Students with disabilities (SWDs) receive most of mathematics instruction in general education classrooms, and yet most general education teachers receive little instruction on methods for supporting these students in engaging with mathematical content. Teacher education could be a vital site for addressing this need, but we know little about how well candidates are being prepared for this task. In this study, we examined 267 elementary mathematics methods syllabi from 204 universities to understand how many and what types of references to SWDs appeared in the syllabi. We found that although 38% of syllabi included references to SWDs, these references were most commonly part of broader statements on supporting all learners. Comparatively few syllabi focused on specific instructional approaches for supporting SWDs, with only a small number of syllabi referencing students with disabilities in their course outlines, assignments, and readings. We conclude with implications for teacher educators and policymakers.
AlldayR. A.Neilsen-GattiS.HudsonT. M. (2013). Preparation for inclusion in teacher education pre-service curricula. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(4), 298–311.
2.
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2013, June18). NCTQ review of nation’s education schools deceives, misinforms public [Press Release].
3.
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for preparing teachers of mathematics.
4.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.
5.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
6.
BemillerM. (2019). Inclusion for all? An exploration of teacher’s reflections on inclusion in two elementary schools. Journal of Applied Social Science, 13(1), 74–88.
7.
BiggsJ. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations, 2(4), 13–17.
8.
BlantonL. P.PugachM. C.BovedaM. (2018). Interrogating the intersections between general and special education in the history of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 354–366.
9.
BoardmanA. G.SchwarzV. S.SollenbergerL. (2024). Integrating disability into equity-focused general education teacher preparation. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1372380.
10.
BoesenJ.HeleniusO.BergqvistE.BergqvistT.LithnerJ.PalmT.PalmbergB. (2014). Developing mathematical competence: From the intended to the enacted curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 72–87.
11.
BogartK. R.DunnD. S. (2019). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 650–664.
12.
BoydD. J.GrossmanP. L.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.
13.
BrowningT. D. (2018). Countering deficit discourse: Preservice teacher experiences of core reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 87–97.
14.
BuellM. J.HallamR.Gamel-McCormickM. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 143–156.
15.
ClevelandC.MarkhamJ. (2024). Understanding Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals at scale (Ed Working Paper No. 24-992). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
16.
CohenJ.BerlinR. (2020). What constitutes an “opportunity to learn” in teacher preparation?Journal of Teacher Education, 71(4), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119879893
17.
CohenJ.JonesN.GibbonsL. (2025). The missing middle? General and special educators’ views of mathematics instruction. AERA Open, 11(1), 1–15. https:/doi.org/10.1177/23328584251344901
18.
Darling-HammondL. (2013, June8). Why the NCTQ teacher prep ratings are nonsense. The Washington Post.
19.
Darling-HammondL.HammernessK.GrossmanP.RustF.ShulmanL. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). Jossey-Bass.
20.
DesoeteA.RoeyersH.De ClercqA. (2004). Children with mathematics learning disabilities in Belgium. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 50–61.
21.
DoablerC. T.BakerS. K.KostyD. B.ClarkeB.MillerS. J.FienH. (2015). Examining the association between explicit mathematics instruction and student mathematics achievement. Elementary School Journal, 115(3), 303–333.
22.
DuchaineE. L.ReynosaR. J.GarzaR. (2021). Secondary mathematics and science teachers prepared for inclusion. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 19(2), 103–126.
23.
DysonA. H.GenishiC. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.
24.
FlodenR. (2002). The measurement of opportunities to learn. In PorterA.GamoranA. (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 231–266). National Academy Press.
25.
FlorianL. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in diverse classrooms: Key lessons for the professional development of teacher educators from Scotland’s Inclusive Practice Project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275–285.
26.
FrancoisJ. (2020). The relationship between pre-service training and teaching self-efficacy for inclusive practices. Educational Considerations, 45(3), 8.
27.
FuchsL. S.BuckaN.ClarkeB.DoughertyB.JordanN. C.KarpK. S.WoodwardJ.JayanthiM.GerstenR.Newman-GoncharR.SchumacherR.HaymondK.LyskawaJ.KeatingB.MorganS. (2021). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Intervention in the elementary grades—educator’s practice guide. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
28.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493–513.
29.
FullerE. J. (2014). Shaky methods, shaky motives: A critique of the National Council of Teacher Quality’s review of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 63–77.
30.
GaliatsosS.KruseL.WhittakerM. (2019). Forward together: Helping educators unlock the power of students who learn differently. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
31.
GearyD. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15.
32.
GerstenR. (2025). How and what to teach students with disabilities in mathematics: Controversies and complexities raised by the NCTM/CEC position statement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 40(2), 67–70.
33.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304.
34.
GorskiP. C. (2009). What we’re teaching teachers: An analysis of multicultural teacher education coursework syllabi. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 309–318.
35.
GrauerholzL.GibsonG. (2006). Articulation of goals and means in sociology courses: What we can learn from syllabi. Teaching Sociology, 34(1), 5–22.
36.
GreenbergJ.WalshK. (2008). No common denominator: The preparation of elementary teachers in mathematics by America’s education schools. National Council on Teacher Quality.
37.
HarveyM. W.YsselN.BausermanA. D.MerblerJ. B. (2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 24–33.
38.
HiebertJ.MillerE.BerkD. (2017). Relationships between mathematics teacher preparation and graduates’ analyses of classroom teaching. Elementary School Journal, 117(4), 687–707.
