Teachers of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders’ Perceptions of the Importance of Selected Professional Standards of Practice

Abstract

Utilizing the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) standards delineated for preparation programs in teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), the present study sought to determine how graduates of one teacher preparation program perceived the importance of the standards in their work with students with EBD. Results indicated that graduates viewed the CEC standards as important to their work. Further, a multiple regression model examined specific demographic variables (i.e., total years of teaching experience, positions graduates currently held, graduates' feelings about working with students with EBD, and their feelings as to causal factors leading to EBD) as predictors for how graduates perceive the importance of using the CEC standards. Unfortunately, the regression model did not predict the graduates' perceived importance in using the CEC standards; however, graduates' years of teaching experience with students with EBD was a significant predictor for three of the standards. Keywords: emotional and behavioral disorders, Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards, teacher preparation programs In 1983, the publication of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence and Education, 1983) began a national frenzy. The report broadcasted the notion that American schools were not appropriately educating children and youth. Over the years, national reports and legislative actions have called for improvements in teacher preparation (e.g., Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008; No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2001). These landmark actions have placed pressure on Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) and their teacher preparation programs to enhance the quality of teacher preparation. Teacher preparation programs in IHEs in the United States have been criticized for (a) centering too much on pedagogy and not enough on teacher competencies or standards, (b) being detached from the realities of education settings, and (c) providing minimal field