Special Education Teacher Preparation in Classroom ...

Special Education Teacher Preparation in Classroom Management: Implications for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Regina M. Oliver and Daniel J. Reschly Peabody College of Vanderbilt University ABSTRACT: Special education teachers’ skills with classroom organization and behavior management affect the emergence and persistence of behavior problems as well as the success of inclusive practice for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Adequate special education teacher preparation and strong classroom organization and behavior management skills are critical for teachers of students with EBD. Little research has been conducted to determine the extent to which special education teacher preparation programs provide teachers with adequate instruction on classroom organization and behavior management techniques. Course syllabi from 26 special education teacher preparation programs were reviewed. Results indicate a highly variable emphasis on classroom organization and management between programs. Programs tended to emphasize reactive procedures. Only 27% (n 5 7) of the university programs had an entire course devoted to classroom management. The remaining 73% (n 5 19) of university programs had content related to behavior management dispersed within various courses. Limitations and implications for special education teacher preparation and inclusive practices are discussed. The education of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) continues to be a great challenge, due in large part to the complex nature of the disorder (Reddy & Richardson, 2006; Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, & Epstein, 2004). Children and adolescents with EBD exhibit a range of chronic problems that interfere with learning that include both externalizing behaviors (e.g., classroom disruptions, aggression) and internalizing behavior (e.g., anxiety, social withdrawal; Kaufman, 2005). Academic deficits are also pervasive for students with EBD. In a meta-analysis of the academic abilities of students with special needs, Reid and colleagues (2004) found that students with EBD had significant deficits in academic achievement across academic subjects and settings. Although it is unclear whether academic difficulties precede behavioral problems or if behavioral issues create academic difficulties, researchers currently believe that there is a reciprocal influence of both (Kauffman, 2005; Sutherland, Lewis-Palmer, Stichter, & Morgan,

&

188 / May 2010

2008). Children who perform low academically are at greater risk for behavioral problems because inappropriate behavior typically results in escape from difficult academic tasks. A cycle of negative reinforcement is created for both the teacher and the student in which the student is reinforced because the demand has been removed and the teacher is reinforced because the student and disruptive behavior have been removed from the classroom. In fact, children with behavioral problems have been shown to receive fewer instructional opportunities (Gunter, Denny, Jack, Shores, & Nelson, 1993). Because of the behavioral excesses exhibited by students with EBD, teacher skills in classroom organization and behavior management are necessary to address these challenging behaviors, attenuate academic deficits, and support successful inclusion efforts. Teachers often find it more challenging to meet the instructional demands of the classroom without the expertise and competency to address disruptive student behavior (Emmer & Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Stough, 2001). Poor classroom management typically leads to less instruction and worse student outcomes (Cameron, Connor, Morrison, & Jewkes, 2008; Tooke, 1997). In fact, a study by Espin and Yell (1994) examined teacher behavior and categorized teachers as effective or ineffective based on their observations. The authors identified an inability to manage the classroom environment with corresponding high rates of discipline problems and low rates of teacher responses to those problems as the main reasons teachers were rated as ineffective (Espin & Yell, 1994). Unfortunately, students with EBD are at higher risk for not receiving adequate instruction due to the disruptive behaviors typically exhibited by these students (Gunter et al., 1993). Well-designed and implemented classroom management systems might allow teachers the opportunity to increase instruction for students with EBD. Beyond the issue of adequate instructional opportunities, early intervention and treatment for students with EBD are essential to prevent more serious maladaptive behaviors (GreerChase, Rhodes, & Kellam, 2002; Kauffman, 2005). The progression and malleability of maladaptive behaviors are affected by classroom management practices of teachers in the early grades. Aggressive students in aggressive, disruptive classroom environments are more likely to be aggressive in later grades (GreerChase et al., 2002; Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Hendricks Brown, & Ialongo, 1998; Kellam, Mayer, Rebok, & Hawkins, 1998). The longterm effect of classroom management practices on aggressive student behavior was examined in a randomized controlled study conducted in a large urban school district (Greer-Chase et al., 2002; Kellam, Ling, et al., 1998; Kellam, Mayer, et al., 1998). A relatively simple procedure, the Good Behavior Game (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969), was taught to teachers in one afternoon of continuing education with a half-day follow-up a few months later. Rates of disruptive and aggressive behaviors declined significantly in the experimental classrooms while student engagement increased, and the decreased rates of aggressive behaviors for boys persisted through sixth grade. This research highlights the importance of effective classroom management practices and the need for teachers to be adequately prepared in this area. Adequate preparation in effective classroom management is increasingly necessary for special education teachers as greater Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

