Special Education Teacher Preparation in ClassroomManagement: Implications for Students With Emotional

and Behavioral Disorders

Regina M. Oliver and Daniel J. ReschlyPeabody College of Vanderbilt University

ABSTRACT: Special education teachers’ skills with classroom organization and behaviormanagement affect the emergence and persistence of behavior problems as well as the success ofinclusive practice for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Adequate specialeducation teacher preparation and strong classroom organization and behavior management skillsare critical for teachers of students with EBD. Little research has been conducted to determine theextent to which special education teacher preparation programs provide teachers with adequateinstruction on classroom organization and behavior management techniques. Course syllabi from 26special education teacher preparation programs were reviewed. Results indicate a highly variableemphasis on classroom organization and management between programs. Programs tended toemphasize reactive procedures. Only 27% (n 5 7) of the university programs had an entire coursedevoted to classroom management. The remaining 73% (n 5 19) of university programs had contentrelated to behavior management dispersed within various courses. Limitations and implications forspecial education teacher preparation and inclusive practices are discussed.

& The education of students with emotionaland behavioral disorders (EBD) continues to bea great challenge, due in large part to thecomplex nature of the disorder (Reddy &Richardson, 2006; Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness,Trout, & Epstein, 2004). Children and adoles-cents with EBD exhibit a range of chronicproblems that interfere with learning thatinclude both externalizing behaviors (e.g.,classroom disruptions, aggression) and inter-nalizing behavior (e.g., anxiety, social with-drawal; Kaufman, 2005). Academic deficitsare also pervasive for students with EBD. In ameta-analysis of the academic abilities ofstudents with special needs, Reid and col-leagues (2004) found that students with EBDhad significant deficits in academic achieve-ment across academic subjects and settings.Although it is unclear whether academicdifficulties precede behavioral problems or ifbehavioral issues create academic difficulties,researchers currently believe that there is areciprocal influence of both (Kauffman, 2005;Sutherland, Lewis-Palmer, Stichter, & Morgan,

2008). Children who perform low academi-cally are at greater risk for behavioral problemsbecause inappropriate behavior typically re-sults in escape from difficult academic tasks. Acycle of negative reinforcement is created forboth the teacher and the student in which thestudent is reinforced because the demand hasbeen removed and the teacher is reinforcedbecause the student and disruptive behaviorhave been removed from the classroom. Infact, children with behavioral problems havebeen shown to receive fewer instructionalopportunities (Gunter, Denny, Jack, Shores, &Nelson, 1993). Because of the behavioralexcesses exhibited by students with EBD,teacher skills in classroom organization andbehavior management are necessary to ad-dress these challenging behaviors, attenuateacademic deficits, and support successfulinclusion efforts.

Teachers often find it more challenging tomeet the instructional demands of the class-room without the expertise and competency toaddress disruptive student behavior (Emmer &

188 / May 2010 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Stough, 2001). Poor classroom managementtypically leads to less instruction and worsestudent outcomes (Cameron, Connor, Morrison,& Jewkes, 2008; Tooke, 1997). In fact, a studyby Espin and Yell (1994) examined teacherbehavior and categorized teachers as effectiveor ineffective based on their observations. Theauthors identified an inability to manage theclassroom environment with correspondinghigh rates of discipline problems and low ratesof teacher responses to those problems as themain reasons teachers were rated as ineffective(Espin & Yell, 1994). Unfortunately, studentswith EBD are at higher risk for not receivingadequate instruction due to the disruptivebehaviors typically exhibited by these students(Gunter et al., 1993). Well-designed and imple-mented classroom management systems mightallow teachers the opportunity to increaseinstruction for students with EBD.

Beyond the issue of adequate instructionalopportunities, early intervention and treatmentfor students with EBD are essential to preventmore serious maladaptive behaviors (Greer-Chase, Rhodes, & Kellam, 2002; Kauffman,2005). The progression and malleability ofmaladaptive behaviors are affected by class-room management practices of teachers in theearly grades. Aggressive students in aggressive,disruptive classroom environments are morelikely to be aggressive in later grades (Greer-Chase et al., 2002; Kellam, Ling, Merisca,Hendricks Brown, & Ialongo, 1998; Kellam,Mayer, Rebok, & Hawkins, 1998). The long-term effect of classroom management practiceson aggressive student behavior was examinedin a randomized controlled study conducted ina large urban school district (Greer-Chase etal., 2002; Kellam, Ling, et al., 1998; Kellam,Mayer, et al., 1998). A relatively simpleprocedure, the Good Behavior Game (Barrish,Saunders, & Wolf, 1969), was taught toteachers in one afternoon of continuingeducation with a half-day follow-up a fewmonths later. Rates of disruptive and aggres-sive behaviors declined significantly in theexperimental classrooms while student en-gagement increased, and the decreased ratesof aggressive behaviors for boys persistedthrough sixth grade. This research highlightsthe importance of effective classroom man-agement practices and the need for teachers tobe adequately prepared in this area.

