A winning combination: collaboration in inclusion.

Abstract

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997) mandates that students with disabilities be educated with their non-disabled peers in the least restrictive environment. However, teachers often lack the practical information needed to implement programs of inclusion. This article is designed to provide a map for general and special education teachers who are teaching collaboratively or plan to co-teach. The content of this article is based on responses to the frequently asked questions of pre-service special education teachers in our certification courses.

Background

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the general education classroom must be considered by the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team as the first option for services for a student with exceptional learning needs. If a student cannot be educated in a general education placement, an explanation must be provided explaining why s/he cannot be educated in that setting, even with the addition of supplementary aids and services. Every student with a disability, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability is, therefore, a candidate for inclusion first. While not all students are eligible, many more have the right to be included than actually are. Students with mental retardation, autism, and behavior disorders can and, often, should be included as well as those with milder forms of learning disabilities.

Expectations for Students

If the IEP team decides that a student's individual needs can be met in general education classes, then that student is required to meet the core curriculum content standards for the general education program. This does not mean that s/he has to learn everything that typical students are learning. It does mean that s/he must learn a sufficient amount of the curriculum to be knowledgeable in the subject matter. Modifications to instructional methods or materials or strategies and techniques that allow the student to compensate for his or her deficit areas are often necessary to insure mastery of the material. The student with exceptional needs has an individualized program, an IEP, that identifies modifications and accommodations necessary to enable him or her to meet the demands of the class.

Students who are included primarily for reasons of social integration and social skills improvement are taught an alternate curriculum, work toward their IEP goals, and are tested for proficiency with alternate assessments such as portfolio assessment, which can include video taped performances and observational assessments. When social integration is the goal, proficiency is usually related to functional and communication skills. For example, a student with autism might be expected to greet peers with a scripted phrase or a student with severe mental retardation might be expected to work quietly on hands on activities during times when the others are doing seatwork. Proficiency might have to do with learning to read signs in the community for social studies or to make change of a dollar for mathematics instruction.

Pairing of the Teachers

In an inclusive setting, a special education and general education teacher are paired. The pairing is not always based on philosophy and/or teaching style, although it is the experience of the authors that paring people who want to work together often leads to a more positive, collaborative relationship. The quality of this partnership is positively correlated with the effectiveness of the inclusion setting. However, sometimes scheduling and other extenuating circumstances dictate pairings. Whether partners choose their teams or are assigned as a team, it is important that they prepare to work as a team before entering the class together.

Grading

In an inclusive setting, the general education teacher is ultimately responsible for grading all students in the class, including classified students. However, in sharing responsibilities, both teachers should have consistent, equal input on the grades of all students in the class. In one high school inclusion English class, both the general education teacher and special education teacher read the writing assignments of all the students in the class (Amerman & Harris, In-Class Support Team, North Plainfield High School, 2000). This does not mean that the teachers have to duplicate efforts by grading the same student work, but they may choose to do so. The actual grading of student work may be rotated or shared on condition that the system for grading and/or determining the final grades for the marking period are decided collaboratively.

A fallacy often verbalized is that special education students cannot fail inclusion classes. This is a myth. If special education students are given all accommodations and modifications delineated in their IEPs, and if those students are not placed for social benefit only, and they still do not meet minimum requirements, a low grade is acceptable. However, case managers and parents should be notified of the difficulties the student is having as early as possible. For the student who continues to perform poorly, a change of services, program or placement must be considered by reconvening the IEP team.

In addition to grades, guidance counselors and IEP team members may need frequent updates on students, especially when those students are not progressing adequately in relation to the goals on their IEPs. In the best arrangements for inclusion, both teachers are equal partners who take responsibility for the class and accountability for outcomes (Friend & Bursuck, 2002). Less desirable is the practice of the regular education teacher who submits reports for the regular educations students, while the special education teacher submits reports for classified students. If the co-teachers think of students as those who are classified and those who are not, they are creating a dual system for delivering instruction (Shepard, 1987). Inclusion, on the other hand, is designed to create a seamless instructional system that accommodates the needs of all kinds of learners while providing access to normal experiences for students who have disabilities. Students who are at risk and general education students benefit from being in an inclusion setting since their needs, too, are accommodated through the collaborative efforts of the special and general educators who differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all learners, all of the time (Weiner, 2003; Saint-Laurent et al., 1998).

