Curriculum recommendations for inclusive teacher education.

Curriculum recommendations for inclusive teacher education. Introduction In 1989, the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education(AACTE) published "The Knowledge Base for the BeginnerTeacher" (Reynolds, 1989). In that volume, Henrietta Barnes (1989)stated that although "there is no unitary, bounded knowledge basefor teaching on which everyone agrees, the body of knowledge from whichteacher educators can draw in formulating an effective curriculum issubstantial and growing" (p. 13). More than two decades later,teachers, teacher educators and scholars from across the United Statescame together to form the Committee on Teacher Education, sponsored bythe National Academy of Education (NAE), to further refine andarticulate the knowledge base for teaching and to make recommendationsfor the development of curriculum in teacher education (Darling-Hammond,Bransford, with LePage, Hammerness, & Duffy, 2005). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the evolution of a statedknowledge base and curriculum for teacher education in the UnitedStates. While many professional organizations have worked to define theknowledge base of teaching and to list research-based practices invarious fields, the focus of this paper is on the recent work of theCommittee on Teacher Education (CTE). CTE committee members and staffauthored three publications that articulated their vision for teachereducation: Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers ShouldKnow and Be able to Do (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005); A Good Teacher inEvery Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers our ChildrenDeserve (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005); and Knowledge toSupport the Teaching of Reading: Preparing Teachers for a Changing World(Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). In this paper, we describe theprocess of inquiry utilized by the committee and summarize theirfindings. In turn, we present recommendations from other groups who havealso provided curriculum recommendations for general education. Wediscuss the challenges of inclusive education and we provide specialeducation curriculum recommendations for general education teachers whoare working in highly diverse inclusive classrooms. Focusing on the Committee for Teacher Education The specific goals of the CTE publications were (a) to demonstratehow research can provide a more systematic approach to teacherpreparation, (b) to articulate and refine the knowledge base and makecurriculum recommendations based on that research, (c) to explain andjustify why certain types of knowledge are important for teachers toknow before taking full responsibility for classrooms, (d) to providesuggestions for how this knowledge might be taught in pre-serviceprograms (both traditional and alternative programs), and (e) to setcurriculum recommendations in a context of teacher education. In theirmain volume, the CTE articulated the big ideas in eight domain areasincluding (a) learning, (b) development, (c) language, (d) educationalgoals and purposes: curriculum, (e) teaching subject matter, (f)teaching diverse learners, (g) assessment, and (h) classroom management. The Committee was made up of well-known education academics in theUnited States. The chairs of the committee, Linda Darling-Hammond andJohn Bransford, also served as editors of the initial publication, aswell as Pamela LePage, Karen Hammerness, and Helen Duffy, who directedand worked full time on the project. The CTE's ReadingSubcommittee, whose members were also leading reading researchers, waschaired by Catherine Snow and produced a volume describing what teachersshould know in reading. That volume was edited by Catherine Snow, PegGriffen M. Susan Burns. A third publication, written by CommitteeMembers Linda Darling-Hammond and Joan Snowden, discussed policyrecommendations for attaining the goal of having a highly-qualifiedteacher in every classroom. Curriculum Development in the Past According to a survey by the American Association for Colleges ofTeacher Education (AACTE), most of the 370 teacher educationinstitutions polled have used accreditation boards and national andstate standards to develop their individual knowledge bases for teachereducation outcome measures. Eighty-five percent of the schools ofeducation use National Council for the Accreditation of TeacherEducation (NCATE) standards as the knowledge base for outcome measures;95% use state standards as the knowledge base; and 69% use othernational standards as the knowledge base (Salzman, Denner & Harris,2002). So, how have these accreditation agencies decided what teachersshould know and be able to do? The Standards Committee of the UnitAccreditation Board of the National Council for the Accreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE) has revised its unit accreditation standardsevery five years (NCATE, 2002). The Committee reviews literature,compares their standards with state and regional accreditation Boardsand specialized accrediting bodies, such as the National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and Interstate New TeacherAssessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), and they seek input from awide range of educators, including policymakers. NCATE conducts hearingsat professional conferences and displays their work publicly on theirWebsite in order to get feedback. In addition to accreditation agencies, The American Association ofColleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) has sponsored a number of effortsto articulate the knowledge base of teaching, producing Educating aProfession (Howsam, 1976), Essential Knowledge for Beginning Educators(Smith, 1983), The Knowledge Base for Beginning Teachers (Reynolds,1989), and the Teacher Educator's Handbook: Building a KnowledgeBase for the Preparation of Teachers (Murray, 1996). AACTE'sTeacher Educator's Handbook is organized into five sections: (a)the need for a knowledge base, (b) subject matter knowledge, (c) thediscipline of education, (d) program structures and design, and (e)teacher education faculty and their work. The book provides teachereducators with an extensive overview of the field. In the past, efforts to articulate the knowledge base have focusedin specific topic areas. For example, the CTE reports drew heavily fromHow People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School (Bransford, Brown,& Cocking, 2000), which provided a comprehensive overview about whatwas known in the area of learning. In another area, Fillmore and Snow(2001) explained why teachers need to know more about languagedevelopment and described in detail what teachers needed to know aboutlanguage development. Other educators have summarized what teachers needto know by comparing national and state standards, accreditationrequirements and conclusions from various commissions and panels(Christensen, 1996; Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Klein, 1996). People may wonder how the CTE reports differed from earlier effortsto develop the knowledge base. First, the reports did not purport todevelop standards or a check-list of information: Instead, they includedrecommendations for how knowledge based on standards and other researchcould be incorporated into teacher education curriculum. Second, theydeveloped clear, concise, and practical recommendations that were meantto stand on the shoulders of earlier comprehensive efforts that providedin-depth insights into the complexity of teaching, teacher education,and epistemology. Third, they