See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236116983

Advances in Special Education Emerald Book Chapter: Teacher Preparation for

Student Diversity and Disabilities: Changing Roles in Response to
Intervention Models

Chapter in Advances in Special Education · January 2013

DOI: 10.1108/S0270-4013(2013)0000025013

CITATIONS READS

8 1,636

2 authors, including:

Wendy Cavendish
University of Miami
53 PUBLICATIONS 930 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wendy Cavendish on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Advances in Special Education
Emerald Book Chapter: Teacher Preparation for Student Diversity and
Disabilities: Changing Roles in Response to Intervention Models
Wendy Cavendish, Anabel Espinosa

Article information:
To cite this document: Wendy Cavendish, Anabel Espinosa, "Teacher Preparation for Student Diversity and Disabilities: Changing

d
ite
Roles in Response to Intervention Models", Jeffrey P. Bakken, Festus E. Obiakor, Anthony F. Rotatori, in (ed.) Learning
Disabilities: Practice Concerns And Students With LD (Advances in Special Education, Volume 25), Emerald Group Publishing

m
Limited, pp. 189 - 205

Li
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0270-4013(2013)0000025013
ng
hi
Downloaded on: 11-02-2013
is

References: This document contains references to 48 other documents

bl
Pu

To copy this document: [email protected]

u p
ro
G
d
al
er
m
)E
(C

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR
STUDENT DIVERSITY AND
DISABILITIES: CHANGING ROLES
IN RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
MODELS

d
ite
m
Wendy Cavendish and Anabel Espinosa Li
ng
hi
is
bl
Pu

ABSTRACT
up

This chapter examines best practice and burgeoning needs within general
ro

and special education teacher preparation programs as identified within

G

the literature and as evidenced in recent research (Cavendish, Harry,

d
al

Menda, Espinosa, & Mahotiere, 2012) that examined the beliefs and
er

practices of current educators teaching within schools utilizing a response

m

to intervention (RtI) model. Specifically, our discussion of the emerging

)E

needs in teacher preparation programs that prepare both general and

(C

special education teachers for assessment, instructional delivery, and

progress monitoring within an RtI framework is informed by a 3-year
research project of the initial implementation of an RtI model in a diverse,
urban school district. Implications for practice include the need to: (a)
address deficit perspectives of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)

Learning Disabilities: Practice Concerns and Students with LD

Advances in Special Education, Volume 25, 189–205
Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-4013(2013)0000025013
189
190 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

students and youth with disabilities, (b) address changing perceptions

of the function of special education, and (c) communicate the need
for greater collaboration across silos within teacher preparation
programs.

Consistent disproportionality in high incidence special education categories

and the maintenance of the achievement gap in outcomes for youth of color
and students with disabilities has fueled the discourse around methods of best
preparing teachers to meet the needs of the most vulnerable student
populations (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008). Preparing

d
ite
educators for effective teaching of students of various academic abilities and

m
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds is one of the most

Li
challenging tasks faced by general and special education teacher preparation
ng
programs as it requires preservice teachers and teacher educators to reexamine
hi

their ideologies (Ladson-Billings, 1994, 2001; Milner, 2010; Pugach & Seidl,
is

1998) and confront inequity (Ford & Quinn, 2010; Harry & Klingner, 2006).
bl

Pugach and Seidl (1998) explicitly identified issues around the intersection of
Pu

disability and diversity in teacher preparation programs and noted that the
up

‘‘unexamined pairing of disability with diversity in special education reform is

ro

extremely problematic’’ (p. 320). Changing student demographics have

G

increased the demand for multicultural perspectives in education, and the

d

poor academic outcomes among CLD students and youth with disabilities
al
er

have intensified the focus on educational reform efforts (e.g., NCLB and
m

IDEA) that promise to improve outcomes for diverse youth. Although the
)E

2008 Schools and Staffing Survey demonstrates that white, non-Hispanic

teachers constitute the majority of public school teachers (83.5%) (NCES,
(C

2009), data from the 2004 National Education Association (NEA) report
indicates when students are taught with culturally responsive techniques and
content-specific strategies, they make significant academic gains, regardless of
teachers’ racial/ethnic background. Thus, the need for a continued shift to a
more responsive and inclusive focus in teacher education programs for general
and special education is evident.
Teacher preparation in the field of special education in particular has
evolved from medical models of disability and distinct clinical approaches to
more inclusive models of educational environments for instructional
delivery to students with learning disabilities (LD) (Brownell, Sindelar,
Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). Legislative mandates spanning the Education for
all Handicapped Children Act in 1975 to the Individuals with Disabilities
Teacher Preparation 191