Adequate preparation in effective class-room management is increasingly necessaryfor special education teachers as greater

numbers of students with significant behaviorproblems are integrated into the generaleducation environment due to the highlyqualified teacher provisions and inclusivepractices mandates of No Child Left Behind(Reschly, Smartt, Oliver, & Holdheide, 2007).Special education teachers play a critical rolein the successful inclusion of these students inthree ways. First, special education teacherscan work with general education teachers onestablishing effective classroom managementplans to prevent the worsening of behavioralproblems for students at risk for EBD. Second,special education teachers can provide asupportive behavioral environment for stu-dents already in self-contained settings toteach important prosocial behavior and skillsnecessary to function in general educationsettings. Finally, special educators are increas-ingly taking the role of co-teachers to supportthe successful inclusion of students withsignificant behavior concerns.

Teacher Preparation

Inadequate general and special educationteacher preparation hinders inclusion efforts.Specifically, the inclusion of students withchallenging behavior or EBD in regular educa-tion classrooms is affected by teachers’ abilitiesto handle the disruptive behaviors typicallyexhibited by these students (Gunter et al.,1993). General education teachers who feelinadequately prepared to effectively manageclassrooms, or who report a low ability toaddress challenging behaviors, are also (a) lesswilling to implement individualized behaviorsupport plans and reinforcement strategies, (b)vary reinforcement schedules, and (c) docu-ment student progress for systematic evaluation(Baker, 2005). Consequently, behavior supportplans designed to ameliorate the challengingbehaviors exhibited by students with EBD ingeneral education settings often fail, leading toplacement in more segregated settings. Specialeducators can support general education teach-ers with effective classroom management plansand behavior management skills to provideadequate behavior support for students withchallenging behaviors in general educationsettings, thus reducing the amount of timestudents are placed in self-contained settings.

Adequate special education teacher prep-aration and strong classroom organization andbehavior management skills are critical forstudents with EBD who spend most of their

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199 May 2010 / 189

time in segregated settings (Landrum, Tankers-ley, & Kauffman, 2003; Oliver & Reschly,2007). Special education teachers are respon-sible for teaching students adequate behavior-al, social, and academic skills to be successfulin inclusive settings. However, research indi-cates that teachers of students with EBD maynot be adequately prepared, have less experi-ence, and receive less education (Billingsley,Fall, & Williams, 2006; Katsiyannis, Zhang, &Conroy, 2003). In a national longitudinalsurvey regarding the education of studentswith emotional disturbance, only 25% to 33%of students in the sample had teachers whoreported receiving at least 8 hr of in-servicetraining regarding issues related to workingwith students with disabilities (Wagner, Friend,Bursuck, Kutash, Duchnowski, et al., 2006).Moreover, only 22.9%, 30%, and 13.1% ofelementary, middle, and high school generaleducation teachers, respectively, stronglyagreed that they had been given adequatetraining (Wagner, Friend, et al., 2006). Basedon these data, it appears that many classroomteachers, in regular and special educationclassrooms, believe they are insufficientlyprepared to handle challenging behavior. Thishas implications for policy makers and teacherpreparation programs alike because of thelegal requirements regarding inclusion in theleast restrictive educational environment andaccess to the general education curriculum.

Classroom Management Practices

The various components of typical class-room management approaches have beendocumented in the literature through observa-tion studies of effective teachers and experi-mental studies, although very few experimen-tal control studies have examined classroommanagement specifically (Oliver, 2009). Earlystudies collecting observational data on effec-tive teachers found specific practices thatestablished effective classroom management.In a series of studies, Anderson and colleagues(Anderson & Evertson, 1978; Anderson, Ev-ertson, & Emmer, 1979) identified five factorsthat were associated with better classroommanagers. Teachers were identified as effec-tive classroom managers if they (a) had clearexpectations about behavior and communicat-ed them clearly; (b) explicitly taught classroomrules and routines using examples and non-examples; (c) acknowledged students for ap-propriate behavior using behavior-specific

praise; (d) provided quick, prompt responsesto inappropriate behavior before behaviorsescalated; and (e) were consistent with conse-quences to both appropriate and inappropriatebehavior.

Experimental studies have also examinedclassroom management approaches as a col-lection of specific components. Reductions indisruptive behavior have been found withpackaged interventions using antecedent strat-egies (e.g., posting of rules, teacher movement,precision requests), reinforcement strategies(e.g., token economy, mystery motivator),and consequence strategies to respond toinappropriate behavior (e.g., response cost;Di Martini-Scully, Bray, & Kehle, 2000; Kehle,Bray, Theodore, Jenson, & Clark, 2000). Thisclassroom management package of strategieshas also been used to decrease disruptivebehavior for students with EBD (Musser, Bray,Kehle, & Jenson, 2001).