narrowed their focus to providerecommendations about foundational knowledge that a vast majority ofeducators would agree upon. They focused only on the essential knowledgenecessary for novice teachers and took into consideration the realitiesof teacher education programs, such as time constraints and resources.This was the first step in developing consensus. Ultimately, developinga knowledge-centered curriculum in teacher education had the widelyshared, nonpartisan goal of articulating the knowledge that all couldagree upon. The reports did not claim to cover all of the curriculumcontent that researchers might argue should be included in pre-serviceprograms. Rather, they focused on content considered essential by a vastmajority of the community, based on convincing research evidence. Articulating the Knowledge Base and Developing CurriculumStrategies In addition to building on the experiences of accreditationagencies, standards boards, and other efforts to articulate theknowledge base, the reports were built on the knowledge and experienceof its members, who conducted reviews of research associated withchildren's learning, development, assessment and otherdomain-specific areas, as well as on how teachers learn as the basis formaking recommendations about curriculum. The committee members examinedteacher education programs and curriculum artifacts (syllabi,assignments, and assessments) and vetted those ideas with researchersand practitioners of teacher education. In short, the methods used bythe CTE to refine the knowledge base and make curriculum recommendationsincluded the following: (a) evaluating the degree of consensus amongconstituencies about knowledge in specific domain areas regarding whatmatters for student learning and identifying areas of consensus andcontroversy, (b) exploring research evidence and professional consensusabout what kinds of knowledge are critical for pre-service teachers, (c)examining research literature and program examples about teachereducation strategies and pedagogies, (d) examining curriculum in action(learning experiences) in relation to the domains, and (e) vetting thecommittee's ideas about curriculum content and pedagogies with thepartner institutions and other colleagues in the field as part of thedesign and writing process. Research Synthesis According to Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2001), "Thereis no research that directly assesses what teachers learn in theirpedagogical preparation and then evaluates the relationship of thatpedagogical knowledge to student learning or teacher behavior" (p.12). Although research has been conducted on student learning,development, language acquisition, assessment, and pedagogy in contentareas, and separately on teacher effectiveness (Good, 1996), there hasbeen very little research conducted that connects the specific knowledgeteachers have, or are exposed to prior to teaching, with studentlearning outcomes. Given the controversies surrounding teacher preparation, there islittle consensus about what teachers need to know to be good teachers.Therefore, many outside observers and policy makers insist on empiricalevidence on which to base curriculum decisions and professional entrancerequirements. For that reason, the CTE recommendations drew from studiesthat have demonstrated connections between what teachers know and howstudents learn. The research that formed the foundation of the CTE recommendationsincluded reviews of literature that explored evidence on how studentslearn, including the teaching strategies and contexts that support thislearning, as well as the evidence on how teachers learn the knowledge,skills, and dispositions that allow them to use such strategies andcreate supportive contexts for learning. The reports relied on importantresearch reviews in the field, such as American Educational ResearchAssociation's Handbook of Research on Teaching (Wittrock, 2001) andHandbook of Research on Curriculum (Jackson, 1992), the Association forTeacher Education's Handbooks of Research on Teacher Education(Sikula, 1996), and on research reviews in other topic areas. Recently, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Sharon Feiman-Nemser D. JohnMcIntyre and Kelly E. Demers edited a comprehensive volume, Handbook onResearch on Teacher Education (2008), which provides many differentperspectives on various aspects of teacher education. Recently, MarilynCochran-Smith edited a comprehensive volume, Research on TeacherEducation (2008), which provides many different perspectives on variousaspects of teacher education. The volume is comprehensive with 1341pages, including nine parts and 64 chapters and commentaries. The volumeprovides a broad spectrum of different perspectives in teacher educationon such topics as what teachers should know, who should teach, wherethey should be taught, what good is teacher education. For the CTE Volume, the Committee conducted research on theorganization of learning in a wide-ranging set of teacher educationinstitutions. The CTE worked to examine courses, activities,assignments, assessments, and clinical experiences from the cooperatinguniversities and other universities represented on the panel in order tomake recommendations about how to improve teacher learning. The CTE has also made use of policy reports, such as The Making ofa Teacher. A Report on Teacher Preparation in the U.S. developed by theNational Center for Education Information (Feistritzer, 1999). Thispolicy report, among others, provided statistical data about the scopeand nature of teacher education programs in the United States. The areas of research that provided the foundationalrecommendations for the reports included reviews of the following: (a)basic research on learning affecting child development, languageacquisition, and reading (see Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2001), (b)research on conditions for learning that show that students who areprovided with particular types of experiences learn and develop inproductive ways, (c) research on teaching practices that demonstratesthat teachers who practice in certain ways produce better outcomes, and(d) research on teacher education that shows that teachers who areprepared in certain ways develop practices that produce better outcomes.A pyramid was developed to illustrate warrants to be included: [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The Committee built on the knowledge base in teacher education andfurther developed the professional community. The consensus panelexamined peer-reviewed research, including concurrent work by an AERApanel studying teacher education (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005),in order to address questions such as, "What does the teachereducation community know about teacher education-based onresearch?" Their task was to essentially propose a research agendaand talk about methodology. The CTE also drew from The National Boardfor Professional Teaching Standards (2000), the Interstate New TeacherAssessment and Support Consortium (INTASC, 1992)), and NCATE (1996). Once again, the CTE articulated the big ideas in eight domain areasincluding (a) theories of learning, and their roles in teaching (b)educating teachers for developmentally appropriate practice, (c)enhancing the development of students' language, (d) educationalgoals and purposes: developing a curricular vision for teaching (e)teaching subject matter, (f) teaching diverse learners, (g) assessment,and (h) classroom management. The book also includes information aboutteacher education pedagogy, policy and practice. Adding Special Education Content