Literature Review: Barriers and Solutions for General Educators when Accommodating Students with Disabilities (SWDs) in a General Education Classroom
- Madeline Lench
- Sep 8, 2025
- 13 min read
Abstract
By law, all general educators are required to provide the required individualized education plan (IEP) and section 504 accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities (SWDs) in their general education classroom. However, most general educators do not receive the same amount of training as special educators in pre-service teacher preparation programs. Furthermore, even after graduating from preparation programs and beginning professional work in school districts, there is a lack of ongoing training and professional development offered for general educators in regards to special education. In this literature review, barriers and potential solutions for general educators wanting to effectively accommodate students with disabilities in their general education classroom are addressed.
Keywords: general educators, legal literacy, students with disabilities, special educators, teacher attitudes, co-teaching
Literature Review: Barriers and Solutions for General Educators when Accommodating Students with Disabilities (SWDs) in a General Education Classroom
General educators have a unique and important role in the school system, as they are not only responsible for teaching students within a specific grade-level, but also accommodating students with disabilities in their classroom. This requires general educators to possess an extensive amount of knowledge and skill in differentiated learning, educational laws, and characteristics of student disabilities. However, most general educators have not been properly trained in all of these areas and lack knowledge in legal literacy for special education, perceptions and understanding of disabilities, evidence-based practices, and collaboration with special education professionals. This literature review aims to answer the following guided research questions:
What are the barriers for general educators who are trying to effectively accommodate students with disabilities in their general education classroom?
What are the potential solutions for general educators who are trying to effectively accommodate students with disabilities in their general education classroom?
The Laws of Special Education
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not come to fruition until 1975, which means that for much of the United States Education history, students with disabilities were not receiving the proper attention, accommodations, and support they deserved. In fact, it was the Civil Rights Movement, specifically the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1953, that began a revolutionary thought process where citizens began to consider which children were receiving a fair and equal education. Soon after segregation was overturned in the United States public school system, due to the outcome of the Brown v. Board of Education case, “parents and advocates for students with disabilities began to use the courts in an attempt to ensure the rights of students with disabilities to a public education” (Yell & Bradley, 2024, p. 111). Decisions following the Pennsylvania Association for Retared Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania case of 1972 and the Mills vs. Board of Education case of 1972 led to students with disabilities also receiving a free public education. However, a free public education did not necessarily mean an equal education for these students.
The United States public school districts began to argue that the reason why students with disabilities were not receiving a fair and equal education compared to other students was because “(a) sufficient funds did not exist, (b) facilities were inadequate, and (c) instructional materials and adequately trained teachers were unavailable” (Yell & Bradley, 2024, p. 111). As a result, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 as part of his war on poverty in order to provide “federal funding for primary and secondary education, professional development, instructional materials, and resources” to support overall educational programming. Unfortunately, the ESEA was focused mainly on closing achievement gaps by focusing on students in poverty, not students with disabilities. Later, in 1975, the United States Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) which “provided federal financial assistance to the states to aid school districts in educating students with disabilities who were eligible for special education services under the law” and supported higher education efforts to begin programs that would train teachers specifically in working with students with disabilities (Bateman & Yell, 2019, p. 38; Yell & Bradley, 2024). Eventually, the EAHCA was renamed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Free Appropriate Public Education
When the EAHCA was passed in 1975, it was the responsibility of the state to ensure they qualified for this specific financial assistance from the federal government by submitting plans confirming that “all eligible students with disabilities would receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE)” (Bateman & Yell, 2019, p. 38). Interestingly, the definition of FAPE purposely remained unclear by Congress because they “believed it should be up to the student’s parent and school-based teams to determine what was appropriate for a student with disabilities” in his or her Individual Education Program (IEP) (Yell & Bradley, 2024, p. 115). For almost a decade, the primary responsibility of ensuring all students with disabilities received what was believed to be the most ‘appropriate’ accommodation, support, scaffolding, and transitioning for their specific disability fell directly on school districts and their educators, assuming they had all the necessary information, skills, and resources they needed to make such a decision.
