined the perceptions of first- and second-year teachers and their preparation for working in the field of early
97 childhood education with children with special needs and how these new teachers learned to support these students.
The implications of the findings of this study might encourage colleges and early childhood education teacher preparation programs to be thoughtful and intentional about the types of courses and resources provided to pre-service early childhood educators so they can successfully navigate the growing demands of early childhood education settings. This research represents a much-needed look at undergraduate degree preparation that is generic instead of aligned as an early childhood degree and is insufficient for teaching. An additional focus on specific preparation in meeting the needs of special needs children in early childhood teaching is needed. Looking at teacher education programs to determine whether they provide sufficient training, education, and preparation to work with children with special needs is also needed. The need for high- quality early childhood education is of immense importance and increasing access to high-quality programs prior to beginning teaching is equally important in preparing individuals to fully meet the needs of all children, including those with special needs.
The findings from this study contribute to the limited body of research regarding first- and second-year early childhood teacher preparedness to work with children with special needs in an early childhood setting. By identifying the value of high-quality education and the responsibility of policy makers at the federal, state, and local levels, this study is meant to ensure support for future teachers so they can provide high-quality education to all children, including those with special needs.
98 Recommendations for Preparation and Practice
The research on the perceptions of first- and second-year teachers who had not completed teacher preparation programs prior to beginning teachers who are working with children with special needs is limited but compelling, as it provides information for school leaders, institutes of higher learning, and policy makers on the work necessary to align policies that provide and promote clear expectations for meeting the need of teachers of early childhood who have not attained a teaching credential, especially for individuals working with children with special needs.
First- and second-year teachers working with young children should be allowed opportunities to practice working with students with special needs, as categorized by
IDEA. The following recommendations are a way to bridge the gap between preparation and practice that was revealed after interviewing the participants in this study.
Based on the participants’ responses, it is suggested that specialized coursework in meeting the needs of special needs children be required for all interns who are hired with only an undergraduate degree. New teachers entering the field need training in order to feel adequately prepared to meet the needs of all students, including those with special needs. Pre-service early childhood teacher preparation that includes cross-collaboration and planned assignments with general education and special education college students to provide opportunities to acquire the knowledge necessary to work with children with special needs would be a good place to start. Another recommendation would be to extend early childhood teacher preparation beyond the pre-service years by providing certification for general education teachers that includes opportunities for these teachers
99 to gain skills and best practices for serving children with special needs through induction or professional development focused on a demonstration of these skills.
Recommendations for Future Research
Given the limited research on the perceptions of first- and second-year early childhood teachers who had not attained a teaching credential prior to becoming employed as a teacher, the findings from this study provide insights into what these teachers believe they would have benefitted from in their preparation prior to entering their first independent classroom teaching experience. This includes more opportunities for hands on practice and professional development designed to meet the needs of new teachers experiencing challenges working with children with special needs. Additional research on pre-service training and teacher education focused on the California Early
Childhood Educator Competencies should be conducted to ensure that teacher preparation programs meet the desired outcomes of those competencies.
Preparation and policy reform are necessary if general education teachers are to gain the hands-on mastery experiences early educators need prior to teaching in their own classrooms. Another recommendation is to have an integrated co-teaching model at schools where general education and special education students are educated in the same classrooms. Students with mild to moderate disabilities can be integrated and educated in the same classrooms with their typically developing peers and receive related services in those same classrooms.
Concluding Statement
As policy makers develop strategies to address teacher preparation, and colleges plan coursework for students entering the early childhood education field, quality care for
100 all children, including those with special needs, must be at the center of teacher preparation. Coursework that provides certification to teach children with special needs that general education teachers can complete after they secure a bachelor’s degree, or residency programs where early childhood educators take positions in settings that allow them to experience working with children and families with special needs, would be good ways to begin to prepare new teachers to develop the self-efficacy skills, which allow them to successfully care for and teach young children. Undergraduate degrees for those who plan to become teachers should include courses other than the theoretical introduction to special education courses that are currently offered; this is an important topic that requires more emphasis beyond the scope of this study. Future studies could determine the causes of teachers’ positive and negative beliefs and provide support for first- and second-year teachers that allows them to feel better prepared to work with all the children in their classrooms.
It is my sincere hope that this study will serve to support policy makers at varying levels to move toward a systemic approach that encourages continued research policy and practice and promotes cross-collaboration as a way for students with special needs to receive specialized academic instruction in their inclusive general education classrooms.