to Prepare Educators for InclusiveSettings Professional Content Knowledge Other curriculum texts have focused on habits and dispositions(Beyer, 1991; Hansen, 2000; Richardson, 1996; Strike, 1996; Sockett,1993; Zeichner, 1996). And, most recently, the AACTE published TeacherDispositions: Building a Teacher Education Framework of Moral Standards(Sockett, 2006). This book is one of the AACTE's lastest efforts tofocus on the dispositional knowledge base of teaching. The CTE'sgoal was to advance our thinking about professional and pedagogicalknowledge. In most professional fields students are exposed to similarcontent. Most law students will certainly have courses in torts,contracts, constitutional law, and civil and criminal procedures(Margolis, Arnone, & Morgan, 2002). Medical students will studyanatomy and physiology, as well as immunology, pathology, and a numberof specialties of practice. Students of education are entitled to knowthe areas of educational practice that they must know to be anoutstanding teacher. The consistency of approach and sharedunderstanding in other professions was built from a consensus aboutknowledge from which certain practices evolved. If teachers are toengage with the knowledge available to inform their practice, suchconsensus and consistent practice must become a reality for the teachingprofession as well. CTE and Inclusive Education The CTE provided suggestions of what teachers should know aboutexceptional students in a chapter on diverse learners. Banks et al.(2005) claimed that the concepts of culturally responsive classrooms andinclusive classrooms were not entirely the same, but that they weresimilar. Specifically, both terms suggest that schools and teachers needto develop classrooms that are supportive of all children and acceptingof differences. Within both of these conceptions, children'sstrengths are emphasized and differences are considered a positive partof a learning environment, because they allow children to share andexperience diverse perspectives. In the past, children with exceptionalneeds were largely taught in isolated special education classrooms, andspecial education was associated primarily with a deficit orientation.Today, special education is still connected closely to a medical modelbecause children are diagnosed with certain disabilities. Most childrenreceive special education services when they are given a diagnosis thatplaces them into one of fourteen categories identified under theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004).However, according to the changes in IDEA, 2004 children with learningdisabilities can also get services throught a new model of servicedelivery called, the Response to Intervention (RTI) Model. Under thatmodel, educators determine through various specialized assessmentswhether students are eligible for Tier I, II or III. These tiersrepresent various levels of specialized education interventions. In thismodel, any child who is "not be responding to good evidence-basedinstruction" in any area is eligible for various interventions. Most educators understand that learning differences exist along avast continuum, that children typically develop strengths that allowthem to expand their learning even though they may have some areas ofdifficulty, and that strategic instruction can make a large differencein what students achieve. Moreover, to view disability as a type ofinsurmountable deficit is a socially constructed notion that isdetrimental to children and should be challenged (Reid & Valle,2004; McDermott & Varenne, 1996). Other lingering misconceptions included equating of specialeducation with behavioural models of teaching featuring a single focuson rote acquisition of skills or with a legalistic model that focuses onlabels and procedures that must be followed without flexibility. The CTEpresented an inclusive model that described a broad view of diversity,which recognized that students have multiple and complex experiences,strengths, and identities that include interests and talents as well asethnicity, gender, social status, family experiences, and learningdifferences, among others. These complex sets of experiences requirethat students be taught as individuals by teachers who are observant,analytic, and aware of atypical learning patterns. Quite often, teacherswho are prepared to teach students with exceptional needs becomemore-skilful teachers of all students, because they develop deeperanalytic skills and a wider repertoire of strategies useful for the manystudents who learn in different ways. To instruct special needs students effectively, teachers need tounderstand the nature of various disabilities, which can range frommild-to-moderate to more moderate to severe. Teachers should be awarethat certain conditions, such as cerebral palsy and autism, areassociated with a spectrum ranging from very mild, even hardlyrecognizable, to very severe. For common disabilities, such as auditoryor visual processing problems, teachers should at minimum possess abasic repertoire of strategies and adaptations that can help studentsgain access to the material they are being taught. In addition, teachers should have some understanding of theeligibility and placement process and how to work with otherprofessionals and parents within these processes. While it is notnecessary for novice teachers to know the details of all the highlyspecialized tests used for assessment purposes for all the differenttypes of disabilities, they should be able to talk with schoolpsychologists and parents about how a child is assessed, given theacademic classroom challenges the teacher has been observing andrecording. They should be able to communicate with professionalcolleagues about the findings of assessments and the services to beoffered. They need to know where to find additional information--fromresearch or from professional colleagues--about specific diagnoses,disabilities, and services, when it is necessary to work with anindividual child, support providers and families. Teachers should beprepared to work with parents who demonstrate varied reactions to theirchild's learning and behavioural challenges. Teachers need to know how to contribute to and implementIndividualized Education Plans (IEPs) for students in their classrooms.They should be aware that the IEP process was developed in the UnitedStates as a way to ensure that all children have access to the generaleducation curriculum within the least restrictive environments, and thatparents are assured due process. Consistent with civil rightslegislation, the legislation for children with disabilities is to ensureevery childs' right to a free and appropriate public education atno cost to parents (IDEA 2004). Teachers should understandstudents' rights and have a working knowledge of the laws andpolicies in the United States associated with access to education, suchas the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA2004), so that they can meet the spirit and the letter of the law. The CTE authors also talked about accommodations and modifications,especially for children with specific types of disabilities. As ourgroup formed our own consensus panel, we added to their suggestions. InTable 1, we have provided professional content knowledge specific tospecial education listed under six categories. Teacher Habits and Dispositions Developing inclusive practices also requires that teachers workclosely with other professionals. The necessary collaboration skills(between general and special education teachers) are complex, sometimesrequiring teachers to communicate about serious educational issues thatrequire debate and disagreement. This may concerns over individualstudents include whether they are being appropriately placed withinbroader school practices, school placement policies, curriculum orteaching policies, and/or issues related to the quality of servicesprovided in special education or in other parts of the school program.Teachers need to know how to raise questions and issues in aprofessional manner, seek appropriate information about studentperformance and school practices and bring that information to the tablefor discussion and take action. They need to know how to move theconversation forward, and take steps to resolve conflict. They need tohelp create school environments that support equity and progress for allstudents. Although the CTE did not focus on habits of mind, the Committee didput the project into a larger historical context, examining how otherprofessions developed their professional identity. The initial reportswere based on the view that education as a field is constantly underdevelopment and has struggled in the same way that many other fieldshave struggled to refine and/or redesign their professional identity.For example, in the early 20th century, the medical profession wentthrough the process of setting standards for its professional community:According to the Flexner Report (Flexner, 1910), in a study of medicalschools in North America conducted between 1908 and 1910, it was arguedthat medical education ought to be academic and deeply rooted inuniversity research and teaching in the sciences, rather than remain thekind of field-based, ad hoc apprenticeship system that was prevalentduring the 19th century. In an effort to learn from both the successes and the failures ofother fields, the CTE examined Preparation for the Professions Programresearch that was underway at the Carnegie Foundation (CarnegieFoundation, 2009). This program was a series of two- and three-yearstudies, which constitute a systematic, programmatic, and comparativestudy of the role of higher education in building professionalunderstanding for the professions of law, engineering, medicine,nursing, and the clergy. Teaching as a Profession Lee Shulman once said, "Teacher education can be viewed as afield that sits at the intersection of other professional fields such asthe Humanities and Philosophy. Teaching, like philosophy and religion,has elements of a vocation or a calling, as it has considerableconnections to the world of values and humanities as well as connectionsto the sciences and mathematics. On the other hand, there are times whenall teacher educators find themselves thinking about the science ofteaching. Broadly constructed, teaching is a kind of technology, whichhas rules and principles, and which also claims a knowledge base. Thework contained in the CTE reports grew out of a sense that, althoughteaching may be a calling, teaching has a base of verifiable evidence orknowledge that supports the work. Because the teaching profession isalso principled and systematic, it shares some aspects of theengineering profession. At another level, teaching reflects a body oftradition, precedence, and organized experience, and in that sense, itis akin to the law." (CTE minutes). Drawing from various professions, Shulman (1998) articulated astructure for defining a profession by looking at six commonplacesshared by all professions: (a) service to society, implying an ethical and moral commitment toclients; (b) a body of scholarly knowledge that forms the basis of theentitlement to practice; (c) engagement in practical action, hence the need to enactknowledge in practice; (d) uncertainty caused by the different needs of clients and thenon-routine nature of problems; hence the need to develop judgment inapplying knowledge; (e) the importance of experience in developing practice, hence theneed to learn by reflecting on one's practice and its outcomes; and (f) the development of a professional community that aggregates andshares knowledge and develops professional standards. Most relevant was the conclusion that all professions have a bodyof scholarly knowledge that forms the basis of the entitlement topractice. Other implications included the importance of developing modesof thought and analysis that enable people to think like a lawyer, adoctor, or an engineer. For example, to think like a lawyer, one needsto be able to present evidence to support a position; to think like adoctor, one needs to be able to analyze a problem and put forth anevidence-based solution. We believe to think like a teacher is to be willing and able tomake a moral decision. This does not refer to a person's beingreligious. It does not necessarily relate to a teacher's decisionto talk to children about personal issues or get involved with familymatters. Teachers are faced with a multitude of moral decisions daily,whether deciding a special education placement or deciding to putstudents in a homogeneous or heterogeneous reading group. Research tellsus that those decisions can affect a child's self-esteem andability to learn (Ireson & Hallam, 2009; Oakes, 1995; Oakes, &Guiton; Robinson, 2008; Takako, 2010), as well as the child's lifein general, and so teachers making such decisions are making moraldecisions. We believe special education teachers in the US need moreinstruction in philosophy and moral decision-making. Ultimately allprofessionals (a) understand and value the interests of clients (ratherthan just doing what is expedient or convenient; (b) can apply manydifferent kinds of knowledge about clients, contexts, and content; (c)will seek out more information and knowledge in the face of dilemmas;(d) can weigh and balance the likely consequences of alternatives whenmaking decisions; (e) will reflect on one's experience for the sakeof continuous improvement; and (f) can access the knowledge andexperiences of other professionals in solving problems and improving thequality of practice. Habits of mind are important (Sockett, 1993;Sockett, 2008). Developing Signature Pedagogies Many of these professions use what might be referred to assignature pedagogies. In law school, students are expected to read andanalyze cases, and are often introduced to the Socratic Method. TheSocratic Method is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals withopposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulatecritical thinking and to illuminate ideas when answering questions andbuilding arguments. In medical schools, case pedagogies and clinicalroutines are frequently used. As part of the discussion on curriculum, the reports includedsuggestions about pedagogy and assessment strategies. In each of thedomain-specific chapters, the CTE made recommendations about howknowledge could be enacted in a curriculum. The reports providedsuggestions about teacher learning and development, curriculumdevelopment and assessment in teacher education. The group was unanimousin their belief that there were core experiences that helped teachereducators develop the capacities and dispositions teachers need to teachchildren. Since these experiences--that is, teaching--could be madepublic; the opportunity to develop consistency across the profession wasenhanced. Some of the core pedagogies and experiences discussed in thereports included the following: (a) action research, (b) cases,including child case studies and cases of teaching and learning, (c)analyses of teaching, including videotaped samples with artifacts, aswell as commentaries and other print analyses,(d) analysis of studentwork and learning, and (e) the development of curriculum, such as unitplans and lesson plans. There are a number