Education Act (IDEA, 1997, 2004) reflect the changing concepts that have
required adaptation of teacher preparation approaches. However, the strain
of the shift and the historic relationship between disability and pathology
has promoted feelings of inadequacy among many general education
teachers and schools when presented with the diverse learning needs of
students (Skrtic, 1991) whereby general education teachers frequently
believe they cannot meet the needs of those students who fall outside the
norm and that placing students in special education is believed to be the best
option for both the individual student and the teacher (Cavendish, Harry,
Menda, Espinosa, & Mahotiere, 2012). Teachers who are not confident in
their ability to teach challenging students are more likely to rate the general

d
education classroom as an inappropriate setting to meet the needs of low-

ite
performing and/or racially/ethnically diverse students (Podell & Soodak,

m
1993).
Li
These issues have remained unresolved and the legislative shift (IDEA,
ng
2004) to Response to Intervention (RtI) models intensifies the need to
hi

address the identified divide between general and special education and
is
bl

magnifies the importance of preservice teacher development of culturally

Pu

responsive instruction within both general and special education teacher

preparation programs, particularly if RtI processes are to address inequities
up

among students of color (i.e., disproportionality). Specifically, RtI was to

ro

provide an early intervention and contextualized assessment process within

G

general education as part of the process for special education identification

d
al

that considered a child’s opportunity to learn. Proponents of RtI

er

recommended the use of a dynamic model built around the systematic

m

documentation of student’s response to research-based instructional

)E

interventions in general education, primarily in reading (Fuchs & Fuchs,

(C

2007). The tiered model of RtI is designed to provide universal screening

and intensified evidence-based interventions and support based on students’
responsiveness to instruction as identified through systematic progress
monitoring. The intended goals of RtI models are promising; however, the
proposed benefits are largely dependent on training for implementation
within schools as well as teacher preparation programs that emphasize the
importance of collaboration and cultural responsiveness.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss best practice and burgeoning

needs within general and special education teacher preparation programs
192 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

as identified within the literature and as evidenced in recent research

that examined the beliefs and practices of current educators teaching
within schools utilizing an RtI model (Cavendish et al., 2012). We
emphasize the need to: (a) address deficit perspectives of CLD students
and youth with disabilities, (b) address changing perceptions of the
function of special education, and (c) communicate the need for greater
collaboration across silos within teacher preparation programs for both
general and special education teachers. We discuss the literature related
to these areas and provide illustrative examples from a research project
that examined the RtI implementation process in two culturally diverse,
urban schools (Cavendish et al., 2012). The school district RtI frame-

d
work utilized in the participating schools in this project consisted of a

ite
three-tier model: Tier 1 included universal screening, progress monitor-

m
ing, and instructional delivery by the general education teacher in
Li
90-minute reading blocks. Tier 2 delivery was designated for students
ng
who were ‘‘non-responders’’ to Tier 1 instruction and consisted of an
hi

additional 30 minutes of reading instruction using the Voyager Passport

is
bl

program (the district’s designated Tier 2 intervention for all students).

Pu

The district had not specified a Tier 3 intervention but schools were to
select evidence-based programs for individualized delivery by the general
up

education teacher with part-time assistance from a district interventionist

ro

in Tier 3.
G

Data collection in this project was conducted through qualitative semi-

d
al

structured interviews (Patton, 2002) with school faculty (n=14, primarily

er

second- and third-grade reading teachers) and participant observations of

m

classrooms (n=22, primarily second- and third-grade classrooms) and

)E

RtI data-based decision-making meetings (n=20). The open-ended

(C

interviews and observations probed faculty beliefs and concerns that

influenced observed classroom practice. The data was analyzed using an
inductive approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) moving from open codes to
conceptual categories and then to overall patterns in the data. Our intent
is not to provide a comprehensive summary of the research project but
to highlight statements made by teachers that are illustrative of the
patterns relevant to preservice teacher training as they relate to the
literature on teacher preparation such as: (a) assumptions regarding
diverse learners, (b) confusion related to the purpose of RTI versus
special education, and (c) a need for training for collaborative roles
within the RtI process.
Teacher Preparation 193

BEST PRACTICE: TEACHER PREPARATION

PROGRAMS

Addressing the Needs of CLD Learners

A disconnect has been identified between multicultural theory and

classroom practice where program models frequently lack a theoretical
framework and solely address intergroup differences often leading to a
perpetuation of stereotypes (Trent et al., 2008; Tucker & Herman, 2002;
Webb-Johnson, Artiles, Trent, Jackson, & Velox, 1998). Further, research in
multicultural education used to inform practice has not consistently

d
ite
examined the relationship between culturally responsive teacher instruction
and shifts in thinking alongside student outcomes (Webb-Johnson et al.,

m
Li
1998). A recent study (Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011) found that
ng
preservice teachers reported feeling unprepared to meet the needs of CLD
students based on training and experience in coursework or in-service
hi
is

programs. Colon-Muniz, Brady, and Soohoo (2010) agree that little is

bl

known about the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs in multi-

Pu

cultural education and the effect such programs have on teacher instruction,
up

epistemologies, and beliefs in regards to the instruction of CLD students.