It was not until the Board of Education v. Rowley case in 1982 that some of the grey area surrounding the definition of ‘appropriate’ in FAPE was erased by the United States Supreme Court who proceeded to divide FAPE into “procedural and substantive components by creating a two-part test” where judges of FAPE cases must (a) “determine whether school district personnel had adhered to the procedures required by law” and (b) “determine whether a student’s IEP was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits” (Yell & Bradley, 2024, p. 115). In 2017, the definition of FAPE was readdressed by the Supreme Court with the Endrew F. v. Douglas County Public Schools case where it was officially determined that so long as students with disabilities are making educational progress and the decisions of the educators working with students with disabilities are not confined by a one-size-fits-all regiment by the school district, then there has not been a violation of FAPE (Bateman & Yell, 2019). Another major component of IDEA and FAPE is the implementation of the least restrictive environment (LRE), “which requires that students with disabilities be educated alongside their nondisabled peers when possible” (Bateman & Yell, 2019, p. 11). This is where the role of the general educator makes its mark in the world of special education.
Responsibilities of the General Educator
Within the IDEA, there is a requirement, by law, that all students with disabilities be placed in the LRE. As a result, in the 1970s and 1980s, the “introduction of integration models marked a significant shift by placing students with disabilities into mainstream classrooms” (Sundeen & Alsarawi, 2024, p. 432). However, these models served the purpose of changing the classroom environment, rather than focusing on instructional strategies and accommodations for how students with disabilities were learning the material. Sundeen and Alsarawi (2024) offer a solution for a unified definition of LRE with the Inclusion Continuum Model (ICM), which they define as a “flexible approach that can be used to make insightful placement decisions to include students with disabilities by working within multiple levels and specific elements” (p. 438). The only way for this model to truly be effective is for all stakeholders including school administration, general educators, and parents to be in full support and participation of the model. Since “general education teachers work with numerous at-risk students each year,” it is of the utmost importance that they understand their role in special education (Bateman & Yell, 2019, p. 193).
A more common approach in the current public school system for addressing LRE requirements is the implementation of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Similar to ICM, MTSS is a “response to intervention…[and] a decision-making framework of evidence-based practices in instruction and assessment that addresses the needs of all students” (Bateman & Yell, 2019, p. 196). More specifically, Choi et al. (2024) suggest that schools begin to implement an equity-based model of MTSS, which enhances “the implementation of the tiered instructional system with four additional domains (i.e., administrative leadership, integrated educational framework, family and community engagement, and inclusive policy structure and practice)” (p. 2). Whether MTSS or equity-based MTSS is utilized in the public school system, the general educator holds a primary role in the implementation of these levels of support as research shows that the majority of students with disabilities spend more than 80% of their time in the general education classroom (Choi et al., 2024).
Beyond following the MTSS protocol, general educators are expected to provide differentiated instruction for all students, including those with disabilities. While MTSS requires general educators to adhere to targeted interventions, such as accommodations listed in a student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), differentiated instruction requires general educators to focus on how instruction is delivered through various instruction strategies. In fact, Bateman and Yell (2019) go so far as to argue that general education is a place, while special education is a service, stating that “the general education classroom and curriculum is at the core of all special education programs developed for students with disabilities, and the goal of special education is to teach the students skills and provide supports so they no longer require special education” (p. 195). Therefore, general educators are responsible for entering the field with the following skills and knowledge, (a) “understand[ing] data and how to use data to make instructional decisions,” (b) “understand[ing] [their] role in the development and implementation of functional behavior assessment and PBIS,” and (c) “understanding [their] role in the special education process” (i.e. IEP implementation, MTSS implementation, and differentiated instruction) (Bateman & Yell, 2019, p. 195).
Identifying the Issue
Barriers to Implementation
According to Anderson et al. (2022), while “there is a substantial research base of effective strategies for teaching learners with developmental disabilities in inclusive settings,” general educators continue to feel unprepared to implement such practices and believe there are many barriers keeping them from confidently accommodating to the needs of students with disabilities (p. 10). Some of these barriers include the need for “training in evidence-based practices, knowledge of specific disabilities, skill in designing and implementing classroom-based instruction for students based on individual needs and learning interests, improved pre-service training in inclusive practices, and collaboration with other professionals” (Anderson et al., 2022, p. 9). Furthermore, general educators lack proper knowledge and understanding of legal literacy in special education which hinders their ability to practice true and proper inclusive strategies in the classroom (Ricks, 2023). Both researchers found that when schools are willing to provide targeted professional development training for general educators in understanding special education laws, identifying specific disabilities and their characteristics, and implementing effective evidence-based practices and instructional strategies, general educators will not only improve general educators’ self-efficacy, but also shape their attitudes toward inclusiveness (Anderson et al, 2022; Ricks, 2023).
