WIXLIB

317Pugachof inclusive practice—is not given emphasis ineither the general or the special educationassessment (Pugach & Peck, 2016).Furthermore, the vision of instruction represented in the edTPA special educationassessment is limited to a narrow band of pedagogy (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Pugach &Peck, 2016), consistent with Cochran-Smithand Dudley-Marling’s (2012) identification ofconflicting philosophies of learning as onefactor contributing to the split. In addition, theedTPA does not emphasize ways to createlearning opportunities and “access points” tothe general education curriculum (Ledwell &Oyler, 2016, p. 129). The revised 2016 version of the edTPA special education assessment handbook has not altered this situationsignificantly, as it sustains a focus on the individual student in isolation, minimizing theclassroom context in which most of the education of students with disabilities takes placetoday. In Ledwell and Oyler’s (2016) inquiryinto the early effects of this assessment on thepreservice curriculum, one of the participating faculty observed that the edTPA “justseems to have very little to do with what actually happens particularly in inclusive environments” (p. 129). The development of theedTPA, then, constitutes a robust expressionof the dominance of the default position relative to the relationship between general andspecial education, and however unintentionally, is a stark reminder of the need to interrupt the default in a purposeful manner.“Minding the Gap” as a PathForwardIn Europe and in the Middle East, one oftensees a warning in train stations to “mind thegap” as you cross from the platform to thetrain. The idea of “minding the gap” seems fitting here: How might we better “mind thegap” between teacher educators in generaland special education? In this case, the gapcan be viewed as the distance between ourconventional, dualistic ways of behaving (the“default”), and ways of behaving that mightmore productively, and jointly, lead to improving the preservice curriculum and clinicalexperiences such that new teachers havegreater skills and confidence to work not onlywith students with disabilities, but to expandtheir pedagogical range for all students. Thisgap is complicated by the fact that there isvaluable expertise on the part of both generaland special educators alike that needs to bedrawn upon to solve the complex problem ofpreparing new teachers well for effectiveinclusive practice. Furthermore, teacher educators face challenges both in figuring outhow disability and diversity fit together(Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012;Pugach, Blanton, & Florian, 2012; Pugachet al., 2014; Villegas, 2012) and over whatkinds of curriculum and instruction might bestsupport an inclusive practice across the division that exists (Cochran-Smith & DudleyMarling, 2012).How might we overcome these limitationsand “mind the gap”? How might we movefrom tacit to transparent, and from incidentalto consistent, in how we work together? Howmight we more consistently push back againstthe default position? One path forward is togenerate structured, practical tools to helpinterrupt the discourse and culture of division,tools that instead have the potential to facilitate a richer discourse of inclusion in teachereducation, leading to more productive action.This is precisely where Atul Gawande’s workon checklists comes in.Gawande’s ChecklistManifesto: A Tool forMinding the GapAtul Gawande, the renowned surgeon andmedical journalist, is the author of numerousarticles and books that bring unusual clarity toa host of medically oriented issues—amongthem his 2009 book titled The Checklist Manifesto. In it, he describes the value of checklistsused by highly skilled professionals (e.g., surgeons, builders, and airplane pilots) to assure ahigher quality of practice and improved outcomes. What is striking about his descriptions,which include several vignettes about theeffectiveness of such checklists in various professional settings, is their simplicity and

318directness, as well as the fact that they havebeen effective in improving both practical outcomes and communication among high-endprofessionals—professionals who possess agreat deal of knowledge and talent. Gawande(2009) argues that checklists are “simple toolsaimed to buttress the skills of expert professionals” (p. 128). They can be most importantassuring more positive outcomes, he notes,“when expertise is not enough” (p. 31). Hemaintains thatwhen we look closely, we recognize the sameballs being dropped over and over, even bythose of great ability and determination. Weknow the patterns. We see the costs. It’s time totry something else. (p. 186, emphasis added)Checklists, he says, “remind us of the minimum necessary steps and make them explicit”(p. 36). So in operating rooms, for example,nurses and technicians might have to remindsurgeons about what should be a routine practice that could minimize infection. Checklistscan also be used to structure how meetingstake place, for example, having each participant state their concerns at the outset, givingvoice to all attending, and reducing the penchant to sit on one’s concerns, which can stifleparticipation. But according to Gawande, thedeeper purpose of a checklist is not “just ticking boxes” (p. 160). Instead, they can helpprofessionals in “embracing a culture of teamwork and discipline . . . ” (p. 160). Such asense of discipline is not particularly evidentin how we have been considering the preservice curriculum and clinical experiences relative to preparing new teachers for inclusivepractice, nor in how we are obliged to assesstheir professional learning.In our long-standing attempts to achieverobust teacher education redesign for inclusion, we have not yet found consistentanswers, the same proverbial ball has beendropped over and over with regard to the division between general and special preserviceeducation, and with few exceptions, our common patterns of discourse and practice havenot been successful in assuring a more uniformly effective preparation for general andTeacher Education and Special Education 40(4)special education teachers with regard toteaching students with disabilities. That islikely one reason why we have arrived at ateacher performance assessment that reifiesthe divide. And that is precisely why Gawande’s work seems to have relevance for thisparticular educational dilemma.In many fields, Gawande (2009) noted, wetend not to attend to failures—nor do we especially like to. “We don’t look for the patternsof our recurrent mistakes or devise and refinepotential solutions to them” (p. 185). He continues, “but we could, and that is the ultimatepoint” (p. 185). Yet, despite the fact thatchecklists can be effective in purposefullyreminding us that we have to be unambiguousabout the things we want/need to get right,their use can also engender discomfort amongprofessionals. About surgeons in particular,Gawande (2009) observed,We don’t like checklists. They can bepainstaking. They’re not much fun. But I don’tthink the issue here is mere laziness itsomehow feels beneath us to use a checklist, anembarrassment. It runs counter to deeply heldbeliefs about how the truly great among us—those we aspire to be—handle situations of highstakes and complexity. The truly great aredaring. They improvise. They do not haveprotocols and checklists. (p. 173)Faculty in the academy are likely to respondsimilarly; we are comfortable with our expertstatus and tend to be less comfortable beingput in a position where we have to engage inteamwork, share the stage, and perhaps evendisplay our need to learn something new ortake a different perspective. As a rule, those inthe academy do not much care for not beingright, for needing some kind of direction. Fundamentally, Gawande is telling us to get overit—that checklists might, just might, help.The Teacher Education forInclusion ChecklistThe Teacher Education for Inclusion Checklist, displayed in Figure 1, is designed to provide a similar kind of support to skilled teacher

319PugachBefore the Mee ng/A er the Mee ngDuring the Mee ngWho owns the work?Who owns the work?Confirm that project leadership includesappropriate, representa vestakeholdersDoes the project leadership share fullresponsibility for the ac vi es?Are “silo talk”, jargon, labeling, andsubtle blame being pointed out?What is the goal?Is the goal of the project clear andagreed on by the leadership? (i.e., goalis not to “put” special educa on into thecurriculum)How is project progress beingcommunicated?Does wri en communica on go outunder shared leadership/mul plenames?Do par cipants and leaders have atechnical site for shared, opencommunica on?Is someone tasked with mindingparticipation?Is there always more than oneperson working the checklist?Confirm that par cipants represent all appropriate and relevant exper seConfirm that all par cipants have introduced themselves and stated anyconcernsAre “silo talk”, jargon, labeling, and subtle blame being pointed out?What is the goal?Is goal of mee ng/project clear? (e.g., goal is not to “put” special educa on intothe curriculum)Is “teacher educa on for inclusion” clearly defined, taking into account the fullrange of students’ social iden ty markers?Are faculty engaged in mutual learning? About each other’s work andcommitments?How is diversity being defined?Is learning about diversi es viewed as an equal challenge across par cipants?Are students not essen alized according to single markers of social iden ty?Are connec ons across diversi es, cri cal theory, and culturally relevantteaching made?Are connec ons across diversi es limited to dispropor onality?How is learning/instruc on conceptualized?Are varied instruc onal approaches/philosophies viewed as having the poten alto coexist to meet the full range of student needs?Are instruc onal prac ces being considered across social iden ty markers?Are the limita ons of accommoda on and modifica on explored in rela onshipto the Universal Design of Learning?Is the rela onship between the exper se of general and special educato rs beingar culated clearly?Figure 1. The Teacher Education for Inclusion Checklist.education experts as the checklists Gawande(2009) is advocating. As Figure 1 indicates, it“checks up” on shared leadership andexpanded participation across general and special education. This checklist begins to makeexplicit that faculty would approach conversations about the preservice curriculum andassessments relative to preparing teachers forstudents with disabilities as more open learners, more willing listeners, with an eye towarda more complex view of diversity as well asinstruction, giving recognition to the role thedefault can play in such deliberations.While checklists have been developed tosupport inclusive practice at the PK-12 level(e.g., Federico, Herald, & Venn, 1999; Villa &Thousand, 2016), tools such as these aredesigned as resources that PK-12 school faculty, and staff have the option of accessing tohelp guide their work. In teacher education,however, such tools are rare. Gawande’s concept of the role of checklists, however, differssignificantly from how they are typicallyused; he views their implementation as essen-tial for improving practice. They are designedto make transparent what should be evident onthe part of professionals. Furthermore, hisvision is imbued with a sense of deep urgencyin terms of the need to attend to the issues andpractices any particular checklist is designedto address so that practice across professionals can be elevated to high levels of accomplishment.It is this sense of urgency, coupled with aspecific delineation of practices that continueto hold back the quality of joint work acrossteacher educators in general and special education, which provides the impetus for achecklist focused on teacher education forinclusion. The issues it represents are thosethat we may often think we have alreadymoved beyond in our deliberations, things wethink we may not have to attend to directly. Infailing to attend to these issues directly, wemay also be failing to build a solid foundationupon which to solve the more complex dilemmas of preservice practice across general andspecial education.

320How might such a checklist function withrespect to the edTPA? On one hand, as areflection of the duality between general andspecial education, the edTPA poses a dilemmafor teacher educators relative to the aspirational agenda of a more inclusive practice ofteaching. On the other hand, performanceassessments like these generate assessmentdata that can reasonably be expected to forman important source for faculty dialogue andcollaboration across teacher educators fromgeneral and special education as they work tobuild better understandings regarding practices that may be viewed as “belonging” togeneral education and those that may beviewed as “belonging” to special education.As such, the edTPA generates data that represent a useful shared text to support greaterfaculty dialogue. Disciplined by the use ofsuch a checklist, teacher educators have theopportunity to engage jointly in active interpretations of the assessment data, especiallywhere similarities exist across assessments.Examples of such similarities in educational concepts, as well as in the language ofpractice, exist across edTPA assessments ingeneral and special education and include (butare not limited to) the following: the languagedemands of particular lessons and learningtasks, the importance of monitoring studentlearning, establishing and maintaining arespectful classroom environment for learning, and drawing on students’ cultural andcommunity assets (Pugach & Peck, 2016).These constitute an initial set of issues teachereducators might investigate together, usingthis focus as an opportunity to examine relationships across the content and structure ofpreservice programs in relationship to howcandidates are responding to these aspects ofthe assessments.The goal of such a checklist, then, is not toassist teacher educators in addressing candidate preparation for successful performanceon the edTPA. Rather, its purpose is to stimulate greater inclusivity within teacher education, with the edTPA serving as an immediate,visible focal point around which teacher education faculty can come together in a morestructured way. The checklist provides a set ofTeacher Education and Special Education 40(4)transparent guiding steps that to date have notbeen made explicit, but which, if followed,might contribute to correcting conventionalteacher education practices that have oftenstymied the pressing foundational work ofprogram reform.ConclusionAlthough as teacher educators we expectour graduates to engage in professionallearning communities as they move intoPK-12 practice, we are not necessarily thatgood at doing so ourselves. Teacher education faculty typically do not function, norregularly view themselves, as members of alocal professional community of learnersacross areas of teacher education expertisefocused on the continuous improvement ofpreservice teacher education (Blanton &Pugach, 2017). When joint experiences dotake place relative to preparing teachers forinclusion, they often tend to be decontextualized within specific courses or clinicalexperiences rather than as an organic function of the preservice curriculum. Thisdynamic pertains across an array of preservice practices, including how we assesscandidates and how we use the data generated by such performance assessments toinform our work.Perhaps because it is such an apt illustration of the isolated ways teacher educatorstend to operate by default, even within a context that often reflects a philosophical inclination toward more rather than less inclusivepractice, the edTPA provides a new occasionfor faculty in teacher education to attempt toengage together in transformative programmatic dialogue. Functioning as a learningcommunity, with a straightforward set of stepsto counteract the divide, the opportunity existsto build a greater shared understanding andpractice of what it means to learn to teachfrom a more inclusive perspective. TheTeacher Education for Inclusion Checklistserves as one modest contribution toward creating a sense of urgency and professionalresponsibility to advance this crucial educational goal.

321PugachDeclaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts ofinterest with respect to the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article.FundingThe author(s) disclosed receipt of the followingfinancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Several of the ideas inthis article were first presented in a keynoteaddress, Imagining the Next Generation of TeacherEducation for Inclusion, presented at the 2016annual spring meeting of the California Council onTeacher Education (CCTE) in San Jose, California.That address was jointly funded by CCTE and theCollaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)Center, University of Florida. CEEDAR is a project of the U.S. Department of Education, Office ofSpecial Education Programs, Award No.H325A12003. Bonnie Jones and David Guardinoserve as the project officers. The views expressedherein do not necessarily represent the positions orpolicies of the U.S. Department of Education. Noofficial endorsement by the U.S. Department ofEducation of any product, commodity, service, orenterprise mentioned in this article is intended orshould be inferred.ReferencesBlanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2017). A dynamicmodel for the next generation of research onteacher education for inclusion. In L. Florian,& N. Pantić (Eds.), Teacher education for thechanging demographics of schooling: Issuesfor Research and Practice (pp. 215-228).Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Cochran-Smith, M., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2012).Diversity in teacher education and specialeducation: The issues that divide. Journal ofTeacher Education, 63, 237-244.Federico, M. A., Herald, W. G., & Venn, J. (1999).Helpful tips for successful inclusion: A checklist for educators. Teaching ExceptionalChildren, 31, 76-82.Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: Howto get things right. New York, NY: Picador.Ledwell, K., & Oyler, C. (2016). Unstandardizedresponses to a “standardized” test: The edTPAas gatekeeper and curricular change agent.Journal

A “Checklist Manifesto” for a More Inclusive Teacher Education Marleen C. Pugach1 Abstract Collaboration across teacher education in the service of a more inclusive preservice pedagogy is now taking place within a context of h