ro

Lack of preparation in preservice program coursework or professional in-

G

service programs may translate into feelings of inadequacy once teachers

d

enter classroom environments where student needs are diverse. Our

al

interviews with current teachers in two primarily minority urban schools

er

conducted in 2010–2011 revealed teachers’ feelings of being overwhelmed by

m

the perceived needs of diverse student populations as evidenced in one

)E

teacher’s statement, ‘‘y but the needs of our population are far greater than
(C

you are going to see in other areas.’’ Sleeter (2012) has cautioned against
teachers’ perception of marginalized students in deficit terms as it may lead
to negative outcomes for youth. In our research, a deficit perspective based
on cultural difference was evidenced in a statement by a school psychologist
newly working in a primarily black school where she noted that ‘‘this year I
learned the difference between ‘ghetto’ and poor y it’s [poor student
performance and behavior] not a matter of poverty.’’ She believed that ‘‘it
was more of an attitude’’ passed by parents to their children within this
community. These attitudes were not the only attributes believed to be
transferred by parents to students. Assumptions regarding parents’ skills
were also noted by an administrator to rationalize a student’s responsiveness
to instruction. An administrator in another school, after conducting a
194 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

data-based decision-making meeting, noted, ‘‘Look at the mother! She looks

like she has a cognitive impairment herself. The apple does not fall far from the
tree.’’ Deficit perspectives of linguistically diverse youth (e.g., Chu, 2010)
was also evident as illustrated by the following statement from a teacher
with several low-performing English language learners (ELL) in her third-
grade reading class: ‘‘The problem is we don’t think they are ELLs. We think
they just don’t pass the test [English proficiency test] because they have
learning disabilities.’’ This statement illustrates Barrera and Liu’s (2010)
caution to educators to consider the influence of ‘‘variability of (EL)
learners exposure to academic learning’’ on linguistically diverse students’
proficiency in learning academic English and the resultant influence of these

d
characteristics on assessment results when examining pre-referral academic

ite
progress.

m
These perspectives highlight the need for greater preparation in culturally
Li
responsive instructional (CRI) practice in education programs for personnel
ng
likely to be working in diverse, urban schools. Merryfield (2000) noted that
hi

we need to increase the ‘‘ability of college and university faculty and other
is
bl

teacher educators to prepare teachers for multicultural classrooms and

Pu

diversity’’ (p. 430). The importance of research and training on CRI

practices is echoed in the position of the National Council for the
up

Accreditation of Teacher Education, which advocates for culturally

ro

responsive teacher candidates and explicitly calls for teachers who ‘‘value
G

fairness and learning by all students’’ (NCATE, 2002).

d
al
er

Intersection of CLD and disability

m

The emphasis on meeting the needs of CLD youth (Cartledge & Kourea,
)E

2008; Trent et al., 2008) coupled with the move toward more inclusive
(C

practices in special education (outlined in IDEA, 2004) has led to the

consideration of special education or disability as an ‘‘area of diversity’’
within many teacher preparation programs. The Council for Exceptional
Children diversity standards are recommended to be infused or embedded
within courses across teacher education programs but are often addressed as
a separate unit on diversity within programs (Devereaux, Prater, Jackson,
Heath, & Carter, 2010). However, many researchers have opposed this
approach and noted the importance of viewing disability as situated within a
diverse sociocultural framework (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Pugach &
Seidl, 1998). Trent et al. (2008), in a review of the recent literature, found
that the majority of the research on the preparation of preservice teachers
for diversity was conducted within general education teacher preparation
programs. However, Trent et al. emphasized that such research should
Teacher Preparation 195

continue particularly for addressing issues of equity, privilege, and social

justice, but there should be an increased focus on the relationship between
teacher pedagogy and behaviors in the instruction of CLD students within
special education.
Within special education, systems responsible for providing support to
students with disabilities and their families are often unprepared to deliver
culturally responsive services (Blanchett, Klingner, & Harry, 2009).
Blanchett et al. noted that ‘‘traditional service delivery models have tended
to approach disabilities from the perspective that race, class, cultural beliefs
and values, and language do not influence service delivery options’’ (p. 402).
Other researchers have also reported that cultural differences in learning are