In their review of the research on class-room management, Emmer and Stough (2001)found that teachers who effectively managedtheir classrooms focused on prevention ratherthan reactive approaches and explicitly taughtdesirable student behaviors. Preventive class-room management practices consist of (a)structuring the physical environment to ac-commodate traffic patterns and minimizedistractions as well as structuring instructionaltime and transitions, (b) establishing a fewpositively stated behavioral expectations thatare linked to the schoolwide plan, (c) identi-fying rules that provide behavioral examples ofthe expectations, (d) establishing routines forclassroom tasks such as turning in homework,(e) planning to actively teach the rules androutines, (f) establishing procedures to rein-force appropriate behavior, (g) using effectiveprocedures to reduce and respond to inappro-priate behavior, and (h) collecting data tomonitor student behavior and modify theclassroom management plan as needed (Em-mer & Stough, 2001; Kerr & Nelson, 2002;Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Martella, Nelson, &Marchand-Martella, 2003).

One systematic best evidence review wasconducted to identify evidence-based practic-es in classroom management in an attempt toinform research and practice (Simonsen, Fair-banks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). Re-searchers in this study initially reviewed 10classroom management texts to identify typicaltopics described within texts and systematical-ly searched to identify experimental studies

190 / May 2010 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

that addressed these topics. The researchersused criteria for evidence-based similar to theWhat Works Clearinghouse criteria to evaluatethe evidence of each practice (Simonsen et al.,2008). Results of the evaluation of 81 studiesidentified 20 general practices that met thecriteria for evidence based. These 20 generalpractices fell into five broad categories: (a)maximize structure and predictability; (b) post,teach, review, and provide feedback onexpectations; (c) actively engage students inobservable ways; (d) use a continuum ofstrategies to acknowledge appropriate behav-ior; and (e) use a continuum of strategies torespond to inappropriate behavior (Simonsenet al., 2008). A range of two to six practiceswere classified under each broad category,and the empirical studies supporting eachpractice ranged from three to eight studiesper practice. ‘‘Responding to inappropriatebehavior’’ had the highest amount of empiricalstudies, whereas ‘‘maximizing structure andpredictability’’ had the fewest (Simonsen et al.,2008). Logically, teachers should receiveadequate training on these skills prior to theirfirst day of teaching. However, to date, littleresearch has been conducted to determine towhat extent special education teacher prepa-ration programs provide instruction and super-vised practice in these areas.

The purpose of the current study was toexamine special education teacher preparationin classroom organization and behavior man-agement. A review of course syllabi from 26special education teacher preparation programswas conducted to determine if the criticalfeatures of classroom organization and behav-ior management were included in their coursesof study. An Innovation Configuration (IC) map(Hall & Hord, 2001) was developed based on areview of the classroom management literatureand applied to course syllabi to answer thefollowing questions: (a) Do special educationteacher preparation programs provide adequatetraining in classroom organization and behaviormanagement? and (b) Which components ofclassroom organization and behavior manage-ment are taught more intensely in specialeducation teacher preparation?

Method

Sample

Data collected for this study were part of alarger evaluation of institutions of higher

education (IHEs) that included both academicand behavior. For the purposes of this study,only classroom management data are reported.The sample of course syllabi was obtainedfrom a large Midwestern state. The staterecently updated its special education licen-sure requirements by removing specific en-dorsements for licensure (e.g., Learning Dis-abilities, LD, Seriously Emotionally Disturbed,SED) and moving to a cross-categorical licensein an effort to improve integration of studentswith disabilities in the general educationcurriculum. Based on the state board ofeducation’s desire to evaluate all specialeducation teacher preparation programs acrossthe state, permission and authority to solicitcourse syllabi were obtained from the stateboard of education. A letter from the stateassociate superintendent and director of spe-cial education was then sent to the deans ofthe College of Education at all 31 public andprivate IHEs. These 31 IHEs comprised theentire population of special education teacherpreparation programs located in the state. TheIHEs represented in the sample were a mixtureof public and private universities, includinglarge R1 universities. Each dean was asked tosubmit a copy of each course syllabus that wasrequired as part of the licensing requirementfor special education teacher certification attheir IHE. If necessary, a follow-up letter wassent encouraging submission of course syllabifollowed by additional reminder e-mails.

Course syllabi from 26 IHEs were ob-tained, for an overall response rate of 83.9%.Each course syllabus was reviewed for contentrelated to classroom management. If a sylla-bus had any content that could be rated on themeasurement instrument used in this study, itwas included in the sample. The rationale forrating any course containing content thatcould be scored on the IC was based on thefact that not every IHE had an entire coursedevoted to classroom management but rathercontent dispersed throughout courses. A sampleof 135 course syllabi was identified and used forthis review. Syllabi were identified as eithercourses on classroom management (n 5 7) orcourses containing content related to classroomorganization and behavior management (n 5

128). This sample included courses specific toindividualized behavior management. Syllabithat did not contain content related to classroomorganization or behavior management wereexcluded from this review (e.g., a coursesyllabus related only to reading).