numbers of students with significant behavior problems are integrated into the general education environment due to the highly qualified teacher provisions and inclusive practices mandates of No Child Left Behind (Reschly, Smartt, Oliver, & Holdheide, 2007). Special education teachers play a critical role in the successful inclusion of these students in three ways. First, special education teachers can work with general education teachers on establishing effective classroom management plans to prevent the worsening of behavioral problems for students at risk for EBD. Second, special education teachers can provide a supportive behavioral environment for students already in self-contained settings to teach important prosocial behavior and skills necessary to function in general education settings. Finally, special educators are increasingly taking the role of co-teachers to support the successful inclusion of students with significant behavior concerns.

Teacher Preparation Inadequate general and special education teacher preparation hinders inclusion efforts. Specifically, the inclusion of students with challenging behavior or EBD in regular education classrooms is affected by teachers’ abilities to handle the disruptive behaviors typically exhibited by these students (Gunter et al., 1993). General education teachers who feel inadequately prepared to effectively manage classrooms, or who report a low ability to address challenging behaviors, are also (a) less willing to implement individualized behavior support plans and reinforcement strategies, (b) vary reinforcement schedules, and (c) document student progress for systematic evaluation (Baker, 2005). Consequently, behavior support plans designed to ameliorate the challenging behaviors exhibited by students with EBD in general education settings often fail, leading to placement in more segregated settings. Special educators can support general education teachers with effective classroom management plans and behavior management skills to provide adequate behavior support for students with challenging behaviors in general education settings, thus reducing the amount of time students are placed in self-contained settings. Adequate special education teacher preparation and strong classroom organization and behavior management skills are critical for students with EBD who spend most of their May 2010 / 189

time in segregated settings (Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003; Oliver & Reschly, 2007). Special education teachers are responsible for teaching students adequate behavioral, social, and academic skills to be successful in inclusive settings. However, research indicates that teachers of students with EBD may not be adequately prepared, have less experience, and receive less education (Billingsley, Fall, & Williams, 2006; Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Conroy, 2003). In a national longitudinal survey regarding the education of students with emotional disturbance, only 25% to 33% of students in the sample had teachers who reported receiving at least 8 hr of in-service training regarding issues related to working with students with disabilities (Wagner, Friend, Bursuck, Kutash, Duchnowski, et al., 2006). Moreover, only 22.9%, 30%, and 13.1% of elementary, middle, and high school general education teachers, respectively, strongly agreed that they had been given adequate training (Wagner, Friend, et al., 2006). Based on these data, it appears that many classroom teachers, in regular and special education classrooms, believe they are insufficiently prepared to handle challenging behavior. This has implications for policy makers and teacher preparation programs alike because of the legal requirements regarding inclusion in the least restrictive educational environment and access to the general education curriculum.

Classroom Management Practices The various components of typical classroom management approaches have been documented in the literature through observation studies of effective teachers and experimental studies, although very few experimental control studies have examined classroom management specifically (Oliver, 2009). Early studies collecting observational data on effective teachers found specific practices that established effective classroom management. In a series of studies, Anderson and colleagues (Anderson & Evertson, 1978; Anderson, Evertson, & Emmer, 1979) identified five factors that were associated with better classroom managers. Teachers were identified as effective classroom managers if they (a) had clear expectations about behavior and communicated them clearly; (b) explicitly taught classroom rules and routines using examples and nonexamples; (c) acknowledged students for appropriate behavior using behavior-specific 190 / May 2010