d
infrequently addressed within special education practice (e.g., in IEPs) (Chu,

ite
2010). Pugach and Seidl (1998) have suggested that the ‘‘disability equals

m
diversity’’ perspective has focused attention on meeting students’ indivi-
Li
dualized needs but not addressing the issues inherent in a racially stratified
ng
educational system. They state that the ‘‘y danger in analogizing diversity
hi

and disability is that special educators may believe that because they are
is
bl

committed to educating children with disabilities, they are already attending

Pu

to diversity’’ (p. 321). The lack of emphasis on cultural diversity within

special education teacher preparation programs may also be related to the
up

primary focus on strategy instruction targeted to categorical youth

ro

characteristics and differentiation of instruction based on individual

G

performance differences (Trent et al., 2008; Utley, Delquadri, Obiakor, &

d
al

Mims 2000; Webb-Johnson et al., 1998).

er
m
)E

Silos within General and Special Education

(C

Teacher beliefs about learning have the potential to impact practice in

inclusive settings when faced with the responsibility of educating diverse
learners (Jordan, Glenn, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009). Differing beliefs
about students’ abilities and learning may pose a significant barrier to
collaboration between special education teachers and general education
teachers (Winn & Blanton, 2005). Fuchs (2010), through teacher interviews,
found that barriers such as lack of school-level administrative support,
perceived lack of support from special education teachers, and lack of
preparation from preservice programs hindered general education teachers’
attitude toward inclusion and teaching children with disabilities. Specifi-
cally, general education teachers identified ‘‘insufficient preservice prepara-
tion’’ for their difficulty in differentiating instruction, making
196 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

accommodations for youth with disabilities, and in collaboratively working

with special education faculty to meet the needs of students with disabilities
in an inclusive setting. Pugach, Blanton, and Correa (2011) noted that the
current policy environment (NCLB mandates), and particularly IDEA’s
inclusion of the RtI option for identification of youth with learning
disabilities (LD), has converged in a way that requires teacher preparation
programs to examine new ways of ‘‘collaboration across the spectrum of
preservice teacher education to transcend the traditional duality of ‘special’
versus ‘general education’ and situate special education within the very
diversity of students, families, and communities that lies at the heart of the
challenge for general and special education alike’’ (p. 184). Currently, within

d
the RtI framework, general and special education teachers are faced with

ite
determining exactly what their responsibilities are across each tier of RtI

m
(Jones, Yssel, & Grant, 2012). Nellis (2012) noted that although RtI was to
Li
focus on pre-referral early intervention within general education, many
ng
states have included RtI processes within their special education policy and
hi

practice regulations, thus shifting the assessment protocols within RtI to

is
bl

special education teachers. As a result, collaboration and ‘‘teaming’’ within

Pu

RtI must become a focus of both preservice teacher training and

professional development for general and special education teachers.
up
ro
G

NEW CHALLENGES FOR GENERAL AND SPECIAL

d
al

EDUCATION TEACHERS WITHIN RTI SYSTEMS

er
m

Most RtI models, although proposed as an early intervention process to

)E

reduce failure due to poor instruction and potentially address dispropor-

(C

tionate representation in special education, do not explicitly outline methods

for providing culturally responsive instruction within RtI frameworks; thus,
teacher preparation programs will need to incorporate these strategies if RtI
is to meet one of its goals (of reducing disproportionality) in practice.
Additionally, most state RtI plans/manuals for implementation do not
provide guidance related to specific teacher roles in delivery of interventions
at each tier (e.g., Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Cavendish
et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2012). Therefore, districts and schools implement-
ing RtI must explicitly identify the roles and responsibilities of general and
special educators, reading specialists, and interventionists. Teacher pre-
paration programs will also need to address these issues of defining roles and
responsibilities across general and special education to prepare preservice
teachers to work effectively in today’s schools.
Teacher Preparation 197

Meeting the Needs of CLD Learners within the RTI Framework

RtI models have been identified with the potential to improve educational
opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse learners and reduce
disproportionality (NCCREST, 2005). Cartledge and Kourea (2008) noted
that high-quality, research-based instruction and data-based decision
making serve as foundational elements for effective RtI implementation
and also represent instructional principles integral to culturally responsive
classrooms. However, reform efforts (such as RtI) designed for all students
are often superimposed on CLD students; thus, challenges in multicultural
education and diversity training are frequently added to the pressure behind

d
reform movements aimed at responding to standards (Colon-Muniz et al.,

ite
2010). Garcia and Guerra (2004) cautioned that without meaningful

m
commitment to multicultural education principles, deficit beliefs may
Li
continue to serve as filters ‘‘that block educators’ abilities to examine their
ng
assumptions and look beyond traditional solutions for real and meaningful
hi

change’’ (p. 151), thus potentially contributing to a failure of reform efforts.

is
bl

Therefore, there may be risk associated with RtI protocols that are not
Pu

sensitive to the needs of CLD learners. Specifically, Hosp (n.d.) noted that a
strong RtI system must include the use of a universal screening with reliable
up

measures that can be used to make decisions about individual student’s

ro

performance. However, no specific assessments are recommended but the

G

IDEA legislation and the universal screening measure is ‘‘often y narrowly

d
al

conceived, measuring a small set of skills’’ (Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2009,

er

p. 84). Researchers have called for the need to consider instructional

m

strategies and interventions that have been validated on diverse samples that
)E

are comparable to those in the target population within classrooms and

(C

schools utilizing RtI (Hernandez-Finch, 2012; Klingner & Edwards, 2006).