Teacher Attitudes and Self-Efficacy
Bateman and Yell (2019) argue that since the passing of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002, which has increased the demands for schools and educators to improve student test scores across the United States Public School Systems, general educators have displayed negative attitudes toward working with students with disabilities in their classrooms due to the pressure of having to meet very specific expectations for state scores. While one solution for this negative perspective toward inclusion is for general educators and special education professionals to partner together in a close, almost co-teaching scenario, the separation of pre-service training in these fields has resulted in “general and special education teachers having little understanding of each other's roles,” creating a barrier for inclusion (Kroesch & Peeples, 2021, p. 27).
Moreover, Colson et al. (2021) found that even when participating in co-teaching scenarios, general educators continued to lack self-efficacy in their ability to implement effective instructional strategies to support students with disabilities in their classroom. It is believed that this lack of self-efficacy is due, in part, to insufficient pre-service teacher training because, typically, “general education teacher preparation emphasizes content mastery,” while special education programs prepare teachers to “identify learning differences and provide accommodations” (Colson et al., 2021, p. 21). Both researchers found, however, that this lack of pre-service training can be improved upon with intentional and consistent professional development emphasizing co-teaching strategies for general educators and special education professionals to work together as a unit, relying on each other’s strengths to implement effective evidence-based instructional practices for all students (Colson et al., 2021; Kroesch & Peeples, 2021).
Trending Solutions
Professional Development and Teacher Preparation
Changing Perceptions
The first step in preparing general educators to apply accommodations successfully and improve their self-efficacy when implementing evidence-based instructional practices for students with disabilities in their general education classroom is by changing their perception of ‘disability’. Bialka et al. (2024) discuss the importance of recognizing ‘disability,’ not as a human deficit but simply as a human difference. According to their study, pre-service teacher programs tend to rely on the medical model to teach about students with disabilities, rather than emphasizing the social model of disability. Essentially, the medical model “assumes that the disability is a fixed condition requiring intervention, and people with disabilities must adapt to society,” whereas the social model of disability “shifts the focus of disability from the person to the environment… by highlighting…how attitudes surrounding disability prevent disabled people from full participation in society” (Bialka et al., 2024, p. 3). Furthermore, according to their study, Bialka et al. (2024) found that if teachers have not been given the opportunity to “consider their biases, especially related to the medical model training they may have received,” it is likely that their biases will continue to present a barrier to their overall effectiveness of accommodating students with disabilities in the general education classroom (p. 13).
Similarly, after conducting a study to investigate the perspectives of special educators and analyze what they believe would be important to teach general educators about special education, Byrd and Alexander (2020) discovered that special educators, statistically, possess more empathy for their students, which contributed to their overall effectiveness in accommodating students with disabilities. They propose that by building upon general educators’ understanding of student disabilities, including family situations and environmental factors, they will begin to express more compassion toward the student and, therefore, be able to work with them more successfully. However, it must be noted that simply changing educators’ perspectives of inclusion and building positive, empathetic attitudes will not always translate into effective teaching practices (Goddard et al., 2022).
Pre-Service and New Teacher Training
Goddard et al. (2022) conducted a thematic literature review examining the correlation between evidence-based practices and inclusion, discovering that “many educators continue to use preferred practices that have little or no evidence to support their effectiveness (p. 9). The lack of evidence-based practices being successfully implemented in classrooms, today, is a result of poor teacher preparation programs and a lack of collaboration between general educators and special education specialists (Goddard et al., 2022; Harkins-Brown et al., 2024). In fact, according to their study on the effects of administering competency-based approaches to prepare general educators for working with students with disabilities, Harkins-Brown et al. (2024) found that “even fully certificated and qualified special education teachers can be unprepared for district expectations” and that interventions at both the pre-service teacher training level and within school districts is necessary to fill this gap (p. 15). Moreover, their research revealed that viewing “general educators and special educators as separate or binary issues” risks further division, which is why collaboration among general educators and special educators, even at the pre-service stage is essential to ensuring students with disabilities will be fully and successfully accommodated (Harkins-Brown et al., 2024, p. 17).
Co-Teaching
While co-teaching has been proven to enhance collaboration and professional satisfaction (Chatzigeorgiadou & Barouta, 2021), its overall effectiveness has also been debated (Qualls et al., 2025). Research shows that general educators tend to have a more negative attitude toward co-teaching than special educators because, typically, the responsibility for planning, instruction, and overall decision-making within the classroom falls solely on the general educator; whereas the special educator tends to take on more of a paraprofessional-type of role (Chatzigeorgiadou & Barouta, 2021; Johnson et al., 2022). However, when implemented appropriately, co-teaching methods were proven to significantly enhance instructional effectiveness and student outcomes, as well as limit labeling and biased perspectives of students with disabilities (Jortveit & Kovač, 2021; Qualls et al., 2025).