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199 May 2010 / 191

Measurement

Course syllabi review was used as theprimary data collection method for two pri-mary reasons. First, course syllabi are usedwidely as important indicators of programquality in accreditation, teacher licensing,and research (Steiner & Rozen, 2004; Walsh,Glaser, Wilcox, 2006). Second, course syllabiare almost always prepared in higher educa-tion coursework, easily accessed, and anefficient reflection of course content andexperiences. Although course syllabi may notcontain all information related to actualcontent and experiences, it is a relativelystrong indicator of the scope and sequence ofa university course.

Instrument

The authors developed a rubric based onthe format of an IC (Hall & Hord, 2001) tomeasure the degree to which the essentialcomponents of classroom management arerepresented in coursework required for certifi-cation. Innovation Configurations have beenused for at least 30 years in the developmentand implementation of educational innova-tions (Hall & Hord, 2001; Hall, Loucks,Rutherford, & Newton, 1975; Hord, Ruther-ford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987; Roy &Hord, 2004). These tools were originallydeveloped by experts in a national researchcenter studying educational change and areused in the Concerns Based Adoption Model(Hall & Hord, 2001) as a professional devel-opment tool. They have also been used forprogram evaluation (Roy & Hord, 2004).

An IC identifies and describes the majorcomponents of a practice or innovation. WithICs, innovations are assessed along a contin-uum of configurations, ranging from nonuse toideal implementation practice. An instrumentparallel to an IC was developed to describe therange of implementation of teacher prepara-tion coursework related to classroom organi-zation and behavior management at variouslevels of implementation. In this case, imple-mentation refers to whether the critical com-ponents are being taught with supervisedexperience as evidenced by course syllabi.

The classroom organization and manage-ment rubric was constructed in a table listingessential components and degree of imple-mentation. Essential components of classroomorganization and behavior management werelisted in the rows of the far left column, along

with descriptors and examples to guide appli-cation of the criteria to course syllabi. Forinstance, under the essential component Ac-tive Supervision and Student Engagement werethe examples teacher scans, moves in unpre-dictable ways, and monitors student behavior;teacher uses more positive to negative teacher-student interactions; teacher provides highrates of opportunities for students to respond;and teacher uses multiple observable ways toengage students (e.g., response cards, peertutoring). The content validity of the classroomorganization and behavior management rubricis based on a review of research and practice(e.g., Simonsen et al., 2008). The essentialcomponents developed were (a) structuredenvironment, (b) active supervision and stu-dent engagement, (c) schoolwide behavioralexpectations, (d) classroom rules, (e) classroomroutines, (f) encouragement of appropriatebehavior, and (g) behavior reduction strategies.Bulleted items accompanied each componentto provide further detail regarding the definitionof each component (e.g., group contingencies).

The second dimension used in the rubricwas the degree of implementation. In the toprow, several levels of implementation weredefined, ranging from the lowest level ofimplementation to the highest level. Increasinglevels of implementation were assigned pro-gressively higher scores from 0 to 4. Each levelrequired evidence of implementation fromlower levels plus requirements for that level.Descriptors used were (0) no evidence that thecomponent is included in the course syllabi, (1)syllabi mentioned the component, (2) requiredreadings and tests and/or quizzes, (3) requiredassignments or projects for application andfinally the highest level of implementation,and (4) teaching application with feedback.

Scores to represent different levels ofimplementation were created on an ordinalscale in which a higher score indicated a morethorough implementation of an IC component.These scale points cannot, however, beinterpreted as if the intervals between thescores are equal. That is, the differencebetween 1 and 2 cannot be assumed to bethe same amount as the difference between 3and 4. Furthermore, a score of 4 indicates morethorough implementation than a score of 2, butit cannot be interpreted as twice as much ofsome quality as a score of 2. A copy of theClassroom Organization and Behavior Manage-ment IC (Oliver & Reschly, 2007) can beobtained from the primary author upon request.

192 / May 2010 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Course Syllabi Rating

Researchers were trained on the use of theIC over a 2-week period of time. The researchassistant had 11 years of experience in the fieldof education working for a state department ofeducation. The first author was a doctoralstudent in special education at the time of thestudy with 6 years of experience in educationas well as the primary developer of the IC.Prior to the syllabi review, two raters indepen-dently scored a small sample of course syllabiand discussed the scoring criteria until 100%agreement was reached. Once researcherswere trained, the IC was used to rate eachcourse syllabus related to classroom organiza-tion and behavior management.

Each course syllabus from all universitieswas rated for each component of the IC;however, the analysis of the results was atthe university syllabi level rather than individ-ual course level. Therefore, a final score oneach IC component was given to eachuniversity based on the highest rating thatwas obtained. For example, a university mighthave several courses related to behavior, andeach syllabus was rated on the IC component‘‘structured environment.’’ Individual coursesyllabus scores may have ranged from 0 to 3,but the university would receive a final scoreof 3 for that IC component based on thehighest individual course syllabus score re-ceived. Results are reported at the universitylevel of analysis. The rationale for a university-level score relates to the unit of analysis in theresearch question. That is, the state departmentof education and the researchers desired toevaluate each IHE in terms of how they werepreparing individuals enrolled in special edu-cation teacher preparation programs on class-room management content and supervisedpractice. If the purpose of the study had beento develop improvement plans for IHEs, awithin-university analysis would have been amore appropriate analysis.