praise; (d) provided quick, prompt responses to inappropriate behavior before behaviors escalated; and (e) were consistent with consequences to both appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Experimental studies have also examined classroom management approaches as a collection of specific components. Reductions in disruptive behavior have been found with packaged interventions using antecedent strategies (e.g., posting of rules, teacher movement, precision requests), reinforcement strategies (e.g., token economy, mystery motivator), and consequence strategies to respond to inappropriate behavior (e.g., response cost; Di Martini-Scully, Bray, & Kehle, 2000; Kehle, Bray, Theodore, Jenson, & Clark, 2000). This classroom management package of strategies has also been used to decrease disruptive behavior for students with EBD (Musser, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson, 2001). In their review of the research on classroom management, Emmer and Stough (2001) found that teachers who effectively managed their classrooms focused on prevention rather than reactive approaches and explicitly taught desirable student behaviors. Preventive classroom management practices consist of (a) structuring the physical environment to accommodate traffic patterns and minimize distractions as well as structuring instructional time and transitions, (b) establishing a few positively stated behavioral expectations that are linked to the schoolwide plan, (c) identifying rules that provide behavioral examples of the expectations, (d) establishing routines for classroom tasks such as turning in homework, (e) planning to actively teach the rules and routines, (f) establishing procedures to reinforce appropriate behavior, (g) using effective procedures to reduce and respond to inappropriate behavior, and (h) collecting data to monitor student behavior and modify the classroom management plan as needed (Emmer & Stough, 2001; Kerr & Nelson, 2002; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 2003). One systematic best evidence review was conducted to identify evidence-based practices in classroom management in an attempt to inform research and practice (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). Researchers in this study initially reviewed 10 classroom management texts to identify typical topics described within texts and systematically searched to identify experimental studies Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

that addressed these topics. The researchers used criteria for evidence-based similar to the What Works Clearinghouse criteria to evaluate the evidence of each practice (Simonsen et al., 2008). Results of the evaluation of 81 studies identified 20 general practices that met the criteria for evidence based. These 20 general practices fell into five broad categories: (a) maximize structure and predictability; (b) post, teach, review, and provide feedback on expectations; (c) actively engage students in observable ways; (d) use a continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior; and (e) use a continuum of strategies to respond to inappropriate behavior (Simonsen et al., 2008). A range of two to six practices were classified under each broad category, and the empirical studies supporting each practice ranged from three to eight studies per practice. ‘‘Responding to inappropriate behavior’’ had the highest amount of empirical studies, whereas ‘‘maximizing structure and predictability’’ had the fewest (Simonsen et al., 2008). Logically, teachers should receive adequate training on these skills prior to their first day of teaching. However, to date, little research has been conducted to determine to what extent special education teacher preparation programs provide instruction and supervised practice in these areas. The purpose of the current study was to examine special education teacher preparation in classroom organization and behavior management. A review of course syllabi from 26 special education teacher preparation programs was conducted to determine if the critical features of classroom organization and behavior management were included in their courses of study. An Innovation Configuration (IC) map (Hall & Hord, 2001) was developed based on a review of the classroom management literature and applied to course syllabi to answer the following questions: (a) Do special education teacher preparation programs provide adequate training in classroom organization and behavior management? and (b) Which components of classroom organization and behavior management are taught more intensely in special education teacher preparation?

Method Sample Data collected for this study were part of a larger evaluation of institutions of higher Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

education (IHEs) that included both academic and behavior. For the purposes of this study, only classroom management data are reported. The sample of course syllabi was obtained from a large Midwestern state. The state recently updated its special education licensure requirements by removing specific endorsements for licensure (e.g., Learning Disabilities, LD, Seriously Emotionally Disturbed, SED) and moving to a cross-categorical license in an effort to improve integration of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum. Based on the state board of education’s desire to evaluate all special education teacher preparation programs across the state, permission and authority to solicit course syllabi were obtained from the state board of education. A letter from the state associate superintendent and director of special education was then sent to the deans of the College of Education at all 31 public and private IHEs. These 31 IHEs comprised the entire population of special education teacher preparation programs located in the state. The IHEs represented in the sample were a mixture of public and private universities, including large R1 universities. Each dean was asked to submit a copy of each course syllabus that was required as part of the licensing requirement for special education teacher certification at their IHE. If necessary, a follow-up letter was sent encouraging submission of course syllabi followed by additional reminder e-mails. Course syllabi from 26 IHEs were obtained, for an overall response rate of 83.9%. Each course syllabus was reviewed for content related to classroom management. If a syllabus had any content that could be rated on the measurement instrument used in this study, it was included in the sample. The rationale for rating any course containing content that could be scored on the IC was based on the fact that not every IHE had an entire course devoted to classroom management but rather content dispersed throughout courses. A sample of 135 course syllabi was identified and used for this review. Syllabi were identified as either courses on classroom management (n 5 7) or courses containing content related to classroom organization and behavior management (n 5 128). This sample included courses specific to individualized behavior management. Syllabi that did not contain content related to classroom organization or behavior management were excluded from this review (e.g., a course syllabus related only to reading). May 2010 / 191