The key to successful and appropriate co-teaching methodology, according to Jortveit and Kovač (2025) relies on “collaborative harmony…characterised by experiences of transparency, honesty and appreciation of constructive feedback,” (p. 296) as well as ensuring that “neither professional is treated as an assistant for the other” (p. 295). Both the general educator and the special educator come prepared with their own unique skills, knowledge, and understanding of how students learn. Only when general educators and special educators are able to recognize each other’s strengths and use them collaboratively, will they be able to co-teach appropriately and effectively accommodate all students.
Conclusion
This literature review examined the barriers, and potential solutions, for general educators and their ability to effectively accommodate students with disabilities in their general education classroom. By law, general educators are expected to successfully follow IEP and section 504 accommodations and modifications for all students with disabilities in their classroom. However, research shows that general educators do not, typically, receive the same amount of training in these areas as special educators, creating a barrier for effective implementation. Specifically, general educators require further training and professional development in legal literacy for special education, perceptions and understanding of disabilities, evidence-based practices, and collaboration with special education professionals. Furthermore, additional research is required to examine pre-service teacher preparation programs, as well as new teacher orientation programs, to assess how higher education institutions and school districts are training and supporting general educators in successfully accommodating students with disabilities.
References
Anderson, E. J., Brock, M. E., & Shawbitz, K. N. (2022). Philosophical perspectives and practical considerations for the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities. Education Sciences, 12(7), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070478
Bateman, D. F., & Yell, M. L. (2019). Current trends and legal issues in special education. Corwin.
Bialka, C. S., Hansen, N., Kan, I. P., Mackintosh, D., & Jacobson, R. (2024). From deficit to difference: Understanding the relationship between K-12 teacher training and disability discussion. AERA Open, 10(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241245089
Byrd, D. R., & Alexander, M. (2020). Investigating special education teachers' knowledge and skills: Preparing general teacher preparation for professional development. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(2), 72-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2020059790
Chatzigeorgiadou, S., & Barouta, A. (2022). General and special early childhood educators' attitudes towards co-teaching as a means for inclusive practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(8), 1407-1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01269-z
Choi, J. H., Miller, D. D., & McCart, A. B. (2024). Outcomes of equity-based multi-tiered system of support and instructional decision-making for autistic students. Education Sciences, 14(7), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070708
Colson, T., Xiang, Y., & Smothers, M. (2021). How professional development in co-teaching impacts self-efficacy among rural high school teachers. The Rural Educator, 42(1), 20-31. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/how-professional-development-co-teaching-impacts/docview/2563494900/se-2
Goddard, Y. L., Ammirante, L., & Jin, N. (2023). A thematic review of current literature examining evidence-based practices and inclusion. Education Sciences, 13(38), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010038
Harkins-Brown, A. R., Gillon, N., & Schanbacher, A. (2024). Results of a competency-based approach to prepare general educators to effectively include students with disabilities. Education Sciences, 14(5), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050475
Johnson, T. M., King-Sears, M. E., & Miller, A. D. (2022). High school co-teaching partners' self-efficacy, personal compatibility, and active involvement in instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(2), 96-107. https://doi.org/0.1177/0731948720919811
Jortveit, M., & Kovač, V. B. (2022). Co-teaching that works: Special and general educators' perspectives on collaboration. Teaching Education, 33(3), 286-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2021.1895105
Kroesch, A. M., & Peeples, K. N. (2021). High school general education teachers' perceptions of students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings. Research, Advocacy, and Practice for Complex and Chronic Conditions, 40(1), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.14434/rapcc.v40i1.31756
Qualls, L. W., Irgens, G. A., & Hirsch, S. E. (2025). Co-teaching as a dynamic system to support students with disabilities: A case study. Education Sciences, 15(6), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060733
Ricks, B. (2023). Navigating special education systems: Legal literacy in general education teachers [Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Sacramento]. ProQuest Education. https://www.proquest.com/education/docview/2840924045/8C7E2E381DAD4E50PQ/3?accountid=12085&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
Sundeen, T. H., & Alsarawi, A. (2024). Framing the least restrictive environment: The inclusion continuum model. Interchange, 55(4), 429-458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09527-w
Yell, M. L., & Bradley, M. R. (2024). Why we have special education law: Legal challenges to the IDEA. Exceptionality, 32(2), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2024.2301820
Comments