of sites for this learning, from courses andclinical seminars to student teaching, research internships,community-based internships, and residencies: [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The Nature of Knowledge: CTE Defining a Knowledge Base The discussion of what constitutes a profession sets the stage forpredicting and addressing various epistemological controversiesassociated with the development of a knowledge base. Although educationis similar to other professional fields, it is also distinct in manyways. For example, an ongoing and important goal in education is toinvestigate and re-evaluate the nature of knowledge with regard toinstruction. By the very nature and structure of the CTE reports, aswell as others, a particular point of view about the nature of knowledgewas articulated. Specifically, the reports were based on the"premise that the essential knowledge for beginning teachers can beconceptually organized, represented and communicated in ways thatencourage beginners to create deep understandings of teaching andlearning" (Barnes, 1989, p.17). Furthermore, these understandingscould be both meaningful to teachers and publicly defensible. The CTE authors (Darling-Hammond, Bransford, et al., 2005) providedan extended discussion about the nature of knowledge with regard toteachers' learning. If teaching is a moral calling and a technologyor science, as well as a body of tradition and precedent and organizedexperience, ambiguity is bound to create disagreements about prioritiesand process. With regard to the knowledge base in teacher education,some might argue, for example, that teaching relies heavily on moraljudgment and other similar abilities. In contrast, others might arguethat teaching can be counterintuitive, such as when a teacher must allowfor wait time in order to draw ideas out of children, rather thanprovide answers. Still others believe teachers need knowledgepreparation, but have different perspectives on what types of knowledgeare important and necessary (Cohen & Ball, 1999; Barnes, 1989; Good& Brophy, 1994). On one end of the spectrum some might support aconstructivist approach to knowledge acquisition and development, whileothers emphasize the development of expert knowledge. Cohen and Balldescribed these two positions in terms of capacity. They suggested thatthose who associate themselves with expert knowledge believe thatcapacity denotes a finite set of knowledge, skills and commitments thatare necessary to produce good instruction. Others emphasize theconstruction of new knowledge and skills in practice. Cohen and Ballstated that ... though much instruction lies somewhere between these two poles, they represent two quite different conceptions of the relationship between knowledge and practice, and thus instructional capacity. Roughly speaking, the first view envisions capacity as a storehouse that contains fixed resources needed for instruction. On the second view, however, capacity is envisioned as a source and creator of knowledge and skills needed for instruction. (p. 6). The CTE took a common ground approach with regard to thesepositions, hoping to avoid their reports being considered as naive,clandestine, rigid, or fixed. Committee members agreed that knowledge isconstructed in action, but they also agreed that some knowledge andskills--some big ideas--can be organized, articulated and then used byteacher educators as a place to begin a discussion. The committee wastasked with articulating knowledge and skills and making suggestionsabout how this knowledge could be effectively used to develop curriculumthat supports teacher learning. Although the CTE's reports were based on the premise thatessential knowledge for beginning teachers can be conceptuallyorganized, represented and communicated, they did not want to representthat knowledge as fixed and immutable. They felt that knowledge dependson perspective, it is relational, contingent, partial, and situated, butthat to engage in useful conversations about curriculum, it is necessaryto agree on some basic foundational knowledge to move the discussionabout professional expertise forward. CTE on Aims of Education As a prerequisite for making decisions about what teachers need toknow, it is important to consider how the knowledge and curriculumrecommendations are situated within the various perspectives on the aimsof education. John Goodlad (1984) identified four functions of schools:academic, vocational, social/civic and personal. In his conception, theacademic function involves the development of intellectual skills andknowledge; the vocational function prepares people for work; the socialfunction prepares people to be citizens, and the personal emphasizes thedevelopment of the individual. In a similar conceptualization, KieranEgan (1997) criticized what he described as the traditionalcategorization of three broad aims (knowledge, society or theindividual) represented respectively by Plato, Durkheim, and Rousseau.The CTE members believed the aims of education overlapped, and thatalthough all were important, providing social justice and equalopportunity were also highly important goals of public education inAmerican society. In the 2008 Handbook of Teacher Education, Sockett (2008) providesan analysis of four articulations of distinctive moral andepistemological positions on teacher education: they are, in his words,"models of practice and therefore for practice." In hischapter, he defines, and then describes, these models including, thescholar-professional, the nurturer-professional, theclinician-professional, and the moral agent-professional. InSockett's view, the CTE's recommendations would fall withinthe clinician-professional because in that model, the teachers'adaptive expertise is emphasized, with the moral purposes of educationfocused on social purposes, such as social justice, with socializationas the aim. And, there is a strong belief in the integrity ofeducational research as a social science including the significance ofthe scientific method. Avoiding the Perception of a Core Curriculum There is an old maxim that warns, "When you try to makesomething everything, you make it nothing." It would be impossibleto develop curriculum recommendations for every type of teacher, field,or context. Instead, the CTE addressed important considerations thatinfluenced curriculum decisions across many categories. While much workhad previously been done to articulate the knowledge base for teachers(Christensen, 1996; Howsam, 1976; Murray, 1996; Reynolds, 1989; Smith,1983) and set standards for teaching (INTASC, 1992; NBPTS, 2000; NCATE,2002), the matter of how this knowledge might be effectively representedin teacher education curricula (whether in traditional or alternativesettings) had not been addressed adequately. The goal of the CTE was tomove beyond listing facts, while avoiding overwhelming readers withyears of history on teaching, teacher education and epistemology inorder to communicate the complexity. The committee sought to understandand articulate how standards and other conceptions of the knowledge basemight shape teacher education curriculum in both traditional andalternative settings in a way that is practical and useful to teachereducators. A discussion of curriculum that embraces clarity, precision andfocus, rather than comprehensiveness, might conjure up visions of a"core curriculum" in teacher education. It was not the goal ofthe reports to develop a single curriculum for traditional universityprograms. The goal was to build on prior discussions of the knowledgebase to make recommendations for curriculum development in