Modifications

The special education teacher usually modifies instructional material, delivery of instruction, test formats, methods of testing, time limits, and class environment for the student with disabilities. But either teacher can and should implement modifications or make accommodations outlined in the student's IEP. In the best collaboration, both teachers become experts in the use of various modifications and strategies so that either teacher can implement them.

Ultimately, the special education teacher should be responsible for ensuring that the modifications delineated in the IEP are adhered to. A detailed IEP can be as long as twenty pages or more in some states. The special education teacher is responsible for keeping the IEP in a locked place, which is accessible for those who work with the student. An effective strategy is for the special education teacher to provide all teachers who work with classified students with the list of accommodations, modifications, suggestions, and individual teaching approaches for each student.

IEPs can only be implemented when professionals and paraprofessionals are provided the information that they need to do the job. Some states are now mandating that all school personnel have access to the student's IEP if they work with that student. In any case, it is important for all those working with a student to know what has to be done to support him or her throughout the day. If the student needs to learn certain strategies for academics, social interactions, or mobility, this needs to be shared. For example, if the student needs a signal to remind him or her to use the calculator, this information needs to be made available for the mathematics teacher. If the student is working on independently operating his or her wheelchair, for example, this should be shared (Shapiro & Sayers, 2003). Teachers who supervise students with behavioral/emotional disabilities in non-academic venues, such as lunch or recess, also need to be made aware of strategies for behavioral intervention. For example, a well-intentioned teacher may create an undesirable outcome by trying to discipline a student who is acting out instead of using an effective behavior management strategy delineated in the IEP, such as quickly removing the student from his environment to help him or her de-escalate. If students with exceptional learning needs are to excel, they will need the consistency of a coordinated effort in which all school personnel know what is needed, so they can implement the program as expected.

Lesson Planning

The general education teacher and special education teacher should collaborate on lesson planning. Although face-to-face meetings are most effective, schedules do not always allow extra time to plan, and some collaborative teams work via e-mail and phone calls. Usually a minimum of one hour of collaborative planning time a week should suffice, though, especially when beginning to collaborate, more time will probably be needed.

When a student is new to the program and behaviors have to be shaped for the first time, face to face or other focused meetings may be required on a more frequent basis until the behaviors are acceptable. Once teams become familiar with each other's styles and curricular demands, planning becomes less time consuming and can usually be accomplished within school hours. Administrative support can assist in this effort since common planning period is best. In the absence of a common planning period, teachers can find other arrangements to meet and plan, including working lunches and/or breakfast meetings. Some middle/high school co-teachers request a common homeroom and use the time available to plan. Other co-teachers prefer to plan via the phone or e-mail. Since most schools are equipped with computers available for teacher's uses, co-teachers may communicate information with each other throughout the day by sharing plans, messages, strategies, and ideas through the school's network.

Preparing for Inclusion

Teachers in effective inclusive classes meet regularly and share responsibilities in a way that shows flexibility and a willing spirit. Following are ten important issues identified by the authors for collaborators to review before entering the inclusive classroom:

1. Philosophy of Education The collaborative teachers should discuss their philosophies of education and feelings about inclusion before entering the inclusive classroom. Sometimes teachers are not given a choice about inclusion, and it is important for each to be able to voice his or her opinions and concerns. Just as important is for both teachers who are given the responsibility for the inclusive classroom to put their own wishes aside in order to make the program work. When teachers have differences of opinion, a discussion of why they are teachers in the first place may be necessary. "For most teachers, the incentive for working hard and giving up comfortable attitudes and practices is to know they are more successfully educating students." (Weiner, 2003, p. 15). One strategy to decrease apprehension of working in a collaborative, inclusive situation is the exchange of knowledge bases of both teachers. Misunderstandings and fear often stem from lack of knowledge and manifest itself as a negative attitude. Disability awareness and training for general education teachers is a vital component of a positive inclusive environment. "Unintentional attitudinal barriers relate to a lack of knowledge, education, understanding, or effort on the part of the educational system or staff" (Pivik, McComas, & LaFlamme, 2002, p. 102).

2. Teaching Styles Some teachers are dynamic, energized teachers; others may take a more subtle approach to teaching. Co-teachers need to discuss their preferred teaching style. If the styles are very different, the teachers need to work out a system that works for both of them. Most importantly, students often benefit when teachers have different styles that meet a variety of learning styles.

3. Classroom Management The co-teachers in an inclusive class should discuss class rules and routines before entering the classroom. The rules include the procedure for bathroom/drink breaks, hall passes, signing out materials, and other daily class routines. A class with unambiguous class routines and expectations will function more smoothly and with fewer disruptions than a class without a clear plan.