Also, RtI’s emphasis on fidelity of implementation of ‘‘evidence-based’’
intervention/curriculum suggests an approach that offers all students the
same curriculum in the same way initially (Klingner & Edwards, 2006;
Sleeter, 2012). Artiles, Bal, and Thorius (2010) specify that ‘‘RtI is caught in
the equity-difference dilemma as it aims to give the same treatment (i.e.,
rigorous instruction) to all groups as a way to deliver justice, while it strives
to recognize differences so that students with different ability levels receive
tailored learning supports’’ (p. 3). Klingner and Edwards (2006) noted that
if instruction and interventions are to have the potential to reduce
disproportionality in special education referral, the process of assessment
and instruction must be flexible enough to allow for contextual differences
during delivery (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Further, Artiles and Kozleski
198 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

(2010) argue that ‘‘the use of response, in terms of what students do to

demonstrate understanding y assumes that instruction, not the interactions
between instructional tasks, social contexts, and learners is the key to
learning. The assumptions underlying this view of response and failure miss
the sociocultural nature of learning itself’’ (p. 651).

Defining RTI versus Special Education

The need for renewed consideration of explicit training for collaboration of

general and special education teachers within teacher preparation programs

d
is evidenced within our RtI project in confusion over instructional and

ite
decision-making roles within the framework of RtI. The majority of

m
teachers interviewed expressed some level of discomfort and/or confusion
Li
over the role that both general and special education teachers were to play
ng
within the RtI process. Teachers in general education were uncertain as to
hi

their responsibilities in the universal screening and intervention delivery pre-

is
bl

referral stages in the RtI system, and special education teachers were
Pu

uncertain as to their expected role in the Tier 3 intervention delivery and

interpretation of progress monitoring data used for entitlement decisions.
up

General education teacher participants in our study expressed beliefs that

ro

general education was an inappropriate place for struggling students (a

G

belief incongruent with RtI’s focus on early, pre-referral intervention). A

d
al

third-grade teacher, responsible for Tier 2 and Tier 3 reading interventions,

er

noted that most of the struggling and disruptive students should be served in
m

special education and that ‘‘in a normal school, they would be in a [special
)E

education] class, not in a general education classroom.’’ Another teacher

(C

noted that she understood the RtI process as a method to place students in
special education: ‘‘We have a lot of special needs children in the school so
eventually the RtI process is supposed to get them placed in special
education y’’ Further, the perception of Tier 3 in RtI as signifying special
education is evident in the statement from a general education teacher who
taught in a classroom designated as a ‘‘Tier 3 class,’’ as she noted, ‘‘We were
a Tier 3 class. Our kids should have all gone to [special education]. They
should all have been placed.’’ The perception that struggling students’ needs
cannot be met within general education classrooms is at odds with the
purpose of RtI that is to deliver supportive interventions within general
education at increasing levels of intensity prior to any consideration of
referral to special education. While much confusion can be attributed to
lack of administrative clarity at the school level in this study (see Cavendish
Teacher Preparation 199

et al., 2012), preservice teacher programs may need to make modifications in

order to accommodate the changing protocols within and across class-
rooms. In particular, we suggest that without explicitly addressing the need
for an ideological shift and renewed emphasis on CRI and collaboration
within teacher preparation programs (and professional development foci),
RtI may potentially facilitate an increased divide between general education
and special education (e.g., Orosco & Klingner, 2010).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHER

d
PREPARATION PROGRAMS

ite
m
Cultural Responsiveness
Li
ng
Culturally relevant pedagogy must be understood as a paradigm for
hi

teaching and learning across both general and special education (Sleeter,
is
bl

2012). As culture permeates learning and behavior, it should be recognized

Pu

in curriculum and instruction, referral, entitlement determination, and

program planning within classrooms of children with and without
up

disabilities (Harris-Murri, King, & Rostenburg, 2006; Utley et al., 2011).

ro

Successful teacher training programs must address culture and diversity

G

with sufficient depth to help teachers distinguish between Eurocentric values

d
al

and learning problems and find strengths amidst cultural differences (Utley
er

et al., 2000). Gay’s (2010) definition of culturally responsive pedagogy in

m

general education aligns with the individualized approach applied to special

)E

education as she notes CRI in inclusive settings requires teaching ‘‘to and
(C

through [student’s] personal and cultural strengths y intellectual capabil-

ities, and prior accomplishments’’ (p. 26).
Culture must be at the forefront of any RtI model if one of the intended
goals is to reduce disproportionate representation of CLD learners in special
education (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Therefore, CRI should be at the
center of teacher preparation programs that seek to prepare general and
special educators to effectively work within RtI frameworks that currently
permeate classroom and school practice. We suggest that equity pedagogy
can be used as a framework for CRI in teacher preparation programs.
Garcia and Guerra (2004) highlight five underlying assumptions of equity
pedagogy that can be used as guiding principles within teacher preparation
programs across general and special education. We adapt these principles in
our specific recommendations for development within current teacher
200 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

preparation models. First, social and structural paradigms that significantly

influence school culture should be examined (particularly within the context
of field experiences and student teaching experiences) for the ways in which
they may pathologize or marginalize ‘‘difference.’’ By recognizing school
climate and culture, and understanding how it may systematically
perpetuate deficit thinking, preservice teachers can reflect and reevaluate
their own attribution of success or failure in the classroom in relation to
school culture. Second, teacher preparation programs can expand course
development in diversity to include not just social class, racial, ethnic, or
linguistic diversity but also hierarchical differences between teachers and
students. Third, programs should include considerations of intercultural

d
communication, which permeate every aspect of schooling, for example,

ite
interactions between teachers, students, families, and communities. Fourth,

m
reflective practice that acknowledges cultural sensitivity and awareness does
Li
not automatically result in equity practice and must be modeled. Both
ng
insufficient cultural knowledge to develop alternate explanations of student
hi

behavior and performance and insufficient opportunities to develop the

is
bl

skills and implement practice within school-based classroom experiences

Pu

must be addressed. Last and relatedly, professional development activities

must systematically and explicitly link knowledge to school-based classroom
up

practice. Participation in field experiences and community-based partner-

ro

ships prepare future educators for diversity in ways that far surpass the
G

knowledge on multicultural education found in textbooks (Garcia, Arias,

d
al

Harris-Murri, & Serna, 2010; Peterson, Cross, Johnson, & Howell, 2000;
er

Tucker & Herman, 2002). Once these principles are realized within teacher
m

preparation programs, explicit instruction for effective CRI as used for

)E

validation and support of students’ culture and language can be used as a

(C

means to differentiate supports within RtI frameworks across general and

special education (Utley et al., 2011).

Collaboration across General and Special Education

RtI’s increasing implementation affects teachers across both general and

special education and presents new challenges in defining roles and
responsibilities for assessment, instructional delivery, intervention delivery,
and data-based decision making in all classrooms. For RtI to be successful,
collaboration is necessary (Nellis, 2012). However, past research has noted
challenges to collaboration and co-teaching models both within universities
and across general and special education classrooms long before the high
Teacher Preparation 201

stakes environment of RtI (e.g., Pugach et al., 1998). Thus, the silos of
general and special education have contributed to general education teacher
perceptions that struggling student’s needs can only be served in special
education (Cavendish et al., 2012). Special and general education practi-
tioners must, therefore, reevaluate beliefs and practices that perpetuate the
transfer of responsibility to each other (Jimenez, Graf, & Rose, 2007;
Pugach & Seidl, 1998).
Collaboration should consist of interaction between professionals with
different areas of expertise yet who share goals and responsibilities
(Murawski & Hughes, 2009), and parity is critical (Friend & Cook, 2007).
Teacher preparation programs must provide not just instruction related to

d
collaborative models but also opportunities for practice in field-based

ite
experiences (Hawkins, Kroeger, Musti-Rao, Barnett, & Ward, 2008).

m
Hawkins et al. developed and evaluated a preservice interdisciplinary RtI-
Li
focused program that included contextualized (in general education) RtI
ng
field experiences for school psychology and special education students. The
hi

program was developed to integrate previous and concurrent course content

is
bl

related to: ‘‘(a) collaboration and consultation; (b) elements of RtI:

Pu

evidence-based prevention, instruction, and intervention; and (c) data-based

decision making (including technical adequacy)’’ (p. 747). Hawkins et al.
up

(2008) evaluation of this integrated program led to several recommendations

ro

for effective program change to incorporate RtI training models.

G

Specifically, their findings suggest that:

d
al

! field experiences must be supported by role-specific coursework

er
m

! interdisciplinary training using a systematic approach is necessary

)E

! both general and special education preservice teachers must be trained in

and participate in field-based data-based team decision making
(C

! programs should include explicit instruction within assessment-related

coursework that includes methods for determining ‘‘intervention
strength’’

Differentiated Instruction
Teacher preparation programs in both general and special education have
included methods for differentiation of instruction within course content.
However, practical application of these methods may shift within an RtI
framework that requires emphasis on selection of appropriate screening and
progress monitoring assessments for diverse students, CRI delivery,
appropriate selection of ‘‘evidence-based’’ intervention(s), and the ability
to effectively access personnel and school resources and collaborate
202 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

systematically with other school professionals. Jones et al. (2012) suggest

that systems for identifying evidence-based strategies for diverse youth must
be available to all educators. They suggest that for RtI to realize its
potential, general education teachers should embed evidence-based inter-
ventions (previously the domain of special educators) within Tier 1 of the
RtI process, which would require cross-disciplinary training in teacher
preparations programs. Additionally, universal design for learning (UDL)
models could be taught across disciplines in order to better meet the needs of
diverse students. UDL principles are congruent with the problem-solving
models of RtI as UDL provides a flexible approach to creating instructional
goals, methods, materials, and assessments that can be customized and

d
adjusted for individual student needs and be implemented with diverse

ite
student populations (NCUDL, 2012).

m
The principles of UDL emphasizes teachers’ explicit use of: multiple
Li
means of representation in presenting content; multiple means of action or
ng
engagement for students to participate in learning activities related to
hi

content; and multiple means of expression for students to demonstrate

is
bl

knowledge of content. Within UDL, students’ background knowledge and

Pu

experiences can serve as a springboard for instruction, thus aligning with

principles for CRI. Thus our recommendations for change within and across
up

teacher preparation programs to meet the needs of general and special

ro

education teachers practicing in RtI frameworks support the call from other
G

researchers (Jimenez et al., 2007) to encourage university teacher prepara-

d
al

tion programs to move away from silos of privileged knowledge (school

er

psychology) and division (special education versus general education) and

m

make a concentrated effort to share a single instructional approach that

)E

unites many approaches by building on a UDL framework.

(C

REFERENCES
Artiles, A., Bal., A., & Thorius, K. (2010). Back to the future: A critique of response to
intervention’s social justice views. Theory into Practice, 49(4), 1–8. doi: 10.1080/
00405841.2010.510447.
Artiles, A., & Kozleski, E. (2010). What counts as response to intervention in RtI? A
sociocultural analysis. Psicothema, 22(4), 949–954.
Barrera, M., & Liu, K. (2010). Challenges of general outcomes measurement in the RTI
progress monitoring of linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Theory into Practice,
49(4), 273–280. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2010.510713.
Berkeley, S., Bender, W., Peaster, L., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to
intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 85–95.
Teacher Preparation 203

Blanchett, W., Klingner, J., & Harry, B. (2009). The intersection of race, culture, language and
disability: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 44(4), 389–409. doi:
10.1177/0042085909338686.
Brownell, M., Sindelar, P., Kiely, M., & Danielson, L. (2010). Special education teacher quality
and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children,
76(3), 357–377.
Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse
students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 351–371.
Cavendish, W., Harry, B., Menda, A., Espinosa, A., & Mahotiere, M. (2012). Implementing
response to intervention: Challenges of diversity and system change in a high stakes
environment.
Chu, S. (2010). Teacher perceptions of their efficacy for special education referral of students
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Education, 132, 3–9.

d
Colon-Muniz, A., Brady, J., & Soohoo, S. (2010). What do graduates say about multicultural

ite
education? Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 85–108.

m
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

Li
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ng
Devereaux, T., Prater, M., Jackson, A., Heath, M., & Carter, N. (2010). Special education
faculty perceptions of participating in a culturally responsive professional development
hi

program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 263–278. doi: 10.1177/
is
bl

0888406410371642.
Pu

Ford, T., & Quinn, L. (2010). First year teacher education candidates: What are their
perceptions about multicultural education. Multicultural Education, 17(4), 18–24.
up

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals ( 5th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
ro

Fuchs, W. (2010). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion. South-
G

eastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 19, 30–36.

d

Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention.
al

Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20.

er

Garcia, E., Arias, B., Harris-Murri, N., & Serna, C. (2010). Developing responsive teachers: A
m

challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 132–142. doi:
)E

10.1177/0022487109347878.
(C

Garcia, S., & Guerra, P. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators
to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2),
150–168. doi: 10.1177/0013124503261322.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching ( 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Hawkins, R., Kroeger, S., Musti-Rao, S., Barnett, D., & Ward, J. (2008). Preservice training in
response to intervention: Learning by doing an interdisciplinary field experience.
Psychology in the Schools, 45(8), 745–762. doi: 10.1002/pits.20339.
Harris-Murri, N., King, K., & Rostenburg, D. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority
representation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances:
Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education and Treatment
of Children, 29(4), 779–799.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education:
Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
204 WENDY CAVENDISH AND ANABEL ESPINOSA

Hernandez-Finch, M. (2012). Special consideration with response to intervention and

instruction for students with diverse backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3),
285–296. doi: 10.1002/pits.21597.
Hosp, J. (n.d.) Response to Intervention and the disproportionate representation of culturally and
linguistically diverse students in special education. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.
org/learn/diversity/disproportionaterepresentation
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). P. L.108-446. Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/. Accessed on March 16, 2012
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law No. 105-17 (1997). 20 U.S. Code
Section 1400 et. Seq.
Jimenez, T., Graf, V, & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise of
universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41–54.
Jones, R., Yssel, N., & Grant, C. (2012). Reading instruction in tier 1: Bridging the gaps by

d
nesting evidence-based interventions within differentiated instructions. Psychology in the

ite
Schools, 49(3), 210–218. doi: 10.1002/pits.21591.

m
Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). The supportive effective teaching

Li
(SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers’ beliefs about
ng
disability and ability about their roles as teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
259–266.
hi

Klingner, J., & Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural consideration with response to intervention
is
bl

models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.1.6.

Pu

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to cannan. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco,
up

CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merryfield, M. (2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and
ro

global connectedness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 429–443.

G

Milner, R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching: Implication for
d

diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 118–131. doi: 10.1177/

al

0022487109347670.
er

Murawski, W., & Hughes, C. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching:
m

A logical combination for successful system change. Preventing School Failure, 53(4),
)E

267–277.
(C

National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems. (2005). Cultural considerations
and challenges to response-to-intervention models (Position statement). Retrieved from
http://www.nccrest.org/PDFs/rti.pdf?v_document_name=Culturally%20Responsive%20
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau of
Indian Education elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results
from the 2007–08 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2009/2009324.pdf
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.udl-
center.org/aboutudl/whatisudl
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional standards for
the accreditation of schools, colleges and departments of education. Washington, DC:
Author.
Nellis, L. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in response to intervention
implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 245–256. doi: 10.1002/pits.2159.
 Teacher Preparation 205

Orosco, M., & Klingner, J. (2010). One schools implementation of RTI with English language
learners: ‘Referring into RTI’. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–288. doi:
10.1177/0022219409355474.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peterson, K., Cross, L., Johnson, E., & Howell, G. (2000). Diversity education for preservice
teachers: Strategies and attitude outcomes. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2), 33–38.
doi: 10.1080/01626620.2000.10463003.
Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. The
Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 247–253.
Pugach, M., & Seidl, B. (1998). Responsible linkages between diversity and disability: A
challenge for special education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of
the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 21(4), 319–333.
doi: 10.1177/088840649802100407.

d
Pugach, M., Blanton, L., & Correa, V. (2011). A historical perspective on the role of

ite
collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching all

m
students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(3), 183–200. doi: 10.1177/

Li
0888406411406141. ng
Skrtic, T. (1991). The special education paradox. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148–206.
Sleeter, C. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban
hi

Education, 47(3), 562–584. doi: 10.1177/0042085911431472.

is
bl

Trent, S., Kea, C., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing preservice educators for cultural diversity: How
Pu

far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74(3), 328–350.

Tucker, C., & Herman, K. (2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research to meet the
up

needs of low income African American children. American Psychologist, 57(10), 762–773.
Utley, C., Delquadri, J., Obiakor, F., & Mims, V. (2000). General and special educators
ro

perceptions of teacher strategies for multicultural students. The Journal of Teacher

G

Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 23(1), 34–50. doi: 10.1177/
d

088840640002300107.
al

Utley, C., Obiakor, F., & Bakken, J. (2011). Culturally responsive practices for culturally and
er

linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A

m

Contemporary Journal, 9(1), 5–18.

)E

Walker-Dalhouse, D., Risko, V., Esworthy, C., Grasley, E., Kailser, G., McIlvain, D., &
(C

Stephan, M. (2009). Crossing boundaries and initiating conversations about RTI:

Understanding and applying differentiated classroom instruction. The Reading Teacher,
63(1), 84–87.
Webb-Johnson, G., Artiles, A., Trent, S., Jackson, C., & Velox, A. (1998). The status of
research on multicultural education and special education: Problems, pitfalls and
promises. Remedial and Special Education, 19(1), 7–15.
Winn, J., & Blanton, L. (2005). A call for collaboration in teacher education. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 38(2), 1–10.

View publication stats