Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Accommodations for Diverse Learners: Conceptualizations and Actions of Elementary Interns Prepared in a Unified Teacher Education Program

Alyson Adams
University of Florida
Paper presented at the
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
Glasgow, Scotland
August 1-4, 2005

For Additional Information, please contact:

Alyson J. Adams, Ph.D.
Lastinger Center for Learning
University of Florida College of Education
111 Norman Hall
P.O. Box 117052
Gainesville, FL   32611
352-392-0726 x 295
adamsa@coe.ufl.edu

With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1997, more and more students with disabilities are being served in general education schools and classrooms in the United States (US Department of Education, 2001). However, placement in those classrooms, alone, does not guarantee participation and progression for these students (Pugach & Warger, 2001). The new IDEA provisions suggest a focus on curriculum changes rather than mere placement to allow access to the general education curriculum. Now, the Individual Education Plan (IEP) must specifically address how a student will gain access to the general education curriculum. Intentional supports must be in place to help students progress and make sense of the general education curriculum (Pugach & Warger, 2001). This will call for skilled general and special educators who can collaborate to find ways to help students with diverse needs be successful in inclusive classrooms.

Research indicates that general education teachers may not be well prepared to make the accommodations necessary to meet the needs of diverse learners (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995; Whinnery, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 1991), nor do they seem to do so in practice (Baker & Zigmond, 1990; Brown, Gable, Hendrickson, & Algozzine, 1991; Zigmond & Baker, 1996).

Similarly, special educators may not be trained for the new roles necessary in inclusive schools (Pugach, 1992) and may have gaps in knowledge of curriculum that limit their ability to collaborate with general educators (Hoover, 1987).   In addition, traditional special education practice in resource rooms has not held up its promise of individualized instruction and materials (Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998) so those teachers may not be prepared to individualize instruction in general education classrooms.

Unified teacher preparation programs have evolved as one way to alleviate this gap in knowledge and hopefully, practice. Winn and Blanton (1997) call for preparation of general and special educators who can collaborate to meet the needs of diverse learners. They suggest that it requires both types of educator to “share beliefs about students, teaching, and learning; to have a rich knowledge base about curriculum and instruction; and to know how to collaborate” (p. 11). Unified or collaborative programs often look different, but share the common goal that all teachers are prepared together to meet the needs of all students (Villa, Thousand, & Chapple, 2000).

However, just as placement in inclusive classrooms, alone, does not ensure that students’ needs are being met, preparation in a unified program does not ensure that preservice teachers will be any more able to accommodate for diverse needs of students. Research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these restructured programs, which requires on-going, interactive, long- and short-term evaluation (Griffin & Pugach, 1997). Are students prepared in these programs ready, willing, and able to meet the needs of all students?

            For teacher education programs to adequately prepare preservice teachers to work in the schools of tomorrow, we must take a hard look at what we are doing today to affect that change. This means not only assessing the products of restructured programs (graduates), but also the process (students enrolled in these programs).

This study was designed to look at the belief systems, understandings, and subsequent related actions of interns prepared in a unified teacher education program. Specifically, how do interns prepared in a unified teacher education program think about accommodations for diverse learners, and then how do they enact that definition? Understanding more about how students in a unified program are being prepared to deal with diverse needs of students they will inevitably serve will help teacher educators as they continue to refine and design these programs. In addition, it adds to a relatively small body of research that addresses how unified programs can make a difference in the preparation of teacher educators.

Theoretical Framework

Literature related to teachers’ use of accommodations is bleak, but a critical look at the literature base indicates that one possible reason for the dearth of evidence may be related to a rigid definition of accommodations that special education researchers bring to their studies, possibly in conflict with philosophies of general education teachers in the field. An analysis of existing literature on accommodations revealed an interesting dichotomy related to the definition of accommodations. Traditionally accommodations have been defined in the special education literature as specific changes to curriculum or assessment that result in equal access and opportunity for students with disabilities (Fisher & Frey, 2001). Inherent in this definition is an assumption that student deficits can be identified and compensated for through accommodation. In contrast to these traditional thoughts about accommodations, there is a current movement to reconsider accommodations in terms of curriculum redesign (Warger & Pugach, 1996) that is context- and student-specific (Kliewer & Landis, 1999) rather than disability-category focused.

