The authors trace changes in conceptions of special education teacher quality and preparation in response to developments in special education research, policy, and practice. This developmental arc is a backdrop for understanding contemporary special education practice and charting future directions for preparing special education teachers. Federal policy, and recent research on teaching and learning, and the response-to-intervention (RTI) movement require a shift in thinking about how to prepare quality special education teachers and the expertise they need to be effective. To function effectively in RTI and fulfill federal highly qualified teacher requirements, special education teachers must master an increasingly complex knowledge base and sophisticated repertoire of instructional practices. The authors contend that preservice preparation is inadequate for this purpose and that preparation for special education teaching should build upon an existing knowledge base and demonstrated competence in classroom practice.

The authors consider the future of special education personnel preparation by responding to an overarching question: What frameworks might teacher educators use as a basis to promote special education teacher effective performance now and in the future? In answering this question, they summarize current trends in the context of schooling and special education (i.e., Common Core State Standards [CCSS], multi-tiered systems of support [MTSS]) and what these contexts demand of special education teachers. The authors propose a practice-based model for fostering effective special education teacher performance. Grounded in the science of learning, the model includes approaches in teacher education that align with this literature. Implications for implementing the model are provided, which recognize current constraints on schools and colleges of education, to better promote this model for fostering effective performance.

In this article, the authors propose an agenda for special education teacher education researchers, with particular attention to policy work and studies of innovations in pre-service preparation, induction and mentoring, and professional development. Because previous research is limited and unfocused, the foundation for future research is weak, but opportunities to study questions of importance and interest are seemingly limitless. The authors discuss strategies to bolster the research foundation, namely, by oversampling special education teachers in the Schools and Staffing Survey and the Teacher Follow-Up Survey and by fostering the development of models of teacher development and related measures of teacher quality.

Teacher quality is widely recognized as influencing student achievement and success in school. In this article, we consider various approaches to the assessment of teacher quality, including process—product observational measures, evaluation checklists, professional standards, large-scale surveys, and commercially available observation systems. We present examples of each from the special education literature, consider teacher education research genres for which each is appropriate, and evaluate each using a set of criteria that incorporates both practical and technical considerations. We advocate for multimethod approaches to teacher quality research and for more research relating what teachers know and do to what students learn, and we note that a stronger link between teachers and learners would allow for more rigorous evaluations of teacher preparation.

The failure of some researchers to find improved reading comprehension with increased fluency may result from the assumption that readers automatically shift attention to comprehension when fluency is established. Research on cuing readers to a purpose in reading suggests that a simple cue about comprehension may be sufficient to prompt this attentional shift. In this study, the effects of repeated readings and attentional cues on measures of reading fluency and comprehension were examined. Thirty third graders read separate passages one, three, and seven times following cues to attend to either reading rate or meaning. After the final reading of each passage, the students retold as much of the story as they could. Fluency and proportion of story propositions retold were analyzed in repeated measures analyses of variance. Significant main effects for both repeated readings and attentional cues were obtained on both dependent measures. Thus, both fluency and comprehension increased as the number of repeated readings increased. In addition, readers cued to fluency read faster but comprehended less than those cued to comprehension. These results suggest that increasing fluency is a less efficient means of improving comprehension than presenting cues about comprehension. 129