Measurement Course syllabi review was used as the primary data collection method for two primary reasons. First, course syllabi are used widely as important indicators of program quality in accreditation, teacher licensing, and research (Steiner & Rozen, 2004; Walsh, Glaser, Wilcox, 2006). Second, course syllabi are almost always prepared in higher education coursework, easily accessed, and an efficient reflection of course content and experiences. Although course syllabi may not contain all information related to actual content and experiences, it is a relatively strong indicator of the scope and sequence of a university course. Instrument The authors developed a rubric based on the format of an IC (Hall & Hord, 2001) to measure the degree to which the essential components of classroom management are represented in coursework required for certification. Innovation Configurations have been used for at least 30 years in the development and implementation of educational innovations (Hall & Hord, 2001; Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, & Newton, 1975; Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987; Roy & Hord, 2004). These tools were originally developed by experts in a national research center studying educational change and are used in the Concerns Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 2001) as a professional development tool. They have also been used for program evaluation (Roy & Hord, 2004). An IC identifies and describes the major components of a practice or innovation. With ICs, innovations are assessed along a continuum of configurations, ranging from nonuse to ideal implementation practice. An instrument parallel to an IC was developed to describe the range of implementation of teacher preparation coursework related to classroom organization and behavior management at various levels of implementation. In this case, implementation refers to whether the critical components are being taught with supervised experience as evidenced by course syllabi. The classroom organization and management rubric was constructed in a table listing essential components and degree of implementation. Essential components of classroom organization and behavior management were listed in the rows of the far left column, along 192 / May 2010

with descriptors and examples to guide application of the criteria to course syllabi. For instance, under the essential component Active Supervision and Student Engagement were the examples teacher scans, moves in unpredictable ways, and monitors student behavior; teacher uses more positive to negative teacherstudent interactions; teacher provides high rates of opportunities for students to respond; and teacher uses multiple observable ways to engage students (e.g., response cards, peer tutoring). The content validity of the classroom organization and behavior management rubric is based on a review of research and practice (e.g., Simonsen et al., 2008). The essential components developed were (a) structured environment, (b) active supervision and student engagement, (c) schoolwide behavioral expectations, (d) classroom rules, (e) classroom routines, (f) encouragement of appropriate behavior, and (g) behavior reduction strategies. Bulleted items accompanied each component to provide further detail regarding the definition of each component (e.g., group contingencies). The second dimension used in the rubric was the degree of implementation. In the top row, several levels of implementation were defined, ranging from the lowest level of implementation to the highest level. Increasing levels of implementation were assigned progressively higher scores from 0 to 4. Each level required evidence of implementation from lower levels plus requirements for that level. Descriptors used were (0) no evidence that the component is included in the course syllabi, (1) syllabi mentioned the component, (2) required readings and tests and/or quizzes, (3) required assignments or projects for application and finally the highest level of implementation, and (4) teaching application with feedback. Scores to represent different levels of implementation were created on an ordinal scale in which a higher score indicated a more thorough implementation of an IC component. These scale points cannot, however, be interpreted as if the intervals between the scores are equal. That is, the difference between 1 and 2 cannot be assumed to be the same amount as the difference between 3 and 4. Furthermore, a score of 4 indicates more thorough implementation than a score of 2, but it cannot be interpreted as twice as much of some quality as a score of 2. A copy of the Classroom Organization and Behavior Management IC (Oliver & Reschly, 2007) can be obtained from the primary author upon request. Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Course Syllabi Rating Researchers were trained on the use of the IC over a 2-week period of time. The research assistant had 11 years of experience in the field of education working for a state department of education. The first author was a doctoral student in special education at the time of the study with 6 years of experience in education as well as the primary developer of the IC. Prior to the syllabi review, two raters independently scored a small sample of course syllabi and discussed the scoring criteria until 100% agreement was reached. Once researchers were trained, the IC was used to rate each course syllabus related to classroom organization and behavior management. Each course syllabus from all universities was rated for each component of the IC; however, the analysis of the results was at the university syllabi level rather than individual course level. Therefore, a final score on each IC component was given to each university based on the highest rating that was obtained. For example, a university might have several courses related to behavior, and each syllabus was rated on the IC component ‘‘structured environment.’’ Individual course syllabus scores may have ranged from 0 to 3, but the university would receive a final score of 3 for that IC component based on the highest individual course syllabus score received. Results are reported at the university level of analysis. The rationale for a universitylevel score relates to the unit of analysis in the research question. That is, the state department of education and the researchers desired to evaluate each IHE in terms of how they were preparing individuals enrolled in special education teacher preparation programs on classroom management content and supervised practice. If the purpose of the study had been to develop improvement plans for IHEs, a within-university analysis would have been a more appropriate analysis. Interrater Reliability From the total 135 course syllabi that covered classroom management, 25% (n 5 31) were randomly selected by researchers to be evaluated for interrater reliability. Two raters independently scored the same syllabi at separate points in time. The secondary rater scored the syllabi in the opposite order as the primary rater to control for observer drift. Two methods, exact agreement and adjacent agreeBehavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