The differences in definition, based on differences in assumptions about disability, have led me to assume a phenomenological focus in this research.   My study first begins with the study participants and how they conceptualize both accommodations and the learners with diverse needs who need accommodations. Another element of my study is focused on the actions the participants take in the classroom, so that knowledge and beliefs are inextricably tied to practices.   In addition, I explore the factors that influence the extent to which the participants are able to put their conceptualizations of accommodations into action.

Research Questions

1. How do elementary education interns prepared in a unified teacher education program 

• conceptualize "diverse learners"?
• conceptualize what it means to accommodate for diverse learners?

1. How do the interns accommodate for diverse learners during their internship placements?
2. What factors influence the extent to which the interns are able to put their personal conceptualizations into action?

Methodology/Data Sources

To gain in-depth understanding of how preservice teachers define accommodations, both in thought and in action, phenomenological methodology was used.   Four participants, Caucasian females of traditional college age, were selected and assigned pseudonyms: Erica (Ellis Elementary), Kelly (Kinsey Elementary), Ashley (Amblin Elementary), and Debra (Denton Elementary). They were Masters-level interns in the fifth-year of the PROTEACH program who were viewed as stellar students by program faculty and staff, and who were completing the internship in a local school district. Overall school and county demographics are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. School and county demographics for school year 2000-2001

Participants were observed on seven occasions during their Master’s level internships (60-90 minutes in length each), followed by post-observation interviews (approximately 30 minutes in length). In addition, interviews (60-90 minutes in length) were conducted at the beginning and end of the internship to describe the classroom context, explore the interns’ understandings of diversity and accommodations, and conduct an extensive member check to ensure participants’ views were being accurately portrayed. Interviews with each cooperating teachers (30-60 minutes in length) were also conducted to help sort out influences of the cooperating teacher on the interns’ beliefs and understandings.

All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Observation data were also obtained from the intern supervisor as data source triangulation, and artifacts related to unit planning and implementation were collected.

During data analysis, observations and interviews were coded and reduced to the essence of how each participant conceptualized and implemented accommodations for diverse learners. At mid point in the semester and then again at the conclusion of the semester, this essence, or summary, of each participants’ thoughts and actions regarding diverse learners was compiled and discussed with each intern to clarify possible reasons for inconsistencies and to ensure that researcher interpretation was on target and reflected the participants’ ideas faithfully. These essences were then analyzed across participants to identify themes (e.g: struggles with grading, context constraints) and data were recoded a second time looking for evidence of these themes.

Teacher Education Program Context

The Unified Elementary and Special Education PROTEACH Program (hereafter referred to as PROTEACH) began in Fall 1999 at the University of Florida, located in Gainesville, Florida. The purpose of the program is to prepare teachers who can create and maintain supportive and productive classrooms for diverse student populations and work collaboratively to educate all children, including those who have traditionally been labeled hard-to-teach, hard-to-manage, and linguistically diverse (Ross, McCallum, & Lane, forthcoming).

Graduates of this five-year program are recommended for elementary certification in Grades 1-6 with an endorsement for teaching students who are English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). In the final year of the program, students select a specialization area, including content areas, literacy, children’s literature, special education, or educational technology. Those choosing special education are eligible for dual certification in elementary education and Varying Exceptionalities (VE), a cross-categorical, mild disabilities certification that is common in the state of Florida. Courses are collaboratively designed and planned by faculty from the five departments in the college of education. Students are grouped into cohorts and take a block of courses each semester.

Students enter PROTEACH as juniors and complete a course of study (See Appendix) that has imbedded themes of democratic values and knowledge of content and inclusive pedagogy (Ross, McCallum, & Lane, forthcoming). This land-grant, Research I institution prepares approximately 200 students per year, with about 118 of those continuing on in the fifth year elementary option, and 40 selecting the special education option. The remaining students leave the institution after the fourth year, often for teaching positions, and are not recommended for certification by the University of Florida without satisfying additional requirements.

