Co-teaching and school reform: a case study.

Abstract

Increasingly expected to equate the Least Restrictive Environment with the general education classroom, administrators often look for service delivery models to educate students effectively in the general education classroom. This case study presents a practical look at the implementation of one service delivery model, exposing its strengths and weaknesses and suggesting ways that such a school reform effort can be successful.

Introduction

This case study examines a change initiative to include students with language-based disabilities in general education classrooms in one school system. Using the conceptual model for successful inclusion established by Hunter (1999), this study examines the initiation and implementation of the co-teaching model in the school district as it relates to educational change literature.

Co-Teaching

Co-teaching is one model that has been used to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend (1989) have defined co-teaching as "an educational approach in which general and special educators work in a co-active and coordinated fashion to jointly teach heterogeneous groups of students in educationally integrated settings" (p. 18). Teachers collaborate in planning instruction, evaluating student progress, communicating with parents, and generally work together with a group of students. Advocates assert that co-teaching is an effective way to meet the needs of a diverse group of students by reducing the student-teacher ratio, increasing instructional time, and improving a program's intensity and continuity. Since students do not lose transition time from one class to another, students can receive more instruction and become more systematically involved in classroom activities (Cook & Friend, 1995). The extra support of a special education teacher in the general education classroom can reduce stigma because students have more opportunities to participate in classroom activities and be part of the regular school community. Walther-Thomas (1997) found that this leads to " stronger support systems, family-like feelings, and a sense of community" (p. 401). Two teachers also have the potential to modify and adapt lessons as they are needed, bringing their own teacher training and strengths to the teaching partnership for the benefit of all students.

Program Implementation

Fullan (2001) has found that for a reform to be successful it requires support from central administrators and principals. In addition, teachers must have the commitment to change and good working relationships. The implementation of a co-teaching model is no different. According to Walther-Thomas, Bryant, and Land (1996), successful implementation of the co-teaching model requires communicating long-term visions, having clear expectations, and monitoring progress at the classroom level. The purpose of this study is to examine the implementation of a co-teaching model in one school district using this framework and document the successes and shortfalls of the implementation of this educational reform.

Method

Population

The R school district is located in a suburb of a Northeastern city. There are a number of self-contained special education classes at the elementary level for students with special needs in this district, including a behavioral needs class and a class students with developmental delays. In addition, the district moves students to outside placements when deemed necessary. The D elementary school has an average of three classrooms per grade (1-6). One classroom at each grade level is used to integrate students with language-based disabilities into the general education classroom using a co-teaching model. Students throughout the district are referred to these classrooms by special education teams and are bussed into the D school to attend these "cooperative classes", which have a regular educator, a special educator, and a full-time instructional aide.

Data Sources and Analysis

Surveys were distributed to nine regular education and eight special education teachers who taught in the cooperative classes. Developed specifically for this study, the survey consisted of nine open-ended questions, inquiring about background information such as degrees earned, teaching experience, and history of teaching in the co-teaching model. The teachers were also asked about their perceptions of the implementation and sustainability of the co-teaching model. In addition, two interviews (a special education teacher who has been involved in the co-teaching classes since their inception and the now former director of special services who initiated the program) were conducted to obtain the history of the change initiative.

The teachers ranged in age, teaching experience, and grade level. Some teachers were teaching when the model was implemented about 15 years ago, and are still in their same positions. Others taught in the co-teaching classrooms when they began, but are now in a traditional general education classroom. Still others are teachers who were hired when the model was already in place. Ten surveys were returned. In order to solicit honest opinions without fear of negative consequences, surveys were distributed to teachers' mailboxes without any identifying marks and teachers were instructed to return surveys to a neutral site without any indication of their identity. Data were analyzed using a typological approach (Hatch, 2002). Consistent with the first step in this approach, teacher responses were read with Hunter's (1999) seven components for successful inclusive practices in mind. Patterns and relationships were then developed within this organizational framework.

