The role of teacher collaboration in school reform.

In the past, special education and general education operated for the most part as two separate, autonomous fields. The passage of Public Law 94-142 (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) ushered in a new era for public education. A burgeoning number of students with disabilities now receive at least a portion of their instruction alongside students without disabilities and in regular classrooms (Gable & Hendrickson, 1993). Today, most educators believe that "pull-out" special education programs do not benefit all students with disabilities (e.g., Gable, 1994). General and special classroom teachers and administrative personnel are being cast in unfamiliar roles as schools struggle to address the needs of an increasingly diverse population of school-age children.

A change in the educational placement of students with disabilities poses a special challenge to teachers who lack adequate preparation to instruct these students. Teacher collaboration is one way to positively meet that challenge. The authors will examine the process of teacher collaboration, various collaborative arrangements and the tools necessary for successful collaboration. They also offer a few thoughts on the future of both school change and teacher collaboration.

The Call for School Change

Throughout the 1980s, a succession of reports called for public schools to redefine not only their structure, but also their culture. While demands for school reform are not new, most previous efforts addressed one education initiative at a time, whether curriculum, student equity, instructional alternatives or academic excellence. These initiatives primarily called for "quick fixes" rather than comprehensive changes in the education system (Lieberman, 1992). Furthermore, these plans often failed to involve teachers, which doomed the efforts from the start or, at the least, diminished their potential for success.

The impetus for current education reform stems from several sources - dwindling funds, concern about the quality of education and the call for improving learners' outcomes (Lewis, 1993). Critics contend that schools can no longer rely on traditional administrative structures (Bauwens, Hourcade & Friend, 1989) or adhere to a traditional "factory model" of public education (Lugg & Boyd, 1993). They further assert that real education reform requires teachers' direct involvement (Lieberman, 1992).

Indeed, the clamor for better responsiveness to learners' needs and for improvements in both student conduct and academic achievement coincides with a rise in shared decision-making among professionals. Involving teachers as "stakeholders" in school change efforts, as well as making teachers accountable for specific outcomes, increases the likelihood of successful reform. It follows that teacher collaboration is a viable option for addressing the problems that have undermined prior reform efforts.

The Process of Collaboration

A succession of reports criticizing public education over the past decade have fueled significant changes in the public education system. Notwithstanding the weight of other reform initiatives (e.g., authentic assessment, whole language instruction, mastery learning, integrated curriculum, site-based management), some authorities assert that the teacher collaboration movement has emerged as a contemporary Zeitgeist (Cook & Friend, 1991; Teig, Bailey, Arllen & Gable, 1994).

In a school context, collaboration is the direct interaction between at least two equal parties who voluntarily engage in shared decision-making as they work toward a common goal (Cook & Friend, 1991). Teachers may find collaboration to be a better way to serve a diverse group of students (Gable, Friend, Laycock & Hendrickson, 1990).

Collaboration emphasizes team decision-making (Bauwens et al., 1989) and requires participants to share in the process of setting goals and implementing plans (Bauwens et al., 1989; Brookhart & Loadman, 1990; Cook & Friend, 1991; Lasley, Matczynski & Williams, 1992). Teacher collaboration is predicated on voluntary participation, mutual respect, parity among participants, a shared sense of responsibility and accountability, and an equitable distribution of available resources (Cook & Friend, 1991).

Professional collaboration has several distinct advantages over conventional education approaches. First, the shared planning and goal setting process helps the participants gain ownership of the instructional process and establish mutually satisfactory goals; therefore, each party feels equally responsible for ensuring a positive outcome (Brookhart & Loadman, 1990). Collaboration encourages individuals to share goals and objectives, and to sublimate their own interests for the greater good (e.g., Lasley, Matczynski & Williams, 1992). Second, collaboration allows participants to learn from one another and to establish long-lasting and trusting professional relationships (e.g., Lieberman, 1992). Teachers benefit from exposure to others' diverse philosophies, training and experience; the stimulation of new ideas and the increased communication among professionals at all levels (e.g., Brookhart & Loadman, 1990). Third, collaboration gives teachers an opportunity to work together to bring about school change.

Teacher collaboration is consonant with school change in several ways. It includes a number of participants and requires a deliberate shift from schools' hierarchical and authoritarian structures, so that all individuals consider themselves integral to the change process. Collaboration, because it is predicated on equality, leads to a sense of collegiality. It also encourages a climate that is amenable to new perspectives and attitudes. Consequently, teachers become stakeholders in the process of school change, achieve a degree of ownership and consider themselves accountable for achieving the specified goals. Finally, educators can extend this spirit of collaboration beyond school boundaries to alliances with community organizations and social service agencies, leading to numerous benefits.