ments, were determined for reliability by the following formula: Total IC components exact points Total IC components exact pointszmisses |100% Exact agreements occurred when both raters awarded the same number of points for a specific IC component. The exact agreements were totaled for each IC component and placed in the numerator of the above formula. The exact agreements plus the misses were totaled and entered as the denominator. Adjacent number agreements were also studied. An adjacent number agreement occurred if the two raters independently rated an IC component within 1 point. For example, on the classroom rules component of the IC, an adjacent number agreement occurred if the two independent ratings were within 1 point of each other. In a second analysis, adjacent agreements were totaled and entered in the numerator. In the second analysis, the denominator was composed of the adjacent agreements plus the misses (2 or more points apart). Exact agreement and adjacent agreement reliability results were 86% and 97%, respectively. These reliability scores are sufficient for the purposes of this research.

Results The syllabi scores on the classroom organization and behavior management IC were highly variable (see Table 1). Only 27% (n 5 7) of the university special education programs had an entire course devoted to classroom management. The remaining 73% (n 5 19) of university programs had content related to behavior management dispersed within various courses or had courses specific to individual behavior management interventions. The highest component ratings obtained were for the behavior reduction strategies component, in which 96% (n 5 25) of the university programs received scores of either 3 (thorough coverage in class) or 4 (teaching application with feedback). Second to behavior reduction strategies, 58% (n 5 15) of university programs scored either 3 or 4 on the IC component for encouragement of appropriate behavior. A breakdown of each IC component by the percentage of universities scoring 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 is provided in Figure 1. May 2010 / 193

TABLE 1 Percentages of 26 University Programs Meeting Classroom Management Essential Components IC Component

0

1

2

3

4

Structured environment

54

8

8

19

12

Active supervision and student engagement

65

12

8

4

12

Schoolwide behavioral expectations

62

4

15

8

12

Classroom rules

42

0

19

27

12

Classroom routines

50

8

0

23

19

Encouragement of appropriate behavior

19

12

12

31

27

0

0

4

31

65

Behavior reduction strategies

Note. Values are rounded percentages of universities scoring at each Innovation Configuration (IC) level. 0 5 no evidence, 1 5 syllabi mentioned component, 2 5 required readings and/or test and/or quizzes, 3 5 required assignments or projects for application, 4 5 teaching application with feedback.

Results indicated that universities provided less preparation in other components of the IC, particularly structured environment, active supervision and student engagement, schoolwide behavioral expectations, and classroom routines. More than half of the universities’ scores indicated no evidence of these components in their course syllabi. Surprisingly, the classroom rules component of the IC was notably underrepresented in course syllabi as well; more than 42% (n 5 11) of university programs had no courses in which the topic of establishing classroom rules was mentioned in any syllabus. Considering the fundamental importance of preventive strategies such as establishing behavioral expectations and rules, these results are sources of significant concern.

The emphasis on behavior reduction strategies and encouragement of appropriate behavior found in the course syllabi reviewed may very likely meet significant needs of many students with EBD in inclusive settings. Scores indicate that special education teacher preparation programs are providing content on reactive, behavior reduction procedures and some supervised experience. However, further emphasis on preventive strategies such as schoolwide positive behavior supports and classroom rules and routines likely would enhance successful integration of students with EBD by teaching appropriate behavior and preventing disruptive behavior. Coursework should contain content in these areas as well as supervised experience.