Findings

The findings in this study are organized according to Hunter's (1999) components for successful reform to inclusive practices:

1. Establish a vision and commitment. Administrators need to establish the rationale for inclusive education, which can be supported by the entire community. When the community supports a vision, it is more likely to succeed as an educational reform. In addition, teachers must be involved in establishing this vision and having a commitment for these classes to work. Fullan (2001) suggests that the beliefs of staff members are very important in implementing successful changes and that "changes in beliefs and understandings (first principles) are the foundation for achieving lasting reform" (p. 45). In other words, teachers as well as other stakeholders must believe in the reform in order for it to be successful. The R school district followed this element of successful change. The former director of special services described the clear vision administration had about what they wanted to accomplish with these classes. Teachers described how they were invited to share their own visions about these classrooms and whether or not they wanted to be a part of the new program. A number of special educators said that they were told to look for teachers who would be willing to include them in their classes. In addition, new teachers who have been hired by the town report that they were told about the type of program and were given the choice whether or not to participate.

2. Valuing teachers and providing professional development. An ongoing and sustained commitment to training of school personnel is necessary in order to keep up to date with current practices. Teachers need professional development opportunities to develop communication skills, instructional strategies, and collaborative planning (Cook & Friend, 1995). Not only is professional development important for co-teaching models, because of the necessity of collaboration, it is also necessary for regular education teachers who have not worked with special needs students before. According to Kochhar et al. (2000),

   Professional development is important to help general education
   teachers understand the needs of students with disabilities, how to
   adapt the curriculum and instruction, and how to collaborate with
   special education teachers to support students in the classroom
   followed by a long-term plan for instruction and classroom support
   based on teachers' current skills, past training efforts, and
   perceived areas of greatest needs (p. 169).

Both general and special education teachers reported that they had minimal training before or during their presence in a co-teaching classroom. One teacher said she went to a workshop on bow to run cooperative learning groups. Other than that, the only training that teachers reported was their teacher-preparation programs and "trial-by-fire" experiences. Teachers did not report any ongoing training centered on special education students in the mainstream classroom.

3. Sustained commitment to planning. District-wide planning at the initiation stage is needed to increase the chances of better support throughout the town and the longevity of the program. In her study on the benefits and drawbacks of co-teaching, Walther-Thomas (1997) found that, according to teachers, "ongoing team planning helped maintain balance and equity of co-teaching relationships and facilitated effective communication, team problem solving and progress monitoring" (p. 260). The R school district does not give co-teachers much extra planning time. Teachers report getting two days preparation before school starts at the beginning of the year to prepare new curriculum and adaptations for the classroom. Besides that, these teachers are not given any additional planning time during the school year.

4. Implement collaborative practices among school staff service providers, and families. In order to have successful inclusion, all stakeholders must be involved in decision-making, including parents, administrators, students, teachers, and other adults. According to Cook and Friend (1995), key stakeholders should be involved in the planning process through individual conferences, group meetings, or letters. They suggest that "people are more likely to accept and decide to participate in a new program or approach when they have been involved in its development at some level" (p. 15). When the co-teaching models were first implemented, there were positive promotions of the classes. Teachers frequently stated that the classes "were initially handpicked", as the principal tried to reach out to reluctant parents of regular education students to convince them of the advantages of the program and to allay their fears about the presence of students with disabilities in the classroom. Teachers also report that principals held meetings to explain what they were about, showing their commitment to the program. These meetings, however, have not occurred in approximately tour years, which has led to misinformation about the classes and prompted some negative reaction about the classes from parents of regular education students. As one teacher says, "Parents, community, (and) staff (are) not receiving enough information about what the program is."

5. Embrace differentiated, flexible instructional approaches. Teachers must be willing to share their room with another professional, make compromises and be prepared to critique their own teaching style. In order to teach daily with someone else, teachers need to be willing to be reflective on to be reflective about their own teaching and willing to adapt their teaching style. Cross and Walker-Knight (1997) suggest that "co-teaching requires significant restructuring of the traditional roles of special and general educators" (p. 275). This restructuring of roles makes it essential to have the right people working in these classes. Teachers at the D school report that their teaching style has changed because of their involvement in the coteaching model. Many teachers say they have been open to changes they have had to make to their teaching style. They report using different types of teaching methods and say they are now more aware of individual student needs and how to make adaptations. "I do much more hands-on instruction," says one teacher, "I try to use multiple modalities in every lesson. I think much more about multiple intelligences when planning lessons."

6. Providing adequate and responsible support The involvement and support of administration is necessary for a successful change initiative (Fullan, 2001). "Support, understanding, and involvement by principals often serve as pivotal factors in the lasting success of new instructional innovations" (Barth, and Pugach and Johnson as cited in Walther-Thomas et al., 1996, p. 258). Providing moral support, administration can also back up teachers in coteaching situations by defending the program's merits. Fullan (2001) also emphasizes the important role of the principal in supporting initiatives because "principals' actions serve to legitimate whether a change is to be taken seriously ... and to support teachers both psychologically and with resources" (p. 83).