Findings

            Related to research question one, each intern was able to articulate her knowledge and beliefs about diverse learners and accommodations over the course of the internship semester, through interviews and post-observation conferences.   Furthermore, related to question two, each intern had a unique approach to implementing accommodations in the classroom, and these approaches for the most part, were consistent with their understandings of accommodations. Because of space constraints in this paper, only two of the summaries of the interns’ conceptualization and implementation of accommodations are presented.

Two Different Views of Accommodation

ERICA.   Erica was placed in an inclusive third-grade classroom.   Erica’s approach to diverse learners includes every type of learner because she believes that every learner has his or her best way to learn or interact with materials. Erica’s ideas about accommodations are clearly related to her beliefs about effective practice. She believes that accommodations are (a) any type of assistance given to students that continue to struggle despite lessons designed to meet their needs, (b) part of an on-going process, and (c) designed to help students reach lesson objectives.

She identified special education students as diverse learners, but also included learners of typical ability in her conception. She didn’t discuss issues of race, socio-economic status, gender, or sexual orientation, but instead seemed to focus on learning and attending to instruction.   She believes that engaging, captivating instruction that pulls in every student will keep most students from losing foundational knowledge that results in a chain of events leading to low achievement.   In her internship, Erica did provide instruction that was designed to keep all students on track. She had special approaches for certain students to keep them actively involved and also made changes to materials, assessments, and the ways in which students interacted with content to ensure that students that were struggling with instruction met the lesson objectives.   The following are examples of accommodations Erica felt were necessary and provided to students on a regular basis: students with limited writing ability were allowed to dictate short answers to her in place of writing; a student with poor fine motor skills was given modified materials on which to take notes; students she identified as having difficulty focusing and paying attention were purposefully drawn into her lessons as teacher helpers and demonstrators; and two students that had difficulty sitting still were provided with devices such as seat cushions, squishy balls, and a special “teacher pen” with a gripper to give them something to manipulate that didn’t distract from the lesson at hand.   Erica was very reflective and was constantly trying out new techniques with her students and weaning them off others so they would not get over-reliant on the support. It was also important to Erica to ensure that students were active while using the accommodation. For example, rather than just give them a copy of notes from the overhead, but she would make them highlight key points or fill in blanks to keep them engaged. For Erica, the bottom line in providing accommodations for students is to help them achieve lesson objectives. In fact, Erica said that it is unfair to students to merely eliminate parts of an assignment so they can get finished early because this altered the goals or objectives for them in a way that cheated them out of learning what was needed:

If you go beyond simplifying or changing the lesson to a certain degree it is unfair to the student because they aren’t able to learn what they should be learning. You shouldn’t go in with [lowered expectations]. . . . You should still have them do things, but do them in a way that make them more achievable for them. They should be learning the same things that other students are learning. They are just doing them in a different way (Erica).

ASHLEY . Ashley was placed in an inclusive first-grade classroom. When she described diverse learners, she first began with discussing learning styles.   However, throughout the semester this definition expanded to include English Speakers of Other Languages, students with disabilities, including gifted students, and students with low achievement.   For her, accommodations meant: changing the way she approached a lesson and presented content; increased time and number of chances to work on assignments; or more teacher assistance. She wanted to “bring all students up” to the standards, rather than alter or replace them.

In my classroom I always want to be thinking about how I can bring all students up. I don’t want to be thinking about bringing students down to other students’ levels. I don’t want those children to fall behind, but I think that the school does so much singling out of kids that aren’t keeping up for some reason or another, and they aren’t celebrating excellence enough. (Ashley)

In practice, students received extra attention as she monitored during the lesson, but the most common type of accommodation she provided was extra chances and help to correct mistakes on assignments.   She was willing to provide these types of accommodations to anyone who needed them, but only if this support was documented and approved by either parents or an IEP team. She was concerned with fairness and equality of accommodations but felt that if the use of accommodations were documented on report cards and on multiple efforts on assignments, it would justify differential grading. During her internship, Ashley provided instruction that was fast paced and varied. Students having difficulty were pulled during free play and center time to redo or finish work. There was one student labeled with a disability that routinely missed playtime to finish work. It was documented on his report card that he was working below grade level and Ashley also met with the cooperating teacher and the student’s parents to discuss the accommodations he was receiving. The bottom line in Ashley’s instruction seems to be that she has set standards for achievement and will provide assistance, usually after the fact, to students to attain those objectives as long as the specific support she provides is approved and documented.