teachereducation, not to develop inflexible guidelines. Much debate has occurred around the notion of what curriculumactually represents (Apple, 1990; Beyer & Apple, 1988; Clandinin& Connelly, 1990; Cuban, 1992; Eisner, 1992; Jackson, 1992; Pinar,Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995; Tanner & Tanner, 1995). Theterm curriculum can be used to describe what is actually enacted in theclassroom. It can also be used to describe the set of courses, ideas,activities, and experiences that individual institutions might adopt inperforming their work. The term curriculum can further be used to referto the central ideas that people think ought to be in the enactedcurriculum. Given different institutions serving different missions anddifferent students in different contexts, one could not imagine a corecurriculum that would be the same in every detail for every institution,but one might imagine a set of core ideas that are addressed as thecurriculum is enacted at the ground level. The Problem with Big Ideas One of the most difficult challenges in developing curriculumrecommendations in teacher education is deciding how to represent thevast amount of knowledge necessary for beginning teachers. How couldsuch a large body of knowledge be represented in a short,reader-friendly report? If the reports took a common ground approach tothe controversies surrounding the perspectives on constructivism versusexpert knowledge, how could this perspective be properly represented?Questions arose about how to present a balanced view, while also makingclear recommendations about priorities. For example, in educationalpsychology, should teachers know Jean Piaget's five stages ofdevelopment, or should they have a basic understanding ofchildren's development? Should teachers be able to explain JeromeBruner's theories on enactive, iconic and symbolic representations,or should they be able to come up with alternative ways to think abouttransformation and representation? These are the types of questions thatperplex teacher educators as they strive to balance theory and practiceand develop meaningful experiences for teachers. These tensions areexacerbated by the reality that whether or not it is agreed that allteachers should understand the big ideas, many teachers were expected topass state licensure exams that required teachers to know, for example,Jean Piaget's five developmental stages in order. And, while somepeople, such as those who decide what teachers should know in teachereducation, may grumble at some of these standardized exams, some ofthose tests were probably, in part, an unintentional consequence ofstipulating that there is a knowledge base in teacher education. The intention of the CTE was to articulate the big ideas in theeight domain areas as part of a conceptual framework, and to allow forflexibility in the details. So what is a big idea and how can it beuseful? The problem with big ideas is that they often sound sosimplistic when they are written down. However, big ideas are actuallykey concepts that many experts in the field would agree are fundamentalto understanding the discipline. As Bruner (1960) has argued, "thecurriculum of a subject should be determined by the most fundamentalunderstanding that can be achieved of the underlying principles thatgive structure to that subject" (p. 31, italics added). Brunerasserted that "understanding fundamentals makes a subject morecomprehensible" for three reasons. First, it allows students togeneralize and make sense of later information--by studyingfundamentals, students begin to develop a working sense of the entirefield. Second, knowing how material fits into the field can aidstudents' memory. Third, investigating key ideas is deeplymotivating to students: "The best way to create interest in asubject is to render it worth knowing" (p. 31). Most educators believe that big ideas, or generative topics, havequalities that can lead to rich inquiry and exploration. The mostengaging big ideas are "accessible and interesting to students,excite the teacher's intellectual passions, and easily connect toother topics both within and outside the particular domain" (Wiske,1997, p.64). Wiggins and McTighe (1998) suggested that big ideas can beframed as questions that focus on the curriculum, noting that these types of questions cannot be answered satisfactorily in a sentence--and that's the point. To get at matters of deep understanding, we need to use provocative and multilayered questions that reveal the richness and complexities of subjects. We refer to such questions as 'essential' because they point to the key inquiries and core ideas of a discipline. (p. 28). The most powerful big ideas are concepts, topics, problems orissues that are not easily grasped or quickly understood. Indeed, onemight argue that the very power of big ideas is that they arecomplicated, rich, multilayered, and sometimes sources of disagreementand conflict within a field. Using big ideas as a structure for these reports, however, did notmean that there was no need for teachers to recognize the names ofimportant educational researchers, such as Lev Vygotsky and John Dewey.Those two men, for example, identified, named, and explained complexideas, which can help teachers organize their ideas about teaching. Bylearning specific information about the field of education, teachers cansystematically reflect on teaching, develop good arguments, andarticulate fluently in the language of the field. It allows them tocommunicate ideas with colleagues and parents, and it helps them bringtacit knowledge about their practice to the surface. If the systemexpects teachers to know names and dates, then teacher educators need tobuild that into their programs. However, it is also true that in some courses, or in alternativeprograms, the content may not be compartmentalized into what studentsmight traditionally learn, as in, for example, an educational psychologycourse. Nevertheless, there is something that happens in themoment-by-moment performance of classroom life that brings these piecestogether. Special Education Perspectives Special education has traditionally focused on remediation ofdeficits, as opposed to educating differences and embracingexceptionalities, perhaps leading educators to shy away from embracingdisability under the frame of social justice or diversity in Americaneducation. However, given the numbers of children identified as havingdisabilities and the many problems teachers face today in classroomsdealing with behavior problems and learning difficulties associated withemotional disturbances, hyperactivity, and autism, among otherdisabilities, it is surprising that the NAE's Committee on TeacherEducation's publications did not include chapters dedicated toteaching children with disabilities and containing strategies fordealing with issues of inclusion and professional collaboration. Webelieve that the next major text developed to provide recommendations onteacher education curriculum also needs to address cultural andlinguistic diversity, as well as intellectual and physical diversity, inconsiderable depth. Conclusion: Adding Special Education Content for Inclusion As part of the discussion on curriculum, the CTE reports includedsuggestions about effective pedagogy and assessment strategies inteacher education. The reports presented research evidence about coreexperiences and knowledge that help teacher educators develop thecapacities and dispositions teachers need to teach children. One goalwas to outline signature pedagogies for teacher education that relatedto specific content areas. Some of the pedagogies and experiences