39.
HooverJ. J.PattonJ. R. (2008). The role of special educators in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(4), 195–202.
40.
IrwinV.WangK.JungJ.KesslerE.TezilT.AlhassaniS.FilbeyA.DiligR.Bullock MannF. (2024). Report on the condition of education 2024. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
41.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R. (2011). Meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities in inclusive mathematics classrooms: The role of schema-based instruction on mathematical problem-solving. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 12–19.
42.
KangH.WindschitlM. (2018). How does practice-based teacher preparation influence novices’ first-year instruction?Teachers College Record, 120(8), 1–44.
43.
KavanaghS. S.RaineyE. C. (2017). Learning to support adolescent literacy: Teacher educator pedagogy and novice teacher take up in secondary English language arts teacher preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 904–937.
44.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.
45.
KurzA.ElliottS. N.WehbyJ. H.SmithsonJ. L. (2010). Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 131–145.
46.
LalvaniP. (2013). Privilege, compromise, or social justice: Teachers’ conceptualizations of inclusive education. Disability & Society, 28(1), 14–27.
47.
LampertM.FrankeM. L.KazemiE.GhousseiniH.TurrouA. C.BeasleyH.CunardA.CroweK. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243.
48.
LautenbachF.HeyderA. (2019). Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice teacher education: A systematic review. Educational Research, 61(2), 231–253.
49.
MackeyM. (2014). Inclusive education in the United States: Middle school general education teachers’ approaches to inclusion. International Journal of Instruction, 7(2), 5–20.
50.
MetsalaJ. L.HawkinsM. J. (2020). An examination of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about inclusive education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 178–192.
51.
MorsanyiK.van BersB. M.McCormackT.McGourtyJ. (2018). The prevalence of specific learning disorder in mathematics and comorbidity with other developmental disorders in primary school-age children. British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 917–940.
52.
MunterC.SteinM. K.SmithM. S. (2015). Dialogic and direct instruction: Two distinct models of mathematics instruction and the debate(s) surrounding them. Teachers College Record, 117(11), 1–32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics & Council for Exceptional Children. (2024). Teaching mathematics to students with disabilities.
55.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2016). General methodology for evaluation of traditional prep programs.
56.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. U.S. Department of Education.
57.
NelsonG.PowellS. R. (2018). A systematic review of longitudinal studies of mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 523–539.
58.
NguyenP.MunterC. (2024). Secondary mathematics preservice teachers’ perceptions of program (in)coherence. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 27(3), 441–477.
59.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2020). 42nd annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2020. U.S. Department of Education.
60.
OliverR.ReschlyD. (2010). Special education teacher preparation in classroom management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(3), 188–199.
61.
ParisD. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.
62.
PassolunghiM. C.SiegelL. S. (2004). Working memory and access to numerical information in children with disability in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(4), 348–367.
63.
PengP.WangC.NamkungJ. (2018). Understanding the cognitive related to mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis on the cognitive deficit profiles and the bottleneck theory. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 434–476.
64.
PieterseA. L.EvansS. A.Risner-ButnerA.CollinsN. M.MasonL. B. (2009). Multicultural competence and social justice training in counseling psychology and counselor education: A review and analysis of a sample of multicultural course syllabi. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(1), 93–115.
65.
PowellS. R.BarnesM. A.RootJ.HughesE. M.Ketterlin-GellerL.NelsonG.RojoM.AllsoppD. H.WitzelB.MyersJ. A.FloresM. M.LembkeE.BurnsM. K.NamkungJ.PoncyB.Parks EnnisR.MorinL. L.ArsenaultT. L.DoablerC. T.. . . PeltierC. (2025). The NCTM/CEC position statement on teaching mathematics to students with disabilities: What’s in it and what’s not. Research in Special Education, 2, 1–37.
66.
PugachM. C.BlantonL. P.MickelsonA. M.BovedaM. (2020). Curriculum theory: The missing perspective in teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 85–103.
67.
PugachM. C.MatewosA. M.Gomez-NajarroJ. (2021). Disability and the meaning of social justice in teacher education research: A precarious guest at the table?Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 237–250.
68.
PutmanH.WalshK. (2021). State of the states 2021: Teacher preparation policy. National Council on Teacher Quality.
69.
RemillardJ. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
70.
SchmidtW. H.CoganL.HouangR. (2011). The role of opportunity to learn in teacher preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138–153.
71.
SimonsenB.CoyneM.GoodmanS. (2024). Implementing practices within an integrated multi-tiered system of support: Introduction to the special series. Intervention in School and Clinic, 60(1), 3–5.
72.
SokalL.SharmaU. (2017). Do I really need a course to learn to teach students with disabilities? I’ve been doing it for years. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 40(4), 739–760.
73.
StannyC.GonzalezM.McGowanB. (2015). Assessing the culture of teaching and learning through a syllabus review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 898–913.
74.
StevensE. A.RodgersM. A.PowellS. R. (2018). Mathematics interventions for upper elementary and secondary students: A meta-analysis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 39(6), 327–340.
75.
Title II. (n.d.) Data Tools: List of teacher preparation providers, by state. U.S Department of Education.
ZhangJ.MartellaR. C.KangS.YeniogluB. Y. (2023). Response to Intervention (RTI)/Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): A nationwide analysis. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 7(2).
