This article describes the nature and current status of special education teacher preparation in Belgium, Russian, and United States. Findings from in-depth qualitative interviews, observations and analysis of documents were used to examine the difference perspectives on the preparation of special educators within higher education settings. Cross-national differences were found among the programs due to special education reform efforts and the cultural, sociopolitical, and historical beliefs of each country. Common features and content of study programs in special education are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ainscow, M. & Sebba, J. (Eds.). (1996). Developments in inclusive education [Special issue]. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1).
2.
Bridgman, A. (1988). Local officials in Belgium expected to gain more control over higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 35(1), A31–.
3.
Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., & Montorff, R. S. (1996). Alternative certification programs: A national survey.Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 39–48.
4.
Dens, A. (1993). Integration of disabled pupils in the regular school system in the Dutch-speaking community of Belgium. In C. O'Hanlon (Ed.), Special education integration in Europe (pp. 11–25). London: David Fulton.
5.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Press.
6.
Human Rights Watch (1998). Abandoned to the state: Cruelty and neglect in Russian orphanages. New York: Human Rights Watch.
7.
National Commission on Special Needs in Education and Training & National Committee for Education Support Services (NCSNET & NCESS) (1997). Education for all: From 'special needs and support' to developing quality education for all learners: Public discussion document. NCSNET/NCESS for the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
8.
NCATE Standards (1995). Standards, Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education Units. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
9.
Nekhames, I. (July 14, 1998). V sentyabre zarplaty iz Moskvy mozhet I ne byt, Uchitel'skaya gazeta, 28, 8.
10.
OECD (1993). Integration and special educational needs: Ambitions, theories and practices. Paris: OECD.
11.
O'Hanlon, C. (Ed.). (1993). Special education integration in Europe. London: David Fulton.
12.
O'Hanlon, C. (Ed.). (1995). Inclusive education in Europe. London: David Fulton.
13.
Pijl, S. J., & Dyson, A. (1998). Funding special education: A three-country study of demand-oriented models.Comparative Education, 34, 261–279.
14.
Sutton, A. (1988). Special education for handicapped pupils. In J. Riordan (Ed.), Soviet education: The gifted and the handicapped. (pp. 70–94). London: Routledge.
15.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997. (1997). P.L. No. 105–17.
16.
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
17.
Veresov, N. (1999). Undiscovered Vygotsky: Etudes on the pre-hisory of cultural-historical psychology. New York: Peter Lang.
18.
Vonk, H. (1991). Some trends in the development of curricula for the professional preparation of primary and secondary school teacher in Europe: A comparative study.British Journal of Educational Studies, 39, 117–137.
19.
Vsye Nachinaetsya so Shkoly [Everything begins with the school]. (1998). Moscow: Biblioteka “Rossiyskoi Gazety”.
20.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).
21.
Wise, A. E. (1999). Moving toward performance-based accreditation systems for the teaching profession. In R. A. Roth (Ed.), The role of the university in the preparation of teachers. (pp. 151–165). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