101 REFERENCES
Able, H., Sreckovic, M. A., Schultz, T. R., Garwood, J. D., & Sherman, J. (2014). Views
from the trenches. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 38(1), 44-
57. doi:10.1177/0888406414558096
Allen, L., & Kelly, B. B. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through
age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
American Psychological Association. (2014). Road to resilience. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). (2009). Retrieved from
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and health. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.),
International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 20, pp.
13815-13820). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.),
Praeger perspectives. Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people, Vol. 1.
Discovering human strengths (pp. 167-196). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
102 Berliner, D. C. (1988). Characteristics of experts in the pedagogical domain. Paper
presented at the International Symposium “Research on Effective and
Responsible Teaching.” University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified
teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72, 444-460.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189x033008003
Bornfreund, L. A. (2011). Getting in sync: Revamping licensing and preparation for
teachers in pre-K, kindergarten and the early grades. Washington, DC: New
America Foundation.
Boshuizen, H. P., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (2004). Professional learning: Gaps and
transitions on the way from novice to expert. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Teacher
preparation and student achievement. NBER Working Paper No. 14314.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w14314
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of
general and special education teacher’s perceptions and in-service needs
concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development, and
Education, 46(2), 143-156. doi:10.1080/103491299100597
Bueno, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Gonzales, D. M. (2010). A matter of degrees:
Preparing teachers for the pre-K classroom. Washington, DC: PEW Center on
the States.
103 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2016). California alternative route to
certification (intern programs). Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-
prep/intern/default
California Department of Education (CDE). (2014). About IDEA. Retrieved from
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/
California Department of Education (CDE). (2015). DRDP (2015): A developmental
continuum from early infancy to kindergarten entry. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/SP/cd/ci/documents/drdp2015preschool.pdf
California Department of Education (CDE). (2019). Race to the top – Early learning
challenge. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/rt/rttelc.asp
Cate, D., DeFosset, S., Smith, B. J., & Whaley, K. T. (2014). Early childhood inclusion:
Challenges and strategies. Retrieved from
https://elc.grads360.org/services/PDCService.svc/GetPDCDocumentFile?fileId=9
652
Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. J. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in
special education at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Journal of
Early Intervention, 27(2), 110-124. doi:10.1177/105381510502700206
Chen, C., & Mickelson, A. (2015). State licensure/certification requirements for
personnel serving infants and young children with special needs and their
families. Infants and Young Children, 28(4), 294-307.
doi:10.1097/IYC.0000000000000046
104 Concordia University Room 241. (2018). What is teacher efficacy and how leaders can
improve it. (2018). Retrieved from education.cu-portland.edu/blog/curriculum-
teaching-strategies/improve-teacher-efficacy/
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice. Key
Concepts in Early Childhood Education & Care, 23-27.
doi:10.4135/9781446222386.n5
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2011). Mission and vision. Arlington, VA:
Author. Retrieved from https://www.cec.sped.org/About-Us/Mission
Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2012). Establishing the field of teacher
effectiveness research: Moving from investigating personal characteristics of
teachers to understanding effective teaching practices. Teacher Professional
Development for Improving Quality of Teaching, 65-79. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-
5207-8_5
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education
Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Crippen, C. (2005). Inclusive education: A servant-leadership perspective. Education
Canada, 45(4), 19-22.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47. doi:10.1177/0022487109348024
105 Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (2011). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92.
doi:10.1177/003172171109200622
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters?
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff
Development Council.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2014). Resilient teachers, resilient schools building and sustaining
quality in testing times. New York, NY: Routledge.
Division for Early Childhood and the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (DEC/NAEYC). (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position
statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill, NC: The
University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional
development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational
Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. doi:10.3102/0013189x08331140
106 Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective efficacy: How educators beliefs impact student learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: A plea for the intuitive
conception of mind. Educational Researcher, 17(3), 50. doi:10.2307/1174834
Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 24(3), 177-181. doi:10.1177/0270467604264992
Early Childhood Care and Education Workforce. (2012). Challenges and opportunities:
A Workshop report. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine and National
Research Council. doi:10.17226/13238
Early, D., Burchinal, M., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Chang, F., Clifford, R., . . . Barnett,
W. S. (2007). Pre-kindergarten in eleven states: NCEDL’s multi-state study of
pre-kindergarten and study of state-wide early education programs (SWEEP).
ICPSR34877-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and
Social Research [distributor]. doi:10.3886/ICPSR34877.v1
Engel, M., Claessens, A., Watts, T., & Farkas, G. (2016). Mathematics content coverage
and student learning in kindergarten. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 293-300.
doi:10.3102/0013189x16656841
Frankel, E. B., Gold, S., & Ajodhia-Andrews, A. (2010). International preschool
inclusion: Bridging the gap between vision and practices. Young Exceptional
Children, 13(5), 2-16. doi:10.1177/1096250610379983
Fullerton, A., Ruben, B. J., McBride, S., & Bert, S. (2011). Development and design of a
merged secondary and special education teacher preparation program. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 38(2), 27-44.
107 Gage, F. H., & Lieberman, A. F. (1978). A multivariate analysis of social dominance in
children. Aggressive Behavior, 4(3), 219-229.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Goldberg, S. C. (2008). Testimonial knowledge in early childhood, revisited. Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research, 76(1), 1-36. doi:10.1111/j.1933-
1592.2007.00113.x
Gordon, R. A., Hofer, K. G., Fujimoto, K. A., Risk, N., Kaestner, R., & Korenman, S.
(2015). Identifying high-quality preschool programs: New evidence on the
validity of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised (ECERS-R)
in relation to school readiness goals. Early Education and Development, 26(8),
1086-1110. doi:10.1080/10409289.2015.1036348
Griffin, C. C., Garderen, D. V., & Ulrich, T. G. (2014). Teacher preparation. In P. T.
Sindelar, E. D. McCray, M. T. Brownell, & B. Lignugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook
of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 271-287). New York,
NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203817032.ch16
Guralnick, M. J., & Bruder, M. B. (2016). Early childhood inclusion in the United States.
Infants & Young Children, 29(3), 166-177. doi:10.1097/iyc.0000000000000071
Guskey, T. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
108 Hamre, B. K., Goffin, S. G., & Kraft-Sayre, M. (2009). Classroom assessment scoring
system implementation guide: Measuring and improving classroom interactions
in early childhood settings. Retrieved from the Center for Advanced Study of
Teaching and Learning website:
http://curry.virginia.edu/research/centers/castl/publications
Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., & Jamil, F. (2013). Evidence for general and domain-
specific elements of teacher-child interactions: Associations with preschool
children’s development. Child Development, 85(3), 1257-1274.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12184
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early
elementary classrooms. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School
readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 49-
83). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (2015). Early childhood environment rating
scale. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Haroutunian-Gordon, S., Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1988). Mind over machine: A
plea for the intuitive conception of mind. Educational Researcher, 17(3), 50.
doi:10.2307/1174834
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Helburn, S. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers: Technical
report, public report, and executive summary. Denver, CO: Colorado University,
Denver, Department of Economics.
109 Hollins, E. R., & Torres Guzman, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse
populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher
education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp.
477-548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Howell, W. G. (2015). Results of president Obama’s race to the top. Education Next,
15(4), 58-65.
Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O.
(2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten
programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 429-430.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.08.001
Hoy, A. W. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Huang, H. H., & Diamond, K. E. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ ideas about including
children with disabilities in programs designed for typically developing children.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(2), 169-182.
doi:10.1080/10349120902868632
Hyson, M., Tomlinson, H., Biggar, M., & Carol, A. S. (2009). Quality improvement in
early childhood teacher education: Faculty perspectives and recommendations for
the future. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 11(1).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).
Irwin, S. H., Lero, D. S. & Brophy, K. (2004). Inclusion: The next generation in child
care in Canada. Wreck Cove, Nova Scotia: Breton Books.
110 Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M., Quinn, K., Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M.
(2011). Coaching in early care and education programs and quality rating and
improvement systems (QRIS): Identifying promising features. Washington, DC:
Child Trends, Inc.
Jaquith, A., Mindich, D., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher
professional learning in the United States: Case studies of state policies and
strategies. Summary report. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.
Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research.
Education, 118(2), 282-292.
La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assessment scoring
system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal,
104(5), 409-426. doi:10.1086/499760
LiBetti, A. (2018). Let the research show: Developing the research to improve early
childhood teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Bellwether Education Partners.
Retrieved from https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/let-research-show-
developing-research-improve-early-childhood-teacher-preparation-0
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mader, J. (2017). Teacher training is failing students with disabilities. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/how-teacher-training-
hinders-special-needs-students/518286/
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
111 Maynard, C., Paro, K. M., & Johnson, A. V. (2013). Before student teaching: How
undergraduate students in early childhood teacher preparation programs describe
their early classroom-based experience. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 35(3), 244-261. doi:10.1080/10901027.2014.936070
Melnick, H., Tinubu, A. T., Gardner, M., Maier, A., & Wechsler, M. (2017).
