Mrs. Johnson, a third-year special education teacher, had just handed in her letter of resignation. This wasn't completely unexpected, as she had come to Mrs. Adams in tears on several occasions, expressing her frustration with collaborative teaching relationships. As she explained it, she was being asked to teach alongside four different teachers in four different subject areas, with no common planning time. Although she wanted to help her students and colleagues, Mrs. Johnson felt forced into the role of instructional assistant. “This is not why I went to college,” she'd say. She was also tired of hearing her colleagues complain about how easy she had it—how lucky she was not to have a homeroom, for instance, or 100 papers to grade at any given time.

Mrs. Johnson had come to resent her colleagues, and tended to feel like a guest in the classroom. As she said to Mrs. Adams, “My colleagues always refer to the classroom as theirs—but to the students with disabilities as mine.”

Mrs. Adams reflected on Mrs. Johnson's situation and wondered what she might have done to prevent it. When she first became a principal, collaborative teaching models did not even exist. Not only had she never taught collaboratively, but she had never had any graduate coursework or training to prepare her to do so. Yet she knew that collaborative teaching was not going away, especially in light of a federal mandate to educate students with disabilities in the least-restrictive environments. Though she did not like to admit it, Mrs. Adams secretly yearned for the old days of self-contained classrooms and resource centers. Sometimes she wondered why schools switched to collaborative teaching anyway.

Background

According to Lipsky and Gartner (1995), 891 districts representing all 50 states reported having inclusion programs in their schools. These districts reported that collaborative teaching was more common than any other model for inclusive instruction; more recently, Weiss and Lloyd (2002) reaffