If we say we want welcoming classrooms for students with exceptionalities, why do we continue to prepare teachers in isolation?

Welcoming learning environments are not created through policy language alone. They are built through preparation, practice and systems that intentionally equip educators to meet the needs of all learners. In special education, this preparation is especially critical. Yet across the country, teacher preparation programs continue to separate general education and special education training, reinforcing barriers that directly impact students with exceptionalities once teachers enter the classroom.

Despite decades of research, legislation and advocacy supporting access and equity for students with disabilities, teacher preparation remains largely divided.^{(See disclaimer 1)} General education candidates often complete only one or two courses in special education, which are often positioned as supplemental rather than foundational.^{(See disclaimer 2)} Special education candidates, meanwhile, receive extensive training that is rarely mirrored or shared with their general education peers. This segregated coursework structure unintentionally sustains what is described as a biased and deficit-oriented curriculum.^{(See disclaimer 1)}

This separation sends powerful, unintended messages:

• Students with disabilities are primarily the responsibility of special education staff
• General education classrooms are not designed with learner variability in mind
• Collaboration is optional rather than essential

Research confirms these concerns — one source found that maintaining separate preparation tracks creates systemic barriers to welcoming practice,^{(See disclaimer 3)} while another found that, even when inclusion is the stated policy goal, pre-service and novice general education teachers continue to view disabilities as inherently limiting.^{(See disclaimer 4)} As a special education leader, I have seen the consequences of this structure play out repeatedly. New teachers often enter the profession well-intentioned but underprepared to support students with exceptionalities in general education settings. They want to help, but they lack the tools, shared language and confidence to do so effectively.

When teachers are prepared in silos, welcoming practices remain theoretical rather than lived. We cannot reasonably expect educators to create supportive, accessible classrooms when they have never experienced that model in their own professional training.

Welcoming classrooms are characterized by intentional design, proactive planning and responsive instruction that anticipates learner variability from the outset. In practice, this means classrooms where a fourth-grade teacher naturally incorporates multiple means of representation when introducing fractions, using visual models, manipulatives and digital simulations simultaneously, not as accommodations for specific students, but as standard instructional design.

Consider a middle school science classroom where the teacher plans lessons using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. Students engage with content through various entry points: some read traditional texts, others watch video explanations and still others explore interactive simulations. Assessment options include written reports, oral presentations or multimedia projects. This flexibility benefits all students while ensuring that learners with exceptionalities can demonstrate understanding without constant modifications.^{(See disclaimer 5)}

In welcoming classrooms, co-teaching is not viewed as a special education accommodation but as an instructional model that strengthens learning for everyone. General and special education teachers collaboratively plan units, share instructional responsibility, and fluidly group students based on learning needs rather than disability labels. Students with individualized education programs receive support seamlessly integrated into classroom routines, not isolated interventions that signal difference. 

These practices do not emerge spontaneously. They require teachers who have been explicitly prepared to design instruction with access and flexibility as foundational principles, not retrofitted additions.^{(See disclaimer 6)}

Welcoming classrooms are not the responsibility of a single department. They are the result of coordinated systems that shape curriculum, instruction, assessment and school culture. When support for students with disabilities is treated as specialized knowledge rather than shared professional practice, schools unintentionally reinforce dependency on pull-out services and fragmented supports.

In my work as a district-level leader, I have observed how this disconnect directly impacts students. I have watched students with individualized education programs struggle in classrooms where instruction was not designed with flexibility or access in mind, not because teachers did not care, but because they were never taught how to plan for learner variability from the start.

Conversely, in schools where educators shared a common foundation in special education principles, collaboration felt natural. Instructional decisions were proactive rather than reactive, and students experienced greater consistency across settings. The difference was not resources it was preparation.

Growing evidence demonstrates that integrated teacher preparation yields stronger outcomes for both educators and students.^{(See disclaimer 7)} A Harvard study found that when general and special education teacher candidates participate in shared coursework and clinical experiences, they develop more sophisticated understandings of differentiation, assessment and collaborative practice.^{(See disclaimer 7)} These teachers enter the profession better equipped to support diverse learners and report greater confidence in their instructional decision-making.

Research also reveals that unified preparation programs can help teachers move beyond compliance-based thinking and toward genuine welcoming pedagogy.^{(See disclaimer 6)} Rather than viewing accommodations as add-ons for specific students, teachers prepared in integrated programs design instruction with built-in flexibility and multiple pathways to learning. This shift fundamentally changes classroom culture, creating environments where all students benefit from responsive, differentiated instruction. 

Effective teacher preparation requires more than adding disability-related content to existing courses.^{(See disclaimer 8)} Meaningful change demands restructured programs where special education principles are woven throughout coursework, clinical experiences mirror collaborative practice and all faculty, regardless of specialization, model welcoming approaches. When preparation programs embody these principles, graduates enter classrooms ready to implement them.

Meaningfully addressing this issue requires looking beyond individual teachers and examining the systems that shape their development. Welcoming practices must be modeled from the very beginning of teacher preparation and reinforced throughout an educator’s career.

Effective approaches include:

• Co-taught preparation courses where general and special education faculty collaboratively design and deliver instruction.
• Shared clinical placements that reflect hands-on collaboration rather than isolated student teaching experiences.
• Unified professional language focused on access, supports and instructional design.
• Professional learning structures that mirror supportive classroom environments rather than reinforce separate tracks.

These approaches do not add more requirements to already demanding programs. Instead, they redesign preparation so that access and support are foundational rather than retrofitted.

One of the most impactful changes I have seen involved restructuring professional learning for new teachers so that special education strategies were embedded into instructional planning conversations not presented as an add-on and with general education teachers. Teachers reported feeling more confident, less overwhelmed and better equipped to meet student needs early in the year, before challenges escalated.

How we prepare educators reflects what and whom we value. When teacher preparation programs intentionally co-lead or facilitate to center students with exceptionalities, teachers enter the profession ready to design classrooms that are welcoming, flexible and responsive from day one.

This preparation is especially important for those pursuing leadership roles in special education. Leaders must understand not only compliance and service delivery, but also how preparation systems influence practice at every level.

Doctoral programs in special education play a critical role in this work. They prepare educators to examine systems, challenge long-standing structures and lead change grounded in research and reflective practice. Through advanced coursework, applied leadership experiences and research-focused inquiry, doctoral candidates develop the skills necessary to advocate for preparation models that truly support students with exceptionalities. 

Grand Canyon University's doctoral programs in special education are designed for current and aspiring educators who want to lead meaningful change. These programs emphasize leadership, research and systems-level thinking, designed to prepare graduates to address gaps in teacher preparation and improve outcomes for students with disabilities. 

By focusing on evidence-based practices, collaboration and reflective leadership, GCU can equip educators to move beyond compliance and toward classrooms that are genuinely welcoming and responsive to all learners. For educators committed to strengthening special education practice, improving teacher preparation and leading with purpose, advanced study in an EdD in Organizational Leadership: Special Education degree can be a powerful next step.