thatwere discussed in detail included (a) action research, (b) cases,including child case studies and cases of teaching and learning, (c)analyses of teaching, including videotaped samples with artifacts, aswell as commentaries and other print analyses, (d) analysis of studentwork and learning, and (e) the development of curriculum. Given increasing full inclusion and cultural and linguisticdiversity, novice teachers need to be better prepared to teach childrenwith disabilities. All novice teachers need to be provided with specificstrategies for teaching children with disabilities and for dealing withissues of inclusion and professional collaboration. These strategiesshould be included in the next major text developed to providerecommendations on teacher education curriculum, so that novice teachersare enabled to become more skillful teachers for all children. Appendix In this appendix, we have included some useful web sites andsuggested professional development activities to help educators provideuseful materials and activities for students. Special Education Teacher Preparation Web Sites AACTE American Association of Colleges of Teacher Educationhttp://www.aacte.org/ AERA American Educational Research Association http://www.aera.net/ AERA Panel of Research on Teacher Educationhttp://www.aera.net/newsmedia/?id=763 CEC Council for Exceptional Children: Teacher Education Division.http://www.tedcec.org CCTC California Commission on teacher Credentialinghttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/ CTE Committee on Teacher Educationhttp://www.naeducation.org/About_CTE.html NAE National Academy of Education http://www.naeducation.org/ NBPTS National Board for Professional Teaching Standardshttp://www.nbpts.org/ NCATE National Council for the accreditation of teacher educationhttp://www.ncate.org/ NCTAF National Commission on Teaching and America's Futurehttp://www.nctaf.org/ NRC National Research Council (education)http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/ TEAC Teacher Education Accreditation Council http://www.teac.org/ USED Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml Professional Development Activities for a Doctoral Course inTeacher Education Policy and Practice The products of these activities may be presented in the form oforal presentations, posters, written reflections or general classdiscussions. 1. In small groups, doctoral students reflect upon their ownexperiences in special education teacher education programs, thinkingabout what content they were missing and what content was especiallyimportant to them when they were teaching in schools. 2. In groups, doctoral students design a special education teachereducation curriculum and explain why the curriculum content they chosewas important and necessary. 3. In small groups, doctoral students would be given syllabi andcurriculum frameworks from various special education programs toevaluate. 4. The class would be divided into debate teams. Each team wouldprepare to debate the topic: Should the special education curriculum bepart of the general education curriculum? 5. As a class, pre-service teachers evaluate existing contentspecific pedagogies in inclusive sites and suggest ways that teacherscould better meet the needs of children in those schools. References Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge. Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K.,LePage, L., et al. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L.Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy.(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers shouldlearn and be able to do (pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Barnes, H. (1989). Structuring knowledge for beginning teaching. InM.C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York:Pergamon Press. Beyer, L. E. (1991). Teacher education, reflective inquiry andmoral action. In B. R. Tabachnich & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues andpractices in inquiry-oriented teacher education. London: The FalmerPress. Beyer, L. E., & Apple, M. W. (1988). The curriculum problems,politics, and possibilities. (Frontiers in Education Series). Albany,NY: State University of New York Press. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington D.C.:National Academy Press. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CarnegieFoundation) (2009). Preparation for the Professions Program. Retrievedon April 5, 2009, fromhttp://www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/index.asp?key=30. Christensen, D. (1996). The professional knowledge-research basefor teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research onteacher education. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (1991). Narrative, experience andthe study of curriculum. Cambridge Journal or Education, 20, 241-254. Cochran-Smith, M., S. Feiman-Nemser, J. McIntyre (2008). Handbookof research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changingcontexts. London: Routledge. Cochran-Smith, M., & Ziechner, K. (2005). Studying teachereducation: The report of the AERA panel on research and teachereducation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, andimprovement. Pittsburgh, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education(CPRE Research Report Series RR-43). Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P Jackson(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (216-247). New York:Macmillan. Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (Eds.) (2005). A goodteacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers ourchildren deserve. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., with LePage, P., Hammerness,P., & Duffy, H. (Eds,) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changingworld: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., & LePage, P. (2005)Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, with P. LePage, H.Hammerness, & H. Duffy, (Eds.). Preparing teachers for a changingworld: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Klein, S. P. (1995).License to teach. Building a profession for the 21st century. BoulderCO: Westview Press. Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape ourunderstanding. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Eisner, E. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.),The handbook of research on curriculum. Washington D. C.: The AmericanEducational Research Association. Feistritzer, C. E. (1999). The making of a teache: A report onteacher preparation in the U.S. Washington D. C.: Center for EducationInformation. Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need toknow about language. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics(ERIC Accession No. ED444379). Flexner, A. (1910). Medical education in the United States andCanada Bulletin Number Four (The Flexner Report). New York: The CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Good, T. L. (1996). Teaching effects and teacher evaluation. In J.Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. Reston, VA:Association of Teacher Educators. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (1994). Looking in classrooms. NewYork: Harper Collins. Goodland, J. (1984). A place called school. Prospects for thefuture. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hansen, D. T. (2000). Cultivating an intellectual and moralsensibility as teacher. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28,2000). ERIC Accession No. ED442759. Howsam, R. B. (1976). Educating a profession. Washington D. C.:American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC).(1992). Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing, Assessment andDevelopment: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington D.C.: Author. Iresibm J. & Hallam, S. (2009). Academic Self-Concepts inAdolescence: Relations with Achievement and Ability Grouping in Schools.Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 201-213. Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculumspecialists. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), The handbook of research oncurriculum. Washington D. C.: The American Educational ResearchAssociation. Margolis, W., Arnone, A., Morgan, R. L. (Eds.) (2002). ABA-LSACOfficial guide to ABA-approved law schools (2002 ed.). Chicago: TheAmerican Bar Association and Law School Admissions Council, Inc. McDermott, R. P. & Varenne, H. (1996). Culture, development,disability. In Jessor, R., Colby, A., & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.),Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry(pp. 101-126). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Murray, F. B. (Ed.) (1996). Teacher educator's handbook:Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2000).Standards by certificate. Retrieved on April 5, 2006, fromhttp://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/standards_by_cert. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATE). (2002) Professional standards for the accreditation of schools,colleges and departments of teacher education. Washington D.C.: NCATE. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996).What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York, NY:National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Oakes, J. (1995). Two Cities' Tracking and Within SchoolSegregation. Teachers College Record, 96(4), 681-690. Oakes, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The Dynamics ofHigh School Tracking Decisions. American Educational Research Journal,(32)1, 3-33. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M.(1995). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Reynolds, M. C. (1989). Knowledge base for the beginning teacher^Washington D.C.: The American Association of Colleges of TeacherEducation. Robinson, J. P. (2008). Evidence of Differential Effect of AbilityGrouping on the Reading Evidence of Differential Effect of AbilityGrouping on the Reading Acheivement Growth of LanguageMinorityHispanics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (30)2. 141-180. Salzman, S. A., Denner, P. R., & Harris, L. B. (2002). Teacheroutcome measures: Special study survey. Paper presented to AmericanAssociation of Colleges of Teacher Education conference in New York, NY(February 23-26, 2002). Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education ofprofessionals. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 511-526. Sikula, J. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on teachereducation. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Smith, D. C. (1983). Essential knowledge for beginning educators.Washington D. C.: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.(Report no. SP 022 600). Snow, C.E., Griffin, P., Burns, M. S. (2005). Knowledge to Supportthe Teaching of Reading: Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. Sockett, H. (2008). The moral and epistemic purposes of teachereducation. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Neimser, & J. McIntyre.Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions andchanging contexts. London: Routledge. 45-67 Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. NewYork: Teachers College Press. Sockett, H. (2008). Dispositions as Virtues: The Complexity of theConstruct. NY: AERA. Sockett, H. (2006). Teacher dispositions: Building a teachereducation framework of moral standards. Washington DC: AmericanAssociation of Colleges of Teacher Education. Strike, K. A. (1995). Professional ethics and the education ofprofessionals. Educational Horizons, 74, 29-36. Takako, N. (2010). The Effects of Within-Class Ability Grouping onAcademic Achievement in Early Elementary Years. Journal of Research onEducational Effectiveness, (3)1. 56-92. Tanner. D., & Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum development: Theoryinto practice (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc. University of Michigan Law School. (1959). The law schools lookahead. 1959 Conference on Legal Education. Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Press. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2001). Understanding by design.Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.) (2001). Handbook of research on teaching.Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Wiske, M. S. (1997). What is teaching for understanding? In M.S.Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice(pp. 61-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002).Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside.Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190-204. Zeichner, K. (Ed.) (1996). Currents of reform inpreservice teachereducation. ERIC ED397050. Pamela LePage Sue Courey San Francisco State University Emilene J. Fearn Vicki Benson Ellen Cook Liz Hartmann Shelley Nielsen University of California, Berkeley and San Francisco StateUniversityTable I: Professional Content KnowledgeDisability awareness Law and Policy Curriculum and PedagogyInclusive practices Qualifications for Differentiation of services instructionDisability types andchallenges RTI/discrepancy Modifications and models accommodationsBasic lesson plansand teaching skills Legal issues and Access to standard court cases and functionalDisability curriculumcharacteristics Laws and behavior Transition servicesHistory of special Federal laws IDEA/education ADA Assessment for achievementAttitudes about Problems withdisability school/disability/ Instructional laws/finances strategies forIssues of diagnoses/ children whoassessment Politics around struggle disabilitiesIssues of second Content expertiselanguage and Resources for teach reading anddiagnoses developing parents math (and other PCK)individual programs to struggling Rights of parents studentsIssues of culturaldifferences and Issues of social Progress monitoringspecial needs justice Issues of technologyRecognizing Federal, state, teaching--usingchallenges such as local policies and technology forauditory processing resources for teaching andproblems, etc. parents adaptive technology for access. Curriculum and pedagogy and issues of diversity with students with disabilities Keeping a child with disabilities motivated and interested in school.Professionalism Behaviour Child Learning & Atypical DevelopmentMorality and ethics Positive behaviour Developmental supports milestonesMoral decisionmaking Replacement Issues of diagnostic behaviours assessmentAwareness ofabilities and Peer relationships Understanding andattitudes around and connections addressingdisability development: Family relationshipsCommunication with Fine motorparents about Moral developmentsensitive topics Gross motor Violence and abuseCollaboration with Sensorycolleagues Legal issues CognitiveAppreciation of Behaviour plans anddifferences how to strategies Play and socialfocus on strengths interaction Charting behavioursKeeping accurate Speech/languagerecords Developing receptive/ child/adult expressiveUnderstanding for relationships pragmatic speechthe complexity ofcare Developing safe Moral environments and communities Psycho-social Balancing confidence and challenge Know how to work with learning challenges: Memory Sequencing Comprehension Organization, etc.,