Understanding California’s early care and education system. Palo Alto, CA:
Learning Policy Institute.
Melnick, S., & Meister, D. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers’
concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 39-56.
Merriam, S. (2009). Third update on adult learning theory. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education Programs. (2019).
National Accreditation Commission. Retrieved from
https://www.earlylearningleaders.org/page/accreditation
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (n.d.). Summary of
NAEYC professional preparation standards. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/higher-ed/standards-summaries
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2006). Code of
ethical conduct: Supplement for early childhood program administrators. A
position statement. Retrieved from
http://208.118.177.216/about/positions/pdf/PSETH05_supp.pdf
112 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2011). Standards
for professional preparation. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/standards-professional-
preparation
National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. (2004). National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. Retrieved from
https://www.ccrcca.org/resources/family-resource-directory/item/national-
association-of-child-care-resource-and-referral-agencies
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The condition of education 2009.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009081.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Children and youth with disabilities.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance. (2019). National Center on
Early Childhood Quality Assurance. Retrieved from
https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/centers/national-center-early-childhood-quality-
assurance
National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. (2007). Taking stock: Assessing
and improving early childhood learning and program quality. The Report of the
National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. Philadelphia, PA: Pew
Charitable Trusts.
National Education Goals Panel. (1998). Principles and recommendations for early
childhood assessments. Washington, DC: NEGP.
113 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002–2003). The NICHD study of early
child care: A comprehensive longitudinal study of young children’s lives.
Retrieved from ERIC database (ED3530870)
Odom, S. L., Teferra, T., & Kaul, S. (2004). An overview of international approaches to
early intervention for young children with disabilities and their families. Young
Children, 59(5), 38-43.
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special education teacher preparation in
classroom management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(3), 188-199.
doi:10.1177/019874291003500301
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Parenting matters.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system
(CLASS) manual. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Pub.
Ropo, E. (1990). Teachers’ questions: Some differences between experienced and novice
teachers. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, S. N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.),
Learning and instruction. European research in an international context (pp. 113-
128). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Rosen, P. (2019). MTSS: What you need to know. Retrieved from
https://www.understood.org/en/learning-attention-issues/treatments-
approaches/educational-strategies/mtss-what-you-need-to-know
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE Publications.
114 Skritc, T. M., Sailor, W., & Gee, K. (1996). Voice, collaboration, and inclusion:
Democratic themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and
Special Education, 17(3), 142-157. doi:10.1177/074193259601700304
Snow, K. (2011). Developing kindergarten readiness and other large-scale assessment
systems: Necessary considerations in the assessment of young children.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Sokal-Gutierrez, K. (2001). Child care and children with special needs: A training
manual for early childhood professionals. Wilmington, DE: Video Active
Productions.
Stader, D. L. (2013). Law and ethics in educational leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Sumrall, T. C., Scott-Little, C., Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., Burchinal, M., Hamre, B. K.,
& Howes, B. C. (2016). Student teaching within early childhood teacher
preparation programs: An examination of key features across 2- and 4-year
institutions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(6), 821-830.
doi:10.1007/s10643-016-0830-x
Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An
alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners.
Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 328-369. doi:
10.3102/0091732x07308968
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1
115 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-
efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23(6), 944-956. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
doi:10.3102/00346543068002202
United Nations. (1995). World summit for social development – Copenhagen, 1995.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2014).
UNESCO. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Childcare workers. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-service/childcare-workers.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top executive summary. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). U.S. Departments of Education and Health and
Human Services release guidance on including children with disabilities in high-
quality early childhood programs. Retrieved from
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-departments-education-and-health-
and-human-services-release-guidance-including-children-disabilities-high-
quality-early-childhood-programs
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Every student succeeds act (ESSA). Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/essa
116 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Office of Special Education Programs. (2014). 36th annual report to Congress on
the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, parts B and
C, 2014. Washington, DC.: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Retrieved from http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/yearbook2014full.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Early Childhood Learning
and Knowledge Center. (2017). Interactive Head Start early learning outcomes
framework: Ages birth to five – ECLKC. Retrieved from
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/interactive-head-start-early-learning-outcomes-
framework-ages-birth-five
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Early Childhood Learning
and Knowledge Center. (2019). Head Start early learning outcomes framework.
Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/article/head-start-
early-learning-outcomes-framework
Vu, J. A., Jeon, H., & Howes, C. (2008). Formal education, credential, or both: Early
childhood program classroom practices. Early Education & Development, 19(3),
479-504. doi:10.1080/10409280802065379
Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (2014). Worthy work, STILL unlivable wages:
The early childhood workforce 25 years after the national child care staffing
study. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. Retrieved
from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2014/ReportFINAL.pdf
117 Whitebook, M., & Ryan, S. (2011). Degrees in context: Asking the right questions about
preparing skilled and effective teachers of young children. National Institute for
Early Education Research Preschool Policy Brief, (22). Retrieved from
http://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2011/DegreesinContext_2011.pdf
White House. (2014). State of the union. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu
Will, M. (2018). Special education a growing priority in teacher-training circles.
Education Week, 38(15), 12-15. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/12/05/special-education-a-growing-
priority-in-teacher-training.html
Winterbottom, C., & Jones, I. (2013). National accreditation and its role in early
education: An analysis of Florida’s gold seal quality child-care program and
licensing standards. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(1), 64-76.
doi:10.1177/1476718x13492942
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Qualitative research methods, Vol. 20. Writing up qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs
about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81
Workman, S., & Ullrich, R. (2017). Quality 101: Identifying the core components of a
high-quality early childhood program. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-
childhood/reports/2017/02/13/414939/quality-101-identifying-the-core-
components-of-a-high-quality-early-childhood-program/
118 Woullard, R., & Coats, L. (2004). The community college role in preparing future
teachers. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(7), 609-624.
doi:10.1080/10668920490467251
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zaslow, M., & Tout, K. (2014). Reviewing and clarifying goals, outcomes, and levels of
implementation: Toward the next generation of Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems (QRIS). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation;
Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
119 APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
120 Interview Questions
Demographic Information Date______Start Time______End Time______
What is your name? ______
What is your current position?______
What is your highest level of education and what degree do you hold?______
How many years have you been out of college since obtaining your highest degree?____
Do you have any additional permits or credentials? If so, which ones?______
Can you share a bit about your background and your journey to become a teacher?
______
Why did you become a teacher?______
1. Tell me about your classroom and the children you serve.
2. Do any of your students have special needs or receive special education services?
If so, tell me about them.
3. Please describe a typical day in your classroom.
4. What are the hours for you and for the children?
5. What are some of the first things you do to prepare for the children to start their
day with you?
6. What are your personal or professional experiences with young children (0-5)
with special needs?
7. How would you describe your preparation for working with the population of
children you serve?
121 8. Tell me about your knowledge and exposure to children with special needs that
you learned in your teacher prep program.
9. Tell me about your knowledge of IDEA.
10. Tell me about your experience with IEPs
11. How were you trained in your preparation program to manage behavior of
children with special needs?
12. If so, what did that training consist of?
13. Did you or do you have a mentor teacher or someone to guide you, train you or
serves as a model or expert/master teacher on your campus?
14. How do you feel when you are teaching children with special needs?
15. Do you believe you can easily assess or recognize a child with special needs?
16. Tell me about strategies you learned in your preparation program for working
with children with special needs that you have tried in your classroom?
17. Where these strategies taught to you in college during your preparation
program? If not, how did you learn the skills you needed to work with children
with special needs?
18. What did you enjoy about your preparation program?
19. What was a strong point of your preparation program?
20. What was an area of weakness or something you would like to have changed
about it?
21. What skills, techniques, and/or strategies that you learned in your preparation
program or on your own do you use most often?
122 22. What do you feel was missing in your program now that you are in the classroom
with children?
23. Based on you training and education, how effective do you believe what you
learned in your training and education programs were in teaching you to meet the
needs of a student with special needs on day one of your new class?
24. What makes you believe you are competent to teach children with special needs?
25. What are your experiences of talking to other teachers that teach children with
special needs or that have children with special needs in their class?
26. Are there any other challenges you’ve experienced in your first few years that you
weren’t prepared for?
27. What are your experiences taking coursework or attending professional
development on teaching children with special needs?
28. What performance feedback have you received from you administrator or other
colleagues on your teaching (children with special needs)?
29. What feedback have you received from parents on your teaching (children with
special needs)?
30. What further professional development do you need for more success with
working with children with special needs?
31. Is there anything you wish you had learned while going through your preparation
program(s)?
32. How do you think this wish would impact your teaching today?
123