Induction is designed to support teachers’ effectiveness, improve their students’ learning, and foster their retention. We consider how high-leverage practices (HLPs) might provide an instructional framework for special education teacher (SET) induction. With sensemaking theory as a conceptual foundation, we posit that, by structuring induction experiences and instructional conditions around HLPs, schools and districts can send more coherent messages about effective instruction, thereby easing new SETs’ efforts to make sense of their roles. We first provide a brief review of research on new SETs’ experiences. Next, we consider how specific induction components (i.e., professional development and mentoring, teacher evaluation, and collaboration) and instructional conditions (i.e., collaboration, instructional curricula and resources, and schedules) might be structured to support SETs’ learning of and use of these HLPs. We conclude with considerations for researchers and practitioners.
AchinsteinB.OgawaR. T. (2011). Change(d) agents: School contexts and the cultural/professional roles of new teachers of Mexican descent. Teachers College Record, 113, 2503–2551.
2.
AdnotM.DeeT.KatzV.WyckoffJ. (2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 54–76.
3.
AlbrechtS. F.JohnsB. H.MountstevensJ.OlorundaO. (2009). Working conditions as risk or resiliency factors for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1006–1002.
AllinderR. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 62, 525–535.
6.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
BenedictA. E.ThomasR. A.KimerlingJ.LekoC. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: What every special education teacher should know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 60–68.
8.
BettiniE. A.CrockettJ.BrownellM. T.MerrillK. (2016). Relationships between working conditions and special educators’ instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 83–94.
9.
BettiniE. A.JonesN. D.BrownellM. T.ConroyM.ParkY.LeiteW.. . . BenedictA. E. (2017). Workload manageability among novice special and general educators: Relationships with emotional exhaustion and career intentions. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 246–256.
10.
BettiniE. A.KimerlingJ.ParkY.MurphyK. (2015). Responsibilities and instructional time: Relationships identified by teachers in self-contained classes for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 59, 121–128. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2013.859561
11.
BettiniE. A.WangJ.CummingM.KimerlingJ.SchutzS. (2018). Special educators’ experiences of roles and responsibilities in self-contained classes for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0741932518762470
12.
BickmoreD. L.BickmoreS. T. (2010). A multifaceted approach to teacher induction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1006–1014.
13.
BillingsleyB. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 39–55.
14.
BillingsleyB.BettiniE. (2017). Improving special education teacher quality and effectiveness. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P.PullenP. C. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 501–520). New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
BillingsleyB.CarlsonE.KleinS. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333–347.
16.
BillingsleyB.GriffinC.SmithS. J.KammanM.IsraelM. (2009). A review of teacher induction in special education: Research, practice, and technology solutions (NCIPP Doc. No. RS-1ES). National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development, University of Florida. Retrieved from http://ncipp.education.ufl.edu/files_5/NCIPP%20Induction%20Exc%20Summ.pdf
17.
BillingsleyB.McLeskeyJ.CrockettJ. B. (2017). Principal leadership: Moving toward inclusive and high-achieving schools for students with disabilities (Document No.IC-8). Gainesville, FL: Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, University of Florida.
18.
BishopA. G.BrownellM. T.KlingnerJ. K.LekoM. M.GalmanS. A. C. (2010). Differences in beginning special education teachers: The influence of personal attributes, preparation, and school environments on classroom reading practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 75–92. doi:10.1177/0731948710033002
19.
BrayL. E.RussellJ. L. (2018). The dynamic interaction between institutional pressures and activity: An examination of the implementation of IEPs in secondary inclusive settings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40, 243–266. doi:10.3102/0162373718756189
20.
BrownellM. T.LauterbachA.BenedictA.KimerlingJ.BettiniE.MurphyK. (2012). Preparing teachers to effectively deliver reading instruction and behavioral supports in response to intervention frameworks. In CookB. G.TankersleyM.LandrumT. J. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavior disorders (pp. 247–277). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
21.
BrownellM. T.LauterbachA. A.DingleM. P.BoardmanA. G.UrbachJ. E.LekoM. M.. . . ParkY. (2014). Individual and contextual factors influencing special education teacher learning in literacy learning cohorts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 31–44.
22.
BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM. T.DanielsonL. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357–377.
23.
Carver-ThomasD.Darling-HammondL. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
24.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
25.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.
26.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.KatchL. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336.
27.
DanielsonC. (2011). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.
28.
DeAngelisK. J.PresleyJ. B. (2011). Toward a more nuanced understanding of new teacher attrition. Education and Urban Society, 43, 598–626.
29.
DeeT. S.WyckoffJ. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 267–297.
30.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
31.
DesimoneL. M.HochbergE. D.PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.SchwartzR.JohnsonL. J. (2014). Formal and informal mentoring: Complementary, compensatory, or consistent?Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 88–110.
DonaldsonM. L.PapayJ. P. (2015). Teacher evaluation for accountability and development. In LaddH. F.GoertzM. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 174–193). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
Feiman-NemserS. (2010). Multiple means of new teacher induction. In WangJ.OdellS. J.CliftR. T. (Eds.), Past, present, and future research on teacher induction: An anthology for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (pp. 15–30). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
35.
FranzD. P.VannestK. J.ParkerR. I.HasbrouckJ. E.DyerN.DavisJ. L. (2008). Time use by special educators and how it is valued. Journal of School Leadership, 18, 551–576.
36.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 13–18.
37.
GlazermanS.IsenbergE.DolfinS.BleekerM.JohnsonA.GriderM.JacobusM. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
38.
GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.RubinM.NeumerskiC. M.CannataM.DrakeT.SchuermannP. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44, 96–104.
