This article provides a review of the special education service delivery system and compares the teacher knowledge required in this system with types of knowledge discussed by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), specifically knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice, and knowledge of practice. We suggest that all three types of knowledge are useful, important, and lead to different outcomes for learners with and without disabilities. We conclude this article with a description of a professional development school in which the three facets of teacher knowledge are used for a comprehensive school change initiative.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, E. E., & Lederman, L. (1998). Lessons learned: The teacher academy for mathematics and science. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 158, 160, 162–64.
2.
Baker, E. T., Wang, M., & Walbert, H. J. (1995). Effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52 (4), 33–35.
3.
Berends, M., & King, M. B. (1994). A description of restructuring in nationally nominated schools: Legacy of the iron cage?Educational Policy, 18, 28–50.
4.
Buswell, B. (1999). Families: The key to continuity. In D. Fisher, C. Sax, & I. Pumpian (Eds.), Inclusive high schools: Learning from contemporary classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
5.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (1997). California's future: Highly qualified teachers for all students. Sacramento, CA.
6.
Claus, J. (1999). You can't avoid the politics: Lessons for teacher education from a case study of teacher-initiated tracking reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 50, 5–16.
7.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad and C. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Volume 24, pp. 251–307). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
8.
Comer, J. P. (1992). Organize schools around child development. Social Policy, 22(3), 28–30.
9.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). School reform at the crossroads: Confronting the central issues of teaching. Educational Policy, 11, 151–166.
10.
Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229–237.
11.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education.New York: Macmillan.
12.
Dunne, F., & Honts, F. (1998, April). “That group really makes me think!” Critical Friends groups and the development of reflective practitioners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
13.
Falvey, M. A. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
14.
Feinberg, W. & Soltis, J. F. (1992). School and society (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
Ferguson, D. L. (1997, March). Changing tactics: Research on embedding inclusion reforms within team learned that to achieve a broad perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
16.
Fisher, D. (2001). We're moving on up: Creating a schoolwide literacy effort in an urban high school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45, 92–101.
17.
Fisher, D., Grove, K. A., & Sax, C. (2000). The resilience of changes promoting inclusiveness in an urban elementary school. Elementary School Journal, 100, 213– 227.
18.
Fisher, D., Sax, C., & Jorgensen, C. (1998). Philosophical foundations of inclusive, restructuring schools. In C. Jorgensen (Eds.). Restructuring high schools to include all students (pp. 29–47). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
19.
Fisher, D., Sax, C., & Pumpian, I. (1999). Inclusive high schools: Learning from contemporary classrooms.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
20.
Fisher, D., Sax, C., Rodifer, K., & Pumpian, I. (1999). Teachers' perspectives of curriculum and climate changes: Benefits of inclusive education. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5, 256–268.
21.
Flood, J. & Lapp, D. (1995). What happens when teachers get together to talk about books?Gaining a multicultural perspective from literature. The Reading Teacher, 48, 720–723.
22.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2003). Linking assessments and instruction in a multilingual elementary school. In C. Coombe & N. Hubley (Eds.), Assessment practices: Case studies in Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages practice (pp. 63–74). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
23.
Hirsh, S. (2001). We're growing and changing. Journal of Staff Development, 22(3), 10–13.
24.
Hunt, P., Hirose-Hatae, A., Doering, K., Karasoff, P., & Goetz, L. (2000). “Community” is what I think everyone is talking about. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 305–317.
25.
Hynes, J. L. & Socoski, P. (1991, February). Undergraduates' attitudes toward teaching in urban and non-urban schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
26.
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
27.
Kleinert, H. L., Kearns, J. F., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 88–101.
28.
Lerner, J. (1993). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies.Boston: Houghton-Mif-flin.
29.
Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to listen: Positive approaches and people with difficult behavior.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
30.
McNulty, B. A., Connolly, T. R., Wilson, P. G. & Brewer, R. D. (1996). LRE policy: The leadership challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 158–167.
31.
NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. The report of the NASBE study group on special education.Alexandria, VA: Author.
32.
Nisbet, J. (1992). Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with severe disabilities.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
33.
Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 12–21.
34.
Padak, N. D., Rasinski, T. V., Peck, J. K., Church, B. W., Fawcett, G., Hendershot, J. M., Henry, J. M., Moss, B. G., Pryor, E., Roskos, K. A., & Baumann, J. F. (2000). Distinguished educators on reading: Contributions that have shaped effective literacy instruction. Newark, DE; International Reading Association.
35.
Patterson, J. A., & Marshall, C. (1999). Making sense of policy paradoxes: A case study of teacher leadershipJournal of School Leadership, 11, 372–398.
36.
Reeves, D. B. (2001). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning. Advanced Learning.
37.
Reynolds, M. C. (1962). A framework for consideringsome issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 28, 367–370.
38.
Sax, C., & Fisher, D. (2001). Using qualitative action research to effect change: Implications for professional education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(2), 71–80.
39.
Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
40.
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1992). Including students with severe disabilities in the regular classroom curriculum. Preventing School Failure, 37 (1), 26–30.
41.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
43.
Viadero, D. (1995, July 12). Carry that weight. Education Week, XIV(40), 26–31.
44.
Wolfensberger, W. (1975). The origin and nature of our institutional models (Rev. ed.). Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.