The teachers at D school say that there was a lot of support from the administration in the beginning. Teachers describe administration's commitment to keeping enrollment numbers low and carefully overseeing the placement of students. Teachers also report seeing a supportive administration through meetings involving the teachers, special education administrators, and the building principal. "When I first started working in a coop class (1996) we had monthly meetings with our sped. supervisor," says one teacher, "We also used to meet with (the principal) once a month to discuss the class." Despite the cessation of these meetings, teachers still see the principal as a supporter of these classes. They do not see a continuous amount of support from central administration, however, citing the failure to control class size, not placing students appropriately and failing to give them adequate planning time.

7. Evaluating progress and outcomes In order to ensure effective change, reformers must be able to document what is to be changed and to determine if the change is working. Although many teachers at the D school were approached by the administration at the beginning of their tenure in the cooperative classes, few reported that they had been asked to evaluate the program. No formal evaluation system was reported and there is no sign that someone is looking at the effectiveness of the model. One teacher did report that administrators have asked from time to time if the model is working. Teachers cite many positive aspects of the co-teaching model, demonstrating their beliefs that the programs are achieving some of its goals. Without formal, systematic evaluations, however, there is no way of telling exactly how effective these classes are and how teachers and administrators could work to make them better.

Discussion

The R school district initiated the co-teaching model successfully. They implemented the program gradually and the people involved in initiation and implementation were believers in the theory behind the model. The reform was implemented slowly, giving teachers and the students time to get used to the changes. Teacher beliefs were considered before implementing the whole program, and administrators were supportive at the beginning of the program. There was a support system in place, which enabled teachers to seek help from principals and the special education administration. In addition, meetings were arranged between stakeholders to promote the co-teaching program.

While the classes have been able to sustain their organization and continue to operate, many of the ongoing support necessary for successful reform is not present. Teachers see the lack of support from central administration as a big obstacle in the effectiveness of these classrooms. They complain that they do not have enough time to plan, the classes are too big, and some children are not appropriately placed. Another problem in the continuation of this reform is a lack of dialogue among all stakeholders. Some teachers surveyed have suggested that there needs to be more of a consensus among the building and district staff about the concept of these cooperative classes. Such consensus would help them function more effectively.

Recommendations

In order for these classes to maximize their effectiveness for student learning, a number of things need to be done. First of all, resources such as more personnel for smaller class sizes and more planning time for teacher preparation should be made available. In addition, administration could show more support for these classes by making sure that these classrooms have the capacity to handle the students who are placed in them. The capacity of these co-teaching classes needs to be taken into account to be able to service students according to their needs. Professional development and training also needs to be increased. Such programs can include site visits to other co-teaching programs, monthly problem-solving meetings and peer coaching relationships (Walther-Thomas et al., 1996). Finally, more dialogue among stakeholders, including ongoing program evaluation, is needed.

Conclusion

Using literature in the field of educational change and special education reform, this study investigated the practical side of implementing a change initiative. This study found that initiation was successful because of the gradual implementation, teacher input, and availability of administrative support. Today, support from building administration and strong beliefs of the teachers keep the program running. The program is lacking support from central administration, with a lack of professional development training and preparation time as well as overcrowding classes and the needs of the students not being compatible with the capacity of the classrooms. The results of this study can help administrators recognize what is necessary when taking on a change initiative such as the R school district's.

Notes

I would like to thank Dr. Gerald Pine for all his help in preparing this paper for publication. From his support in class to his commitment to helping me improve this paper well after the original had been written, his encouragement and support throughout this process has been a great inspiration.

References

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 1722.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exeptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hunter, D. (1999). Systems change and the transition to inclusive systems. In M. J. Coutinho & A. C. Repp (Eds.), Inclusion: The integration of students with disabilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Kochhar, C., West, L. L., & Taymans, J. M. (2000). Successful inclusion: practical strategies for a shared responsibility (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395-407.

Walther-Thomas, C. S., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective coteaching: The keys to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 255-Cover 253.

Karyn Saxon is a PhD. Candidate and a Graduate Assistant at Boston College.