Figuer 1. Percentages of 26 University Programs Scoring 0 to 4 for Each IC Component. 194 / May 2010

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Discussion Effective classroom organization and behavior management are essential skills for any teacher, particularly teachers of students with EBD and other behavioral challenges (Gunter & Denny, 1996). In general, observations in applied, special education classroom settings indicate poor classroom practices occurring and a lack of teacher skills in establishing environments that support the needs of students with behavioral challenges (Gunter et al., 1993). The purpose of the current study was to examine one state’s preparation of special education teachers in the area of classroom management to establish if this lack of observed effective classroom procedures is related to teacher preparation in the area of classroom management. Previous research on classroom management indicates that effective managers use preventive procedures such as clear and consistent classroom rules and routines, structured environment, and active supervision and student engagement (Anderson & Evertson, 1978; Espin & Yell, 1994; Simonsen et al., 2008). To determine the level of preparation for special educators, an IC was developed and used to evaluate course syllabi to determine the extent of classroom management content and supervised practice represented in coursework required for special education teacher licensure. Course syllabi were rated based on the degree of implementation of essential classroom management components from no evidence to the highest level of implementation including supervised practice. The results suggest a conspicuous absence of comprehensive, classroom management procedures in course syllabi. More specifically, the majority of attention in course syllabi was placed on reactive procedures to reduce inappropriate behavior with little attention given to prevention strategies. These findings mirror field observations in which primary classroom management has placed a heavy reliance on punitive, reactive procedures (Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993). Given the role of disordered behavior in identifying students for special education, one would expect that special educators would have a higher degree of preparation and training on classroom organization and behavior management. The results from the sample of universities in this study suggest special education teachers may not be adequately Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

prepared to meet the behavioral needs of diverse learners. The most surprising result in this study, however, was that only 7 of the 26 universities had an entire course devoted to classroom management. The majority of IHEs in this sample provided some level of classroom organization and behavior management throughout coursework, although the level of detail and quantity varied. Whether a concentrated course with supervised practice is a superior training approach to interspersing classroom management content throughout a number of courses is unknown. Although it is unclear what method of teaching classroom management strategies provides adequate teacher preparation for implementation and maintenance, it is interesting to note that other instructional topics (e.g., reading) often have at least one course devoted to the topic in preservice teacher preparation (Smartt & Reschly, 2007). Which approach is most effective for teaching classroom management strategies is probably an empirical question. What is clear is that in comparison with other preservice content, the coverage of classroom management practices seems woefully inadequate. If these results from one large state are indicative of special education teacher preparation across the country in general, much needs to be done to provide special education teachers with classroom management knowledge and skills necessary to establish contexts that support the academic and behavioral needs of all students with behavioral challenges.

Recommendations for Future Research One area of future research is the examination of preventive classroom management strategies for special education teachers. Although there has been significant observational research on effective classroom management and single-subject research on individualized strategies for changing behavior, there does not appear to be research-based consensus in the field regarding what needs to be taught for universal classroom management procedures (Oliver, 2009). More research has been done and more is known about the use of individualized approaches for students with behavioral concerns, for example, functional behavioral assessments. Future research should experimentally examine universal classroom management approaches to establish what practices are necessary to provide the maxiMay 2010 / 195

mum benefit and therefore what should be taught in special education teacher preparation programs. Another area for future research is to determine the appropriate approach for preparing preservice teachers to be highly skilled and fluent with classroom organization and behavior management principles prior to their first day of teaching. Research should determine whether classroom organization and behavior management are taught most effectively in sections throughout the curriculum, in one concentrated course, or a combination of the two. Teacher reports (Baker, 2005; Siebert, 2005) indicate inadequate preparation in the area, but what is not known is the appropriate amount of content knowledge, practice, and support that is optimal to prepare teachers to address the behavioral challenges of today’s classrooms. A greater understanding of how to adequately prepare teachers will likely ameliorate some of the issues around teacher retention and persistence in the field. Future research should also investigate the preparation of general education teachers in classroom organization and behavior management and how this training intersects with or parallels what special educators are being taught. Prevention of more serious behavior concerns begins in the early grades when students are still involved and participating in general education. Therefore, general education teachers play a significant role in these preventive efforts, and special education teachers have the opportunity to work with general education teachers in these efforts. Special education teachers who take part in prereferral teams can identify weaknesses in universal classroom management in the general education context, thereby preventing improperly diagnosed students as behavioral disordered. A greater understanding of whether general and special educators are being trained with prevention of behavioral disorders as a focus of universal classroom management procedures is necessary to enhance prevention efforts and inclusive practices.