Cross-Case Analysis

The other two students in this study, like the two presented above, each had different ways of conceptualizing and then implementing accommodations for diverse learners.   However, there are notable similarities and differences with respect to the conceptualizations of all four interns that tie into the literature related to the approach to accommodations, the dilemmas they faced as they made accommodations for diverse learners, and the literature on learning to teach.

Approach to Accommodations. As mentioned in the theoretical framework, there is a traditional approach to accommodations (usually represented in the special education literature) and a more reconceptualized approach based on redesigning curriculum.   Ashley had a more traditional approach, focused on remediation and compensation of deficit, and Erica had a more blended approach, that begins with a focus on curriculum and presentation, but then allows for compensation to ensure that all students achieve. Kelly, an intern whose summary was not presented above, had the most reconceptualized approach of all four interns, but the extent to which she put it into action in the classroom varied.

Dilemmas of Accommodating for Students. The interns often experienced dilemmas as they put their conceptualizations into action, and their dilemmas affected the accommodations they used in the classroom. The dilemmas centered around three main themes: definitions of fairness, the impact of accommodations on assessment and grading, and contextual challenges of providing accommodations.

Ashley was arguably the most concerned with ideas of fairness as they related to what accommodations she could provide students. As discussed previously, she believed effective instruction meant holding all students up to high standards, but she knew that some students would need more help than others to get there. Helping some students more than others caused tension for Ashley because she did not think it was fair to the students who got concepts the first time, without accommodations or assistance. Although she stated that fair did not mean providing exactly the same things to students – “Certainly I don’t believe that fair means equal, but I do believe you have to be consistent” – she did believe that students at all ability levels should be required to complete equal amounts of work in class –“It’s not fair for one kid to do less work”. The other three interns were less concerned about providing different accommodations to different students, with Kelly stating that it was unfair even to compare students to one another.

All of the interns had some degree of concern with issues related to grading and assessment, in ways that related back to their conceptions of accommodations.   Because of Ashley’s underlying beliefs about standard grade-level achievement, she was extremely concerned about the impact of accommodations on resulting grades and did not feel comfortable having different grading standards for students.

I think that kind of curriculum adjustment is something that I have the hardest time wrapping my brain around. How can this child and this child both get A’s when one is doing completely different work than the other, and they are both in the same grade? Do you grade on a standard, or do you grade on effort? I think grading is something I feel the most uncertain about. (Ashley)

For example, Ashley talked about reducing the number of spelling words a student does from 20 down to 10, but said she would be sure to document it on the report card to ensure that his grade reflected the accommodation to make it fair to the students who do 20 words.   In contrast, Erica did not struggle with the idea that an A for one student had to equal an A for another student who received accommodations, but she had a desire to be clear and precise about exactly how she was grading and this created a dilemma for her. Ideally, she would like to have assessment measures that were clearly linked to objectives, so that she could determine which students needed additional help in which area. She was concerned that if she varied from the guidelines she established for assessment, she might look “wishy-washy”. However, she also found the rubrics she created to be too rigid, failing to allow for student differences, so she decided that she was just going to have to look “wishy-washy” in certain cases because she knew some students needed a different way to express knowledge of the assessed content.

As would be expected, all the interns talked about the constraints of context as a factor that limited how much they could put their conceptions into action. Debra had by far the most restrictive placement and her cooperating teacher exerted a lot of control throughout the internship.   Debra was unable to do some of the things she said she wanted to do for students, like allow them to retake tests after getting additional instruction, partially because of her perception that the Principal wouldn’t allow it. She believed that some things were not permissible at her school and took care not to cross the boundaries she believed were in place.

Learning to Teach. It is interesting to note that the literature on learning to teach would lead to an expectation that these interns would struggle with behavior and management and would be unable to concentrate on individual differences at this stage in teacher development (Berliner, 1988; Fuller & Bown, 1975; Katz, 1972). In fact, as was documented here, these interns were able to focus on student learning and academic needs and had few, if any, struggles with management issues.