39.
GriffinC. C. (2010). A summary of research for educational leaders on the induction of beginning special educators. The Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 14–20.
40.
GriffinC. C.KilgoreK. L.WinnJ.Otis-WilbornA. (2008). First-year special educators’ relationships with their general education colleagues. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 141–157.
41.
GrossmanP.ThompsonC. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 281–301.
42.
GrossmanP.ThompsonC. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers?Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2014–2026.
43.
HughesE. M.PowellS. R.StevensE. A. (2016). Supporting clear and concise mathematics language: Instead of that, say this. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49, 7–17. doi:10.1177/0040059916654901
IngersollR. M.StrongM. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81, 201–233.
46.
IsraelM.CarnahanR.SnyderK. K.WilliamsonP. (2013). Supporting new teachers of students with significant disabilities through virtual coaching: A proposed model. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 195–204.
47.
IsraelM.KammanM. L.McCrayE. D.SindelarP. T. (2014). Mentoring in action: The interplay among professional assistance, emotional support, and evaluation. Exceptional Children, 81, 45–63.
48.
JacksonK.MakarinA. (2016). Simplifying teaching: A field experiment with online “off-the-shelf” lessons. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w22398
49.
JimenezB. A.LoY.SaundersA. F. (2014). The additive effects of scripted lessons plus guided notes on science quiz scores of students with intellectual disability and autism. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 231–244.
50.
JohnsonS. M. (2012). Having it both ways: Building the capacity of individual teachers and their schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 107–122.
51.
JonesN. D.BettiniE.BrownellM. T. (in press). Competing strands of educational reform policy: Can collaborative school reform and teacher evaluation reform be reconciled?Elementary School Journal.
52.
JonesN. D.BrownellM. T. (2014). Examining the use of classroom observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 112–124.
53.
JonesN. D.BuzickH. M.TurkanS. (2013). Including students with disabilities and English learners in measures of educator effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 42, 234–241.
54.
JonesN.GilmourA. (2019). Special education teacher evaluation: Examining current practices and research. In CrockettJ. B.BIllingsleyB.BoscardinM. L. (Eds.). Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (2nd edition), (pp. 458–477), New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
JonesN. D.YoungsP.FrankK. A. (2013). The role of school-based colleagues in shaping the commitment of novice special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 79, 365–383.
56.
KammanM.LongS. K. (2010). One district’s approach to the induction of special education teachers: A case study. The Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 21–29.
57.
KennedyM. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?Review of Educational Research, 86, 945–980.
KilgoreK.GriffinC.Otis-WilbornA.WinnJ. (2003). The problems of beginning special education teachers: Exploring the contextual factors influencing their work. Action in Teacher Education, 25, 38–47.
60.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 711–753.
61.
LekoM. M.BrownellM. T. (2011). Special education preservice teachers’ appropriation of pedagogical tools for teaching reading. Exceptional Children, 77, 229–251.
62.
LekoM. M.BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25–43.
63.
Lignugaris/KraftB.HarrisS. (2014). Teacher preparation: Principles of effective pedagogy. In SindelarP.BrownellM.Lignugaris/KraftB.McCrayE. (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 233–254). New York, NY: Routledge.
64.
MathewsH. M.RodgersJ. D.YoungsP. Y. (2017). Sense-making for beginning special educators: A systematic mixed studies review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 23–36.
65.
MazurekK.WinzerM. (2011). Teacher attitudes toward inclusive schooling: Themes from the international literature. Education and Society, 29, 5–25.
Otis-WilbornA.WinnJ.GriffinC.KilgoreK. (2005). Beginning special educators’ forays into general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 143–152.
73.
PogodzinskiB. (2012). Considering the social context of schools: A framework for investigating new teacher induction. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20, 325–342.
74.
PowellS. R.DriverM. K. (2015). The influence of mathematics vocabulary instruction embedded within addition tutoring for first-grade students with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 221–233.
75.
RupparA. L.GaffneyJ. S.DiamondS. K. (2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81, 209–226.
76.
RussS.ChiangB.RylanceB. J.BongersJ. (2001). Caseload in special education: An integration of research findings. Exceptional Children, 67, 161–172.
77.
ScheelerM. C.RuhlK. L.McAfeeJ. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 396–407.
78.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieK. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
79.
SiutyM. B.LekoM. M.KnackstedtK. M. (2018). Unraveling the role of curriculum in teacher decision making. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41, 39–57.
80.
SmithT. M.IngersollR. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover?American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714.
81.
SteinbergM. P.DonaldsonM. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 340–359.
82.
VannestK. J.Hagan-BurkeS. (2010). Teacher time use in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 125–142.
83.
WaldronN. L.ParkerJ.McLeskeyJ. (2014). How are data systems used in inclusive schools? In McLeskeyJ.WaldronN. L.SpoonerF.AlgozzineB. (Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 155–166). New York, NY: Routledge.
84.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
85.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
86.
WilsonS. M.RozelleJ. J.MikeskaJ. N. (2011). Cacophony or embarrassment of riches: Building a system of support for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 383–394.
87.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ.BraatenM.StroupeD. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903.
88.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeS. W.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
89.
YoungsP.FrankK.ThumY. M.LowM. (2012). The motivation of teachers to produce human capital and conform to their social contexts. In SmithT. M.DesimoneL. M.PorterA. C. (Eds.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Organization and effectiveness of induction programs for new teachers (Vol. 110, pp. 248–272). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
90.
YoungsP.JonesN.LowM. (2011). How beginning special and general education elementary teachers negotiate role expectations and access to professional resources. Teachers College Record, 113, 1506–1540.