Implications for Inclusive Practices and Special Education Teacher Preparation Inadequate special education teacher preparation in classroom organization and behavior management presents several significant barriers. These results indicate possible 196 / May 2010

barriers to the inclusion of students with EBD and other disabilities in general education settings. Teachers who are insufficiently prepared in preventive classroom management practices may lean toward the use of more reactive procedures. The use of reactive procedures such as time-out and removal from the classroom excludes students from general education and access to the general education curriculum. Moreover, students may be placed in more restrictive settings due to insufficient management in the regular education classroom. Special education teachers who are inadequately prepared hinder inclusion efforts because students with EBD do not learn the skills necessary to be successful in general education settings. Second, inadequate teacher preparation may also act as a barrier to the prevention of behavioral disorders. Young children with aggressive, disruptive behaviors, particularly boys, will remain disruptive and aggressive in later grades without preventive classroom management procedures (Greer-Chase et al., 2002; Kellam, Ling, et al., 1998; Kellam, Mayer, et al., 1998; van Lier, Muthen, van der Sar & Grijnen, 2004). Effective classroom organization and behavior management can prevent the progression of maladaptive behaviors that place children at risk for EBD. Insufficient teacher preparation in classroom management is a barrier to the prevention of behavioral disorders. Finally, inadequate teacher preparation hinders successful early intervention and response-to-intervention (RTI) efforts in general education. Inclusive in the conceptualization of a three-tier system of support is the assumption of strong core programs at Tier I, including classroom organization and behavior management. If classroom behavior is ineffectively managed, indicating a weak core program, it is more likely that larger percentages of students will be identified inaccurately and referred for additional support. Moreover, the success of Tier II interventions will likely be hindered by poorly managed classroom environments that include high rates of off-task behavior and less instructional time. Effective classroom management is an essential part of successful early intervention and RTI systems of support. Comprehensive teacher preparation in all components of classroom organization and behavior management therefore is required at the preservice level. Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Limitations There are several limitations to these findings. First, the content validity of the components of the classroom organization and behavior management IC used to rate course syllabi has not been directly validated through research with the IC but rather is based on other supporting research of each component. A second limitation is what information can be obtained about special education teacher preparation from a review of course syllabi alone. Course syllabi are a valid representation of what is taught in teacher preparation programs only to the extent that the syllabi information is accurate and the content, learning activities, and experiences are actually implemented in the course as described. Third, although the large percentage of programs participating in this research represents a large proportion in the state, the generalizability of these results is limited to the IHEs with special education teacher preparation programs participating in this evaluation and the degree to which the syllabi submitted were the actual syllabi used in courses. Finally, the course syllabi reviewed were only for required courses for the special education license, so it is unclear how well classroom organization and behavior management components are implemented in the preparation of general education teachers. Although it appeared that many courses were required in both general education and special education requirements, required courses for general education were not studied directly.

Conclusion As schools struggle to meet significant requirements of inclusive practices for students with EBD and the educational and behavioral needs of all students, the adequate preservice preparation of teachers becomes critical. Federal law embraces teacher quality as a critical factor in improving achievement, prevention of learning and behavioral disorders, and attaining broad outcomes such as school completion and positive early adult participation in education and careers (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2002; IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004, 2006). Examination of special education teacher preparation programs in classroom organization and management inBehavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