Collaborative Arrangements

Many consider collaboration among general and special educators to be the primary means of assistance and support for students with special needs and their teachers. Popular forms of teacher collaboration can include school-wide collaboration (e.g., all faculty/staff are involved in student dismissal or cafeteria supervision), grade-level collaboration (e.g., 2nd-grade teachers paired with a reading specialist or learning disabilities resource teacher), subject-area collaboration (e.g., teachers dividing aspects of the curriculum), and multi-classroom, "cluster," collaboration (e.g., three 3rd-grade teachers who are located in the same building wing).

Indirect collaboration. Professional collaboration can be either an "indirect" or "direct" instruction option. Indirect collaboration generally takes place before school, after school or during a common teacher planning period. Teachers and other faculty members meet to discuss the learning and / or behavioral problems of a particular student or students. A Teacher Assistance Team (TAT), for example, may consist of three experienced teachers who first solicit information from a referring teacher and then help that teacher devise an instructional plan (Chalfant & Pych, 1989). They can explore reasons for a problem and then brainstorm feasible program accommodations (e.g., classroom organization, curricular or instructional modifications).

Intervention assistance and mainstream assistance are two other popular and effective versions of indirect collaboration (see Fuchs, Fuchs & Bahr, 1990; Idol, Paulucci-Whitcomb & Nevin, 1986; Laycock, Gable & Korinek, 1991). Intervention assistance usually begins as a dyadic problem-solving exchange between the referring teacher and the team leader, and later may shift, if needed, to an interdisciplinary team of five to seven people. Mainstream assistance, on the other hand, is a consultant/consultee interaction that follows a fixed sequence and relies heavily on the principles of applied behavior analysis (Fuchs et al., 1990). A more complete discussion of these and other indirect forms of collaboration can be found in Chalfant and Pych (1989), Cook and Friend (1991), Fuchs et al. (1990), Gable, Korinek and McLaughlin (1997), and Laycock et al. (1991).

Direct collaboration. Cooperative teaching, the most prevalent form of direct collaboration, brings two teachers together to share equal responsibility for planning and instructing a heterogeneous group of students in the regular classroom (Bauwens et al., 1989; Cook & Friend, 1991). Teachers choose from a variety of cooperative teaching options, ranging from shadow teaching to team teaching (see Table 1 for a list of co-teaching options). Selection of a co-teaching arrangement normally hinges on the following criteria: 1) the participants' prior training and experience with co-teaching, 2) the students' needs, 3) the amount of available planning time, 4) the teachers' common knowledge of the subject matter and 5) the nature of the relationship between the teaching partners (Gable et al., 1997; Pugach & Johnson, 1995).

The tools of accommodation. Another important aspect of collaboration concerns the tools of accommodation, referring to a growing list of effective strategies for responding to the individual needs of students with disabilities in the regular classroom (see Choate, 1993). As illustrated in Table 2, various group-individualized strategies can be combined with selected cooperative teaching arrangements to accommodate a diverse group of students. General agreement exists that classroom accommodation is more easily accomplished at the elementary level, where the emphasis is on basic skill development. Instruction relates to a sequence of content objectives that can be modified without disrupting the course of a lesson. Regardless of the strategy, teachers should remember the old adage, "Good teaching is good teaching," which is equally applicable to students with and without disabilities.

The challenge of collaboration. Teachers may have legitimate reasons to resist collaboration, given its demands (Gable et al., 1997). The variety of indirect and direct collaborative options, however, allow elementary level teachers to choose a comfortable level of involvement. Many teachers are reassured by research that demonstrates how both students with and without disabilities can benefit from teacher collaboration (Teig et al., 1994). Furthermore, many veteran teachers confirm the "multiplier effects" of collaboration - the extent to which a strategy devised for one student is useful with another. It is not surprising that few teachers who experiment with a collaborative relationship voluntarily return to solitary instruction.

Conclusion

The time appears ripe for significant policy shifts as school change advocates call for massive restructuring and a systemic redesign, rather than merely improving the existing system (Lugg & Boyd, 1993). These shifts are likely to significantly affect teachers and administrators, their counterparts in other public agencies and policymakers at all levels (Lewis, 1992). A sense of shared decision-making will be critical to the change movement.

Teachers in all grade levels and disciplines will need to work cooperatively with colleagues and representatives from other professional disciplines (e.g., school psychologists, guidance counselors, speech and hearing therapists). Understand that teacher collaboration takes time and is only one in a range of instructional options; collaboration is not a panacea for all school problems (Cook & Friend, 1991). Even so, collaboration holds great promise for addressing many of educators' and the public's demands for fundamental change in the schools, as well as creating a climate in which all students can become successful learners.