Implications for Teacher Educators

Knowing more about how these preservice teachers conceptualize accommodations and the dilemmas with which they struggle as they plan and implement them is helpful for teacher educators designing coursework related to accommodations. As mentioned in the cross-case section, the interns had different approaches to accommodations despite the fact that they were all taught in the same teacher education program. The interns identified different aspects of their programs and their experiences that affected their understandings of accommodation. Ashley and Debra were strongly affected by their pre-internship experience; Kelly was affected by the classroom composition during her internship; and Erica frequently mentioned the influence of instructors in the teacher education program. There was no common experience or course that all the interns pointed to as being particularly helpful. However, it could be that the thematic integration of concepts related to accommodation across many courses and experiences in the program created a context in which preservice teachers constructed understandings about accommodation over time.

Understanding interns’ dilemmas is important because it highlights elements of preservice teacher learning that may need more attention. The various dilemmas the interns faced fell into three themes identified in the cross-case section: issues related to fairness, grading and assessment, and implementation constraints. For these four interns, selected because they were recommended as strong students likely to have successful internship experiences, the teacher education program may have failed to address these issues adequately. Admittedly, course discussions and other readings and assignments may have addressed the themes without helping these interns come to conclusions, or it may be that the themes are abiding dilemmas related to the implementation of accommodations without any conclusive solutions. However, the dilemmas the interns identified clearly indicate areas that could use more attention during a preservice teacher education program.

It may be that required readings and course discussions were too theoretical to help interns learn to manage their dilemmas. The interns told me they thirst for practical examples related to their dilemmas that take the theoretical discussions in courses to the level of classroom implementation. A book such as Tomlinson’s (2001) How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms does just that. Scenarios are presented that help readers see what discussions about fairness look and sound like in a classroom and in parent conferences; lists of practical steps for managing classrooms with differentiated instruction are presented; and an entire chapter is dedicated to grading, discussing alternatives and the benefits of each. Another book with cases discussing dilemmas interns face is by Rand and Shelton-Colangelo (2003). Ashley also suggested adding video-taped lessons of master teachers, as well as discussions with teachers about alternatives for setting up grading systems, as ways to increase understanding of accommodations in real classrooms. The interns in this study wanted more practical experiences with accommodations to help them manage their dilemmas. Knowing what types of dilemmas interns face when making accommodations will assist in course design.

Understanding how the interns in this study conceptualized and implemented accommodations will assist unified program designers and administrators in thinking about the overall goals and outcomes of unified programs. Specifically, what should be the goals of a unified program, regarding the preparation of general educators? Is the goal of a unified program to create teachers who are able to teach a wide range of students? Are preservice teachers learning what they need to learn in order to help students with diverse needs? How should programs be designed to realize the goals?

The interns in this study appeared willing to accommodate for diverse learners with mild disabilities, although Ashley and Debra both questioned the inclusion of students in general education classes who were not able to do work that was close to grade-level standards. Even though they both planned lessons that were undifferentiated, whole-group lessons, such as the lessons that Baker and Zigmond (1990) saw when they concluded that general education teachers may not be meeting the needs of diverse learners, they also built in time daily to help struggling learners, which is something that Baker and Zigmond did not see on a large scale. Is that enough improvement in the ability of general education teachers to accommodate? Or, should unified programs be doing more to ensure that preservice teachers proactively think about curriculum as flexible and able to be differentiated to meet a variety of goals for students? This study is a small slice, albeit a rich slice full of description, that will aid program designers in thinking about the goals of unified programs and the types of teachers they hope to prepare.

APPENDIX: PROGRAM MATERIALS

Unified Elementary PROTEACH Course of Study: UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM

GRADUATE YEAR/ Masters Program

(36 hours)

Certification Options

During the graduate year, students may select from two certification tracks.