4. Behavior Management A primary area of concern in co-teaching is the issue of behavior management. Discipline and behavior management is most effective when both teachers share responsibility for disciplining all students. Most importantly, the co-teachers need to present themselves as a team to avoid students playing one teacher against the other.

5. Curriculum Content Although the special education teacher is the "learning specialist," he needs to be knowledgeable of the curriculum content. For example, before entering a British literature inclusive English class, the special education teacher can find out the novels and plays the students will be expected to read and reed them ahead of time. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be an effective inclusion teacher if only the general education teacher knows the content. If this were the case, what happens when the general education teacher is absent? In effective inclusion, the class should carry on without any interruption in course content. Recently, two special education teachers were observed near the end of the school year sitting at desks within their inclusion classes, offering no input. When questioned about their roles, both replied that they did not know the content, geometry and Spanish, respectively. The authors of this article find this attitude defeatist and ineffective. Learning content is part of the special educators responsibility.

6. Teacher's Roles and Responsibilities The roles of the collaborating teachers are as unique as the people who make up the teams. Every role and responsibility cannot be established prior to entering the inclusive class, but many can be discussed ahead of time. For example tasks such as keeping attendance, checking homework, putting class schedules on the board, and distributing and collecting materials can be worked out ahead of time. The special education teacher should not be expected to work as an aide for the class. For example, if copies need to be made while the class continues working on social studies questions, either teacher can go make the copies, while the other one continues with the questions. Confusion about teaching roles and responsibilities may cause stress and create unhealthy, ineffective situations (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 2002). The authors propose that content area teachers are "content specialists" whereas special education teachers are "learning specialists" armed with strategies, modifications, and approaches that will entice, encourage and provide clear instruction for students with exceptional learning needs.

7. Contacting Parents Some co-teachers take turns calling parents. Others feel more comfortable with the general education teacher calling the parents of the general education students and the special education teacher calling parents of the special needs students. Regardless of the way the team works this out, it is extremely important that the information discussed with parents is shared between the teachers prior to and after the contact is made.

8. Assessment, Grading, Evaluation Practices Although the primary responsibility of grading falls on the general education teacher, both teachers should have input on the grades of all students. Some high quality teams share a grade book with both teachers having access to grades. One collaborative team graded all major assignments and exams together, while taking turns grading smaller assignments and homework.

9. Planning Considerations Lack of planning time is probably one of the areas of greatest concern about co-teaching. It is important for both teachers to have input on lesson and unit planning. Both teachers need to know not only what information will be covered that day, but also how that day's lesson fits in with the unit plan.

10. Instructional methods and materials Both teachers can share the responsibility of preparing materials for lessons. For example, for a lesson on the solar system, the special education teacher may bring in toothpicks, Styrofoam balls, and other materials needed to make planets. The regular education teacher might bring in a video for an introduction to the lesson. The least desirable approach to material distribution is for general education teacher to provide materials for only the general education students, while the special education teacher provides materials for the special education students.

Final Comments

Co-teaching can be a rewarding experience when teachers work collaboratively to meet the needs and goals of every student in the class. Both teachers bring a unique set of abilities, skills, and talents to the classroom. The collaboration between prepared, willing teachers is invaluable for both the regular and special education students.

References

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L., & Dyck, N. (2002). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. (2002). Including student with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pivik, J., McComas, J., & LaFlamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 97-107.

Saint-Laurent. L., Dionne, J., Giasson, J., Royer, E., Simard, C., & Pierard, B, (1998). Academic achievement effects of an in-class service model on students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 239-253.

Shapiro, D.R., & Sayers, L.K. (2003). Who does what on the interdisciplinary team: Regarding physical education for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(6), 32-38.

Shepard, L. A. (1987). The new push for excellence: Widening the schism between regular and special Education. Exceptional Children, 53(4), 3327-329.

Weiner, H.M. (2003). Effective inclusion: Professional Development in the context of the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(6), 12-18.

Tracy Amerman, New Jersey City University Carol Fleres, New Jersey City University

Amerman is an assistant professor of special education. A former high school inclusion teacher, Dr. Amerman presently consults to school districts on various topics including transition, inclusion, and strategies instruction. Fleres is an assistant professor of special education. A former Director of Pupil Personnel Services, Dr. Fleres consults to school districts on various topics. Her interests include leadership, management, learning disabilities, behavioral management, and inclusion.