dicates both inadequate preservice teacher preparation and potential barriers to inclusive educational practices. This has implications for school leadership and teacher preparation programs alike. REFERENCES Anderson, L. M., & Evertson, C. M. (1978). Classroom organization at the beginning of school: Two case studies. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED166193) Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1979). Dimensions in classroom management derived from recent research. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED166193) Baker, P. H. (2005). Managing student behavior: How ready are teachers to meet the challenge? American Secondary Education, 33, 51–64. Barrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124. Billingsley, B. S., Fall, A. M., & Williams, T. O. (2006). Who is teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders? A profile and comparison to other special educators. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 252–264. Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Jewkes, A. M. (2008). Effects of classroom organization on letter-word reading in first grade. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 173–192. Di Martini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 149–156. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind) of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107, 115 Stat. 14 (2002). Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103–112. Espin, C. A., & Yell, M. L. (1994). Critical indicators of effective teaching for preservice teachers: Relationships between teaching behaviors and ratings of effectiveness. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 154–169. Greer-Chase, M., Rhodes, W. A., & Kellam, S. G. (2002). Why the prevention of aggressive disruptive behaviors in middle school must begin in elementary school. The Clearing House, 5, 242–245. Gunter, P., & Denny, R. (1996). Research issues and needs regarding teacher use of classroom management strategies. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 15–20.

May 2010 / 197

Gunter, P. L., Denny, R. K., Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E., & Nelson, C. M. (1993). Aversive stimuli in academic interactions between students with serious emotional disturbance and their teachers. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 265–274. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Principles, patterns and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newton, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 52–56. Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 34 C.F.R. 300 (2004, 2006). Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Conroy, M. A. (2003). Availability of special education teachers: Trends and issues. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 246–251. Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 475–481. Kellam, S., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Hendricks Brown, C., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165–185. Kellam, S. G., Mayer, L. S., Rebok, G. W., & Hawkins, W. E. (1998). The effects of improving achievement on aggressive behavior and improving aggressive behavior on achievement through two prevention interventions: An investigation of causal paths. In B. Dohrenwend (Ed.), Adversity, stress, and psychpathology (pp. 486– 505). New York: Oxford Press. Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2002). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. Landrum, T. J., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2003). What’s special about special education for students with emotional and behavioral disorders? Journal of Special Education, 37, 148–156. Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1–24. Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2003). Managing disruptive behaviors in the schools: A schoolwide, classroom, and

198 / May 2010

individualized social learning approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30, 294–304. Oliver, R. M. (2009). The effects of teachers’ universal classroom management practices on behavior: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007, December). NCCTQ connections paper. Improving outcomes in general and special education: Teacher preparation and professional development in effective classroom management. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Reddy, L. A., & Richardson, F. D. (2006). Schoolbased prevention and intervention programs for children with emotional disturbance. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 379–404. Reid, R., Gonzalez, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). A meta-analysis of the academic status of students with emotional/ behavioral disturbance. Journal of Special Education, 38, 130–143. Reschly, D., Smartt, S., Oliver, R., & Holdheide, L. (2007). Innovation configurations to improve the availability of highly qualified teachers for students with disabilities and at-risk characteristics. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Roy, P., & Hord, S. M. (2004). Innovation configurations chart a measured course toward change. Journal of Staff Development, 25, 54–58. Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92–102. Siebert, C. J. (2005). Promoting preservice teacher’s success in classroom management by leveraging a local union’s resources: A professional development school initiative. Education, 125, 385–392. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351–380. Smartt, S. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Barriers to the preparation of highly qualified teachers in reading (TQ Research and Policy Brief). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Steiner, D. M., & Rozen, S. D. (2004). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers: An analysis of syllabi from a sample of America’s schools of education. In F. M. Hess, A. J. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas (pp. 119– 148). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining the influence of teacher behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 41, 223–233. Tooke, J. (1997). Middle school math teachers: What do they need from preservice programs? The Clearing House, 71, 51–52. van Lier, P. A. C., Muthe´n, B. O., van der Sar, R. M., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2004). Preventing disruptive behavior in elementary schoolchildren: Impact of a universal classroom-based intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 467–478. Wagner, M., Friend, M., Bursuck, W., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A., Sumi, W., & Epstein, M. (2006). Educating students with emotional disturbances: A national perspective on school programs and services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 12–30. Walsh, K., Glaser, D. R., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren’t

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

AUTHORS’ NOTE Preparation of this article was funded in part by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (S283B050051). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agency. Address correspondence to Regina M. Oliver, Peabody #228, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203-5721; E-mail: regina.m. [email protected].

MANUSCRIPT Initial Acceptance: 3/28/08 Final Acceptance: 2/27/09

May 2010 / 199