Interrater Reliability

From the total 135 course syllabi thatcovered classroom management, 25% (n 5

31) were randomly selected by researchers tobe evaluated for interrater reliability. Tworaters independently scored the same syllabiat separate points in time. The secondary raterscored the syllabi in the opposite order as theprimary rater to control for observer drift. Twomethods, exact agreement and adjacent agree-

ments, were determined for reliability by thefollowing formula:

Total IC components exact points

Total IC components exact pointszmisses|100%

Exact agreements occurred when bothraters awarded the same number of points fora specific IC component. The exact agree-ments were totaled for each IC component andplaced in the numerator of the above formula.The exact agreements plus the misses weretotaled and entered as the denominator.

Adjacent number agreements were alsostudied. An adjacent number agreement oc-curred if the two raters independently rated anIC component within 1 point. For example, onthe classroom rules component of the IC, anadjacent number agreement occurred if thetwo independent ratings were within 1 point ofeach other. In a second analysis, adjacentagreements were totaled and entered in thenumerator. In the second analysis, the denom-inator was composed of the adjacent agree-ments plus the misses (2 or more points apart).Exact agreement and adjacent agreementreliability results were 86% and 97%, respec-tively. These reliability scores are sufficient forthe purposes of this research.

Results

The syllabi scores on the classroomorganization and behavior management ICwere highly variable (see Table 1). Only 27%(n 5 7) of the university special educationprograms had an entire course devoted toclassroom management. The remaining 73%(n 5 19) of university programs had contentrelated to behavior management dispersedwithin various courses or had courses specificto individual behavior management interven-tions. The highest component ratings obtainedwere for the behavior reduction strategiescomponent, in which 96% (n 5 25) of theuniversity programs received scores of either 3(thorough coverage in class) or 4 (teachingapplication with feedback). Second to behav-ior reduction strategies, 58% (n 5 15) ofuniversity programs scored either 3 or 4 onthe IC component for encouragement ofappropriate behavior. A breakdown of eachIC component by the percentage of universi-ties scoring 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 is provided inFigure 1.

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199 May 2010 / 193

Results indicated that universities providedless preparation in other components of the IC,particularly structured environment, activesupervision and student engagement, school-wide behavioral expectations, and classroomroutines. More than half of the universities’scores indicated no evidence of these compo-nents in their course syllabi. Surprisingly, theclassroom rules component of the IC wasnotably underrepresented in course syllabi aswell; more than 42% (n 5 11) of universityprograms had no courses in which the topic ofestablishing classroom rules was mentioned inany syllabus. Considering the fundamentalimportance of preventive strategies such asestablishing behavioral expectations and rules,these results are sources of significant concern.

The emphasis on behavior reductionstrategies and encouragement of appropriatebehavior found in the course syllabi reviewedmay very likely meet significant needs of manystudents with EBD in inclusive settings. Scoresindicate that special education teacher prepa-ration programs are providing content onreactive, behavior reduction procedures andsome supervised experience. However, furtheremphasis on preventive strategies such asschoolwide positive behavior supports andclassroom rules and routines likely wouldenhance successful integration of students withEBD by teaching appropriate behavior andpreventing disruptive behavior. Courseworkshould contain content in these areas as wellas supervised experience.

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

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

IC Component 0 1 2 3 4

Structured environment 54 8 8 19 12

Active supervision and student engagement 65 12 8 4 12

Schoolwide behavioral expectations 62 4 15 8 12

Classroom rules 42 0 19 27 12

Classroom routines 50 8 0 23 19

Encouragement of appropriate behavior 19 12 12 31 27

Behavior reduction strategies 0 0 4 31 65

Note. Values are rounded percentages of universities scoring at each Innovation Configuration (IC) level. 0 5 no evidence, 1 5

syllabi mentioned component, 2 5 required readings and/or test and/or quizzes, 3 5 required assignments or projects for

application, 4 5 teaching application with feedback.

194 / May 2010 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Discussion

Effective classroom organization and be-havior management are essential skills for anyteacher, particularly teachers of students withEBD and other behavioral challenges (Gunter& Denny, 1996). In general, observations inapplied, special education classroom settingsindicate poor classroom practices occurringand a lack of teacher skills in establishingenvironments that support the needs of stu-dents with behavioral challenges (Gunter etal., 1993). The purpose of the current studywas to examine one state’s preparation ofspecial education teachers in the area ofclassroom management to establish if this lackof observed effective classroom procedures isrelated to teacher preparation in the area ofclassroom management. Previous research onclassroom management indicates that effectivemanagers use preventive procedures such asclear and consistent classroom rules androutines, structured environment, and activesupervision and student engagement (Ander-son & Evertson, 1978; Espin & Yell, 1994;Simonsen et al., 2008).

To determine the level of preparation forspecial educators, an IC was developed andused to evaluate course syllabi to determinethe extent of classroom management contentand supervised practice represented in course-work required for special education teacherlicensure. Course syllabi were rated based onthe degree of implementation of essentialclassroom management components from noevidence to the highest level of implementa-tion including supervised practice. The resultssuggest a conspicuous absence of comprehen-sive, classroom management procedures incourse syllabi. More specifically, the majorityof attention in course syllabi was placed onreactive procedures to reduce inappropriatebehavior with little attention given to preven-tion strategies. These findings mirror fieldobservations in which primary classroommanagement has placed a heavy reliance onpunitive, reactive procedures (Shores, Gunter,& Jack, 1993).

Given the role of disordered behavior inidentifying students for special education, onewould expect that special educators wouldhave a higher degree of preparation andtraining on classroom organization and behav-ior management. The results from the sampleof universities in this study suggest specialeducation teachers may not be adequately

prepared to meet the behavioral needs ofdiverse learners. The most surprising result inthis study, however, was that only 7 of the 26universities had an entire course devoted toclassroom management. The majority of IHEsin this sample provided some level of class-room organization and behavior managementthroughout coursework, although the level ofdetail and quantity varied.

Whether a concentrated course with su-pervised practice is a superior training ap-proach to interspersing classroom manage-ment content throughout a number of coursesis unknown. Although it is unclear whatmethod of teaching classroom managementstrategies provides adequate teacher prepara-tion for implementation and maintenance, it isinteresting to note that other instructionaltopics (e.g., reading) often have at least onecourse devoted to the topic in preserviceteacher preparation (Smartt & Reschly, 2007).Which approach is most effective for teachingclassroom management strategies is probablyan empirical question. What is clear is that incomparison with other preservice content, thecoverage of classroom management practicesseems woefully inadequate. If these resultsfrom one large state are indicative of specialeducation teacher preparation across thecountry in general, much needs to be doneto provide special education teachers withclassroom management knowledge and skillsnecessary to establish contexts that support theacademic and behavioral needs of all studentswith behavioral challenges.

Recommendations for Future Research

One area of future research is the exam-ination of preventive classroom managementstrategies for special education teachers. Al-though there has been significant observation-al research on effective classroom manage-ment and single-subject research on individ-ualized strategies for changing behavior,there does not appear to be research-basedconsensus in the field regarding what needs tobe taught for universal classroom managementprocedures (Oliver, 2009). More research hasbeen done and more is known about the use ofindividualized approaches for students withbehavioral concerns, for example, functionalbehavioral assessments. Future research shouldexperimentally examine universal classroommanagement approaches to establish whatpractices are necessary to provide the maxi-

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199 May 2010 / 195

mum benefit and therefore what should betaught in special education teacher preparationprograms.

Another area for future research is todetermine the appropriate approach for pre-paring preservice teachers to be highly skilledand fluent with classroom organization andbehavior management principles prior to theirfirst day of teaching. Research should deter-mine whether classroom organization andbehavior management are taught most effec-tively in sections throughout the curriculum, inone concentrated course, or a combination ofthe two. Teacher reports (Baker, 2005; Siebert,2005) indicate inadequate preparation in thearea, but what is not known is the appropriateamount of content knowledge, practice, andsupport that is optimal to prepare teachers toaddress the behavioral challenges of today’sclassrooms. A greater understanding of how toadequately prepare teachers will likely ame-liorate some of the issues around teacherretention and persistence in the field.

Future research should also investigatethe preparation of general education teachersin classroom organization and behavior man-agement and how this training intersects withor parallels what special educators are beingtaught. Prevention of more serious behaviorconcerns begins in the early grades whenstudents are still involved and participating ingeneral education. Therefore, general educa-tion teachers play a significant role in thesepreventive efforts, and special educationteachers have the opportunity to work withgeneral education teachers in these efforts.Special education teachers who take part inprereferral teams can identify weaknesses inuniversal classroom management in the gen-eral education context, thereby preventingimproperly diagnosed students as behavioraldisordered. A greater understanding of wheth-er general and special educators are beingtrained with prevention of behavioral disor-ders as a focus of universal classroommanagement procedures is necessary to en-hance prevention efforts and inclusive prac-tices.

Implications for Inclusive Practices andSpecial Education Teacher Preparation

Inadequate special education teacherpreparation in classroom organization andbehavior management presents several signif-icant barriers. These results indicate possible

barriers to the inclusion of students with EBDand other disabilities in general educationsettings. Teachers who are insufficiently pre-pared in preventive classroom managementpractices may lean toward the use of morereactive procedures. The use of reactiveprocedures such as time-out and removal fromthe classroom excludes students from generaleducation and access to the general educationcurriculum. Moreover, students may be placedin more restrictive settings due to insufficientmanagement in the regular education class-room. Special education teachers who areinadequately prepared hinder inclusion effortsbecause students with EBD do not learn theskills necessary to be successful in generaleducation settings.

Second, inadequate teacher preparationmay also act as a barrier to the prevention ofbehavioral disorders. Young children withaggressive, disruptive behaviors, particularlyboys, will remain disruptive and aggressive inlater grades without preventive classroommanagement procedures (Greer-Chase et al.,2002; Kellam, Ling, et al., 1998; Kellam,Mayer, et al., 1998; van Lier, Muthen, vander Sar & Grijnen, 2004). Effective classroomorganization and behavior management canprevent the progression of maladaptive behav-iors that place children at risk for EBD.Insufficient teacher preparation in classroommanagement is a barrier to the prevention ofbehavioral disorders.

Finally, inadequate teacher preparationhinders successful early intervention andresponse-to-intervention (RTI) efforts in gen-eral education. Inclusive in the conceptuali-zation of a three-tier system of support is theassumption of strong core programs at Tier I,including classroom organization and behav-ior management. If classroom behavior isineffectively managed, indicating a weakcore program, it is more likely that largerpercentages of students will be identifiedinaccurately and referred for additional sup-port. Moreover, the success of Tier II inter-ventions will likely be hindered by poorlymanaged classroom environments that in-clude high rates of off-task behavior and lessinstructional time. Effective classroom man-agement is an essential part of successfulearly intervention and RTI systems of support.Comprehensive teacher preparation in allcomponents of classroom organization andbehavior management therefore is required atthe preservice level.

196 / May 2010 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Limitations

There are several limitations to thesefindings. First, the content validity of thecomponents of the classroom organizationand behavior management IC used to ratecourse syllabi has not been directly validatedthrough research with the IC but rather isbased on other supporting research of eachcomponent. A second limitation is whatinformation can be obtained about specialeducation teacher preparation from a reviewof course syllabi alone. Course syllabi are avalid representation of what is taught inteacher preparation programs only to theextent that the syllabi information is accurateand the content, learning activities, andexperiences are actually implemented in thecourse as described. Third, although the largepercentage of programs participating in thisresearch represents a large proportion in thestate, the generalizability of these results islimited to the IHEs with special educationteacher preparation programs participating inthis evaluation and the degree to which thesyllabi submitted were the actual syllabi usedin courses. Finally, the course syllabi re-viewed were only for required courses forthe special education license, so it is unclearhow well classroom organization and behav-ior management components are implement-ed in the preparation of general educationteachers. Although it appeared that manycourses were required in both general educa-tion and special education requirements,required courses for general education werenot studied directly.

Conclusion

As schools struggle to meet significantrequirements of inclusive practices for studentswith EBD and the educational and behavioralneeds of all students, the adequate preservicepreparation of teachers becomes critical.Federal law embraces teacher quality as acritical factor in improving achievement,prevention of learning and behavioral disor-ders, and attaining broad outcomes such asschool completion and positive early adultparticipation in education and careers (Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Act, 2002;IDEA Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct, 2004, 2006). Examination of specialeducation teacher preparation programs inclassroom organization and management in-

dicates both inadequate preservice teacherpreparation and potential barriers to inclusiveeducational practices. This has implications forschool leadership and teacher preparationprograms alike.

REFERENCESAnderson, L. M., & Evertson, C. M. (1978). Class-

room organization at the beginning of school:Two case studies. Austin, TX: Research andDevelopment Center for Teacher Education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED166193)

Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T.(1979). Dimensions in classroom managementderived from recent research. Austin, TX:Research and Development Center for TeacherEducation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-vice No. ED166193)

Baker, P. H. (2005). Managing student behavior:How ready are teachers to meet the challenge?American Secondary Education, 33, 51–64.

Barrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. (1969). Goodbehavior game: Effects of individual contingen-cies for group consequences on disruptivebehavior in a classroom. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.

Billingsley, B. S., Fall, A. M., & Williams, T. O.(2006). Who is teaching students with emotionaland behavioral disorders? A profile and com-parison to other special educators. BehavioralDisorders, 31, 252–264.

Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., &Jewkes, A. M. (2008). Effects of classroomorganization on letter-word reading in first grade.Journal of School Psychology, 46, 173–192.

Di Martini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J.(2000). A packaged intervention to reducedisruptive behaviors in general education stu-dents. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 149–156.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No ChildLeft Behind) of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107, 115 Stat.14 (2002).

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroommanagement: A critical part of educationalpsychology, with implications for teacher edu-cation. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103–112.

Espin, C. A., & Yell, M. L. (1994). Critical indicatorsof effective teaching for preservice teachers:Relationships between teaching behaviors andratings of effectiveness. Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 17, 154–169.

Greer-Chase, M., Rhodes, W. A., & Kellam, S. G.(2002). Why the prevention of aggressivedisruptive behaviors in middle school mustbegin in elementary school. The ClearingHouse, 5, 242–245.

Gunter, P., & Denny, R. (1996). Research issues andneeds regarding teacher use of classroommanagement strategies. Behavioral Disorders,22, 15–20.

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199 May 2010 / 197

Gunter, P. L., Denny, R. K., Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E.,

& Nelson, C. M. (1993). Aversive stimuli in

academic interactions between students with

serious emotional disturbance and their teach-

ers. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 265–274.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing

change: Principles, patterns and potholes. Need-

ham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., &

Newton, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the

innovation: A framework for analyzing innova-

tion adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26,

52–56.

Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall,

G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria,

VA: ASCD.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement

Act 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 34 C.F.R. 300 (2004,

2006).

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Conroy, M. A. (2003).

Availability of special education teachers:

Trends and issues. Remedial and Special Edu-

cation, 24, 246–251.

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional

and behavioral disorders of children and youth

(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W.

R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-component

intervention designed to reduce disruptive class-

room behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37,

475–481.

Kellam, S., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Hendricks Brown,

C., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level

of aggression in the first grade classroom on the

course and malleability of aggressive behavior

into middle school. Development and Psycho-

pathology, 10, 165–185.

Kellam, S. G., Mayer, L. S., Rebok, G. W., &

Hawkins, W. E. (1998). The effects of improving

achievement on aggressive behavior and im-

proving aggressive behavior on achievement

through two prevention interventions: An inves-

tigation of causal paths. In B. Dohrenwend (Ed.),

Adversity, stress, and psychpathology (pp. 486–

505). New York: Oxford Press.

Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2002). Strategies for

addressing behavior problems in the classroom

(5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Landrum, T. J., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. M.

(2003). What’s special about special education

for students with emotional and behavioral

disorders? Journal of Special Education, 37,

148–156.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior

support: A systems approach to proactive

schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional

Children, 31, 1–24.

Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella,

N. E. (2003). Managing disruptive behaviors in

the schools: A schoolwide, classroom, and

individualized social learning approach. Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W.

R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in

students with serious emotional disturbance.

School Psychology Review, 30, 294–304.

Oliver, R. M. (2009). The effects of teachers’

universal classroom management practices on

behavior: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manu-

script.

Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007, December).

NCCTQ connections paper. Improving out-

comes in general and special education: Teach-

er preparation and professional development in

effective classroom management. Washington,

DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teach-

er Quality.

Reddy, L. A., & Richardson, F. D. (2006). School-

based prevention and intervention programs for

children with emotional disturbance. Education

and Treatment of Children, 29, 379–404.

Reid, R., Gonzalez, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A.,

& Epstein, M. H. (2004). A meta-analysis of the

academic status of students with emotional/

behavioral disturbance. Journal of Special Edu-

cation, 38, 130–143.

Reschly, D., Smartt, S., Oliver, R., & Holdheide, L.

(2007). Innovation configurations to improve the

availability of highly qualified teachers for

students with disabilities and at-risk character-

istics. Washington, DC: National Comprehen-

sive Center for Teacher Quality.

Roy, P., & Hord, S. M. (2004). Innovation configu-

rations chart a measured course toward change.

Journal of Staff Development, 25, 54–58.

Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993).

Classroom management strategies: Are they

setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disor-

ders, 18, 92–102.

Siebert, C. J. (2005). Promoting preservice teacher’s

success in classroom management by leveraging

a local union’s resources: A professional devel-

opment school initiative. Education, 125,

385–392.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., &

Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in

classroom management: Considerations for re-

search to practice. Education and Treatment of

Children, 31, 351–380.

Smartt, S. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Barriers to the

preparation of highly qualified teachers in

reading (TQ Research and Policy Brief). Wash-

ington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for

Teacher Quality.

Steiner, D. M., & Rozen, S. D. (2004). Preparing

tomorrow’s teachers: An analysis of syllabi from

a sample of America’s schools of education. In

F. M. Hess, A. J. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.),

A qualified teacher in every classroom? Apprais-

ing old answers and new ideas (pp. 119–

148). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

198 / May 2010 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199

Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., &Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining the influenceof teacher behavior and classroom contexton the behavioral and academic outcomesfor students with emotional and behavioraldisorders. Journal of Special Education, 41,223–233.

Tooke, J. (1997). Middle school math teachers: Whatdo they need from preservice programs? TheClearing House, 71, 51–52.

van Lier, P. A. C., Muthen, B. O., van der Sar, R. M.,& Crijnen, A. A. M. (2004). Preventing disrup-tive behavior in elementary schoolchildren:Impact of a universal classroom-based interven-tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy, 72, 467–478.

Wagner, M., Friend, M., Bursuck, W., Kutash, K.,Duchnowski, A., Sumi, W., & Epstein, M.(2006). Educating students with emotional dis-turbances: A national perspective on schoolprograms and services. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 14, 12–30.

Walsh, K., Glaser, D. R., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006).What education schools aren’t teaching aboutreading and what elementary teachers aren’t

learning. Washington, DC: National Council onTeacher Quality.

AUTHORS’ NOTE

Preparation of this article was funded in partby the National Comprehensive Center forTeacher Quality (S283B050051). The opinionsexpressed in this article are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect thoseof the funding agency.

Address correspondence to Regina M. Oliver,Peabody #228, 230 Appleton Place, Nash-ville, TN 37203-5721; E-mail: regina.m.oliver@vanderbilt.edu.

MANUSCRIPT

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

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (3), 188–199 May 2010 / 199