Table 1

COOPERATIVE TEACHING OPTIONS

* Shadow Teaching

General educator is primarily responsible for teaching specific subject matter, while the special educator works directly with one or two target students on academics and/or behavior

* One Teach/One Assist

General educator is primarily responsible for teaching specific subject matter, while the special educator circulates around the classroom and offers individual students assistance

* Station Teaching

General educator and special educator teach different subject matter to subgroups of students, who rotate among the learning stations

* Complementary Teaching

General educator is primarily responsible for teaching specific subject matter, while the special educator assumes responsibility for teaching associated academic skills (e.g., note taking, test taking) or school survival skills (e.g., sharing, self-control)

* Parallel Teaching

General educator and special educator divide the class into two smaller groups to provide more individualized instruction 

* Supplementary Teaching Activities

General educator is primarily responsible for teaching specific subject matter, while the special educator assumes responsibility for giving students content-specific assistance (e.g., reinforcing content through small group activities or outside assignments)

* Team Teaching

General and special educator share equal responsibility for planning, carrying out and evaluating the lesson

* Alternative Teaching

General educator is responsible for teaching majority of students, while the special educator assumes responsibility for teaching a select group of students who require significant curricular accommodations

(Cook & Friend, 1991; Gable, Korinek & McLaughlin, 1997)

Table 2

COLLABORATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL OPTIONS

* Same

Students with special needs participate in regular class instruction and pursue the same content objectives within the same instructional material. When teaching all students the same content, consider team teaching, station teaching, parallel teaching or supplemental teaching.

* Multi-level

Students with special needs participate in regular class instruction, but pursue different content objectives, based on their individual needs.

Example: The majority of students will use a 4th-grade textbook for health instruction, while selected students with special needs follow along in 2nd-grade level material, using study guides. During class discussion, special needs students are asked basic questions about the content and / or parallel textual material (e.g., health content from a 2nd-grade book, IEP-related questions).

* Curriculum Overlapping

Students with special needs participate in the same large group instruction, but pursue objectives from different academic and/or social skills areas.

Example: In a cooperative team learning activity, the majority of students have a content-specific assignment, while selected students with special needs serve as timekeepers (e.g., to work on telling time), or are paired with two students without disabilities who model and reinforce attention-to-task, positive socialization and / or responses to basic content objectives. When teaching different yet complementary content, consider complementary teaching, shadow teaching or a parallel teaching arrangement.

* Alternative

Students with special needs pursue different activities/content objectives from the rest of the class.

Example: While the majority of class completes a writing assignment, students with special needs receive instruction in an unrelated area from another person (e.g., peer tutor or special education teacher). When teaching separate content, consider an alternative teaching arrangement.

(Gable, Korinek & McLaughlin, 1997; Thousand & Villa, 1990)

References

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17-22.

Brookhart, S. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1990). School-university collaboration: Different workplace cultures. Contemporary Education, 61, 125-128.

Chalfant, J., & Pych, M. V. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 49-58.

Choate, J. (Ed.). (1993). Successful mainstreaming. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1991). Principles for the practice of collaboration in the schools. Preventing School Failure, 35, 6-9.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Bahr, D. (1990). Mainstream assistance teams: A scientific basis for the art of consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 128-139.

Gable, R. A. (1994). Full inclusion of E/BD students: "Just another initiative paved with good intentions?" In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Ensuring appropriate services to children and youth with emotional/behavioral disorders, Vol. II (pp. 21-24). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.

Gable, R. A., Friend, M., Laycock, V., & Hendrickson, J. M. (1990). Interview skills for problem identification in school consultation: "Separating the forest from the trees." Preventing School Failure, 35, 5-10.

Gable, R. A., & Hendrickson, J. M. (1993). Teaching all the students: A mandate for educators. In J. Choate (Ed.), Successful mainstreaming (pp. 2-17). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gable, R. A., Korinek, L., & McLaughlin, V. (1997). Collaboration in the schools: Ensuring success. In J. Choate (Ed.), Successful inclusive teaching (2nd ed.) (pp.450-471). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Idol, L., Paulucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1986). Collaborative consultation. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Lasley, T. J., Matczynski, T. J., & Williams, J. A. (1992). Collaborative and collaborative partnership structures in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 257-261.

Laycock, V., Gable, R. A., & Korinek, L. (1991). Alternative structures of collaboration in the delivery of specialized instruction. Preventing School Failure, 35, 15-18.

Lewis, A. (1992). All together now: Building collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(5), 348-349.

Lewis, A. (1993). Making collaboration happen. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 284-285.

Lieberman, A. (1992). The meaning of scholarly activity and the building of community. Educational Researcher, 21(6), 5-12.

Lugg, C. A., & Boyd, W. L. (1993). Leadership for collaboration: Reducing risks and fostering resilience. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 253-258.

Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Collaborative practitioners: Collaborative schools. Denver, CO: Love.

Teig, B., Bailey, R. C., Arllen, N. S., & Gable, R. A. (1994). Effects of teacher collaboration on the learning and adjustment of elementary students: Implications for teacher educators. Teacher Educators' Journal, 4, 37-46.

Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (1990). Strategies for educating learners with severe disabilities within their local home schools and communities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23, 1-24.

Robert A. Gable is Professor, Child Study and Special Education and M. Lee Manning is Associate Professor, Educational Curriculum and Instruction, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.