Option A: Dual Certification Track

Confers Elementary and Special Education Certification

12 hours specialization coursework taken in special education

Students may select severe or mild disabilities concentration

Option B: Single Certification Track

Confers Elementary Certification

Students select a 12 hour specialization in one of three areas

• A) Elementary Inter-disciplinary: 3 hours each advanced pedagogy in literacy, math, science and social studies (technology infused)
• B) Elementary Specialist: 12 hours advanced content pedagogy in literacy, math/science, or technology
• C) ESOL Specialist: 12 hours advanced ESOL pedagogy

Coursework

EDE 6948/EEX 6863 Internship                                                                     12 hours

EEX 6786 Transdisciplinary Teaming…..OR……

EDE 6225 Practices in Childhood Education                                                     3 hours

EDF 5552 Role of Schools in Democratic Society                                              3 hours

EDF 5441 Assessment In General and Exceptional Student Ed                          3 hours

EDE #### Curriculum, Methods and Assessment for ESOL                              3 hours

Specialization (Includes 3 hr. Practicum for Special Ed Only)                              12 hours

** This document describes the program for all students who entered from fall, 1999 through spring, 2001. Program modifications to accommodate new state mandates are in progress and will be implemented for all students who enter fall, 2002.

References

Baker, J. M. & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56 (6), 515-526.

Berliner, D.C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED298122)

Brown, J., Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M. & Algozzine, B. (1991). Prereferral intervention practices of regular classroom teachers: Implications for regular and special education preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 192-197.

Corbett, N. L., Kilgore, K. L., & Sindelar, P. T. (1998). “Making Sense” in a collaborative teacher education program: Lessons from Project PART students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21 (4), 293-305.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22 (3), 148-157.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptations for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86 (2), 70-84.

Fuller, F. & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.) Concerns of teachers: Research and reconceptualization (pp. 25-52). Austin, TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Griffin, C. C. & Pugach, M. C. (1997). Framing the progress of collaborative teacher education. In L. B. Blanton, C. C. Griffin, J. A. Winn, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.) Teacher Education in Transition (pp 249-270). Denver: Love.

Heller, H. W., Spooner, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, B. (1992). Helping general educators accommodate students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15 (4), 269-276.

Hoover, J. J. (1987). Preparing special educators for mainstreaming: An emphasis on curriculum. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10 (2), 58-64.

Katz, L. G. (1972). Developmental stages of preschool teachers. Elementary School Journal, 73(1), 50-54.

Kliewer, C. & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66 (1), 85-100.

Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L. (1997). Preparing general education teachers for inclusive settings: A constructivist teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20 (3), 204-220.

Lyon, G. R., Vaassen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teacher perceptions of their undergraduate and graduate preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12 (4), 164-169.

Pugach, M. C. (1992). Unifying the preservice preparation of teachers. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Controversial issues confronting special education (pp 255-269). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pugach, M. C. & Warger, C. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22 (4), 194-196.

Rand, M.K. & Shelton-Colangelo, S. (2003). Voices of Student Teachers: Cases from the Field. Columbus, OH: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Ross, D.D., McCallum, C.M., & Lane, H. (2005). Description of the unified elementary special education PROTEACH program. In E. Bondy, D. Ross, and R. Webb (Eds.) Preparing for inclusive teaching: Meeting the challenges of teacher education reform at the University of Florida. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Schumm, J. & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the stage set? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10 (3), 169-179.

Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional Children, 58 (1), 9-24.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2 nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. Department of Education (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved May   29, 2002, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Products/OSEP2001AnlRpt/index.html

Vaughn, S., Moody, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Broken promises: reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64 (2), 211-25.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Chapple, J. W. (2000). Preparing educators to implement inclusive practices. In R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education (pp. 531-557). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Warger, C. L. & Pugach, M. C. (1996). Forming partnerships around curriculum. Educational Leadership, 53 , 62-65.

Whinnery, K. W., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1991). General, special, and remedial teachers’ acceptance of behavioral and instructional strategies for mainstreaming students with mild handicaps. Remedial and Special Education, 12 (4), 6-13.

Winn, J. A. & Blanton, L. P. (1997). The call for collaboration in teacher education. In L. P.

Blanton, C. C. Griffin, J. A. Winn, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.) Teacher education in transition: collaborative programs to prepare general and special educators (pp. 1-17). Denver: Love.

Zigmond, N. & Baker, J. M. (1996). Full inclusion of students with learning disabilities: Too much of a good thing? Theory into Practice, 35, 26-34.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact