Common Core Expertise for Special Education Teachers:
Perceptions of Special Education Administrators
Joanne M. Van Boxtel
Cal Poly Pomona University, Pomona, CA
What?
 Results of a study investigating CCSS instructional expertise needed for new and veteran special
education teachers as reported by administrators (special education directors, SELPA directors,
program administrators for special education, other district level administrators)
 Research questions (RQs)
1. How frequently is professional development and collaboration regarding CCSS occurring
for general and special education teachers as reported by administrators?
2. What are the perceptions of the instructional expertise needed for special education
teachers in regards to implementation of the English Language Arts (ELA) CCSS as
reported by administrators?
3. What are the perceptions of the instructional expertise needed special education teachers
in regards to implementation of the Mathematics CCSS as reported by administrators?
4. What are the perceptions of the professional development needs of special education
teachers in regards to implementation of CCSS aligned Individualized Education Programs
(IEPs) as reported by administrators?
Why?
 CCSS is adopted in 42 states (as of 2013-2014)
 CCSS design principles incorporates Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to ensure maximum
participation of students with disabilities (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010)
 Limited research on CCSS and special education teacher preparation (Murphy & Marshall, 2015)
 Overlap in recommendations from Special Education and Educational Leadership:
1) Ensure educators deeply understand the standards and key instructional shifts (Alberti,
2012; Mercado & Britt, 2012; Haager & Vaughn, 2013)
2) Maximize opportunities for collaboration, capacity building, and professional learning
between general education and special education teachers (Haager & Vaughn, 2013;
McLaughlin, 2012; Mercado & Britt, 2012)
3) Create targeted instruction by prioritizing key standards (Haager & Vaughn, 2013; Powell
et al. 2013)
How?





Survey designed with mix-method approach (internal consistency reliability using split-half
method: all forced-choice items= .79; sub-scale items 7-20= .87)
Two components: (a) forced-choice Likert-scaled items measuring frequency of professional
development practices and level of agreement with CCSS related practices from literature, (b)
open-ended questions re: specific recommendations for CCSS expertise needed
Sample of 18 administrators in Northern and Southern California representing districts
ranging in size from ~3,000 students to ~80,000 students
Snowball sampling technique
Data analysis:
o Quantitative: descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation)
o Qualitative: in-vivo codes, then developed into general themes; triangulation with
colleague and participants via email
So what?
Quantitative Findings
Means and Standard Deviations for Items Examining Frequency of Professional Development and
Collaboration: Low to high scoring
Item
M (SD)
9. Considering professional development aligning IEPs to CCSS for your special education
3.28 (1.10)
teachers, how often are special education teachers receiving professional development in
developing CCSS aligned IEPs?
6. Taking into account collaboration between general education teachers and special
3.44 (1.34)
education teachers in your school/district, where both general and special education teachers
are working together in the same classroom, how often is collaboration currently occurring in
Mathematics?
8. Considering professional development in CCSS for your special education teachers, how
3.56 (.90)
often are special education teachers receiving professional development in Math content?
5. Taking into account collaboration between general education teachers and special
3.67 (1.25)
education teachers in your school/district, where both general and special education teachers
are working together in the same classroom, how often is collaboration currently occurring in
English Language Arts (ELA).
7. Considering professional development in CCSS for your special education teachers, how
3.83 (.96)
often are special education teachers receiving professional development in ELA content?
Note. Scale: never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), often (4), very often (5), and always (6).
Means and Standard Deviations for Items Examining Level of Agreement re: CCSS Instructional Expertise:
Low to high scoring
Item
M (SD)
16. Special education teachers need to be proficient in implementing Response to
3.89 (1.05)
Intervention (RTI) in ELA.
17. Special education teachers need to be proficient in implementing Response to
3.89 (1.05)
Intervention (RTI) in Math
12. Special education teachers need to be proficient in teaching the grade level Common
4.28 (.87)
Core ELA standards.
13. Special education teachers need to be proficient in teaching the grade level Common
4.28 (.80)
Core Math standards.
20. Special education teachers need to be proficient in constructing learning targets for CCSS 4.33 (.94)
based instruction.
19. Special education teachers need to be proficient in developing Common Core aligned IEP 4.39 (1.06)
goals.
11. Special education teachers need to be proficient in implementing the instructional shifts
4.39 (.95)
of the Common Core Math standards.
10. Special education teachers need to be proficient in implementing the instructional shifts
4.44 (.96)
of the Common Core ELA standards.
14. Special education teachers need to be proficient in adapting grade level Common Core
4.72 (.93)
ELA standards.
15. Special education teachers need to be proficient in adapting grade level Common Core
4.72 (.93)
Math standards.
18. Special education teachers need to be proficient in implementing evidence-based
4.72 (.93)
practices for students with disabilities (e.g., direct/explicit instruction, phonological
awareness training, word problem solving instruction, etc.)
Note. Scale: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5)
Qualitative findings: General themes
CCSS Professional Development Needs for Special Education Teachers
1) ELA professional development needs:
• CCSS ELA specific instructional strategies
• Understanding the CCSS and instructional shifts
• Alignment of instruction and IEPs to CCSS
• Adaptation techniques: UDL, accommodations, modifications, differentiation
2) Math professional development needs:
• Teaching and assessing higher level/complex math tasks
• Alignment of instruction and IEPs to CCSS
• Adaptation techniques: UDL, accommodations, modifications, differentiation
• Designing interventions
3) Creating CCSS aligned IEPs professional development needs
• Writing IEP goals aligned to standards
• Aligning IEP goals to present levels/unique needs
• Role of assessment and progress monitoring in the IEP
• Understanding the CCSS/selecting appropriate standards ("trellising”)
Now what?



Quantitative and qualitative results being integrated
Sharing of results with participants and other local district partners
Exploring opportunity to integrate CCSS support for parents via math methods coursework for
Education Specialist candidates
References
Alberti, S. (2012). Making the shifts. Educational Leadership, Educational Leadership, 70(4), 24-27.
Hagar, D. & Vaughn, S. (2013). The Common Core State Standards and reading: Interpretations and
implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 28(1), 5-16.
Konrad, M., Keesey, S., Ressa, V., Alexeeff, M., Chan, P., & Peters, M. (2014). Setting clear learning targets
to guide instruction for all students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 5(2), 76-85. doi
10.1177/1053451214536042
Mercado, E. & Britt, S. (2012). How ASCD supports the Common Core. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 7879.
McLaughlin, M. (2012) Access for all: Six principles for principals to consider in implementing CCSS for
students with disabilities. Principal, September/October. Retrieved from
http://www.naesp.org/principal-septemberoctober-2012-common-core/access-common-coreall-0
Murphy, M. & Marshall, K. (2015). Common Core preparation in special education teacher education
programs: Beginning the conversation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(3), 167-185.
Powell, S., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the Common Core
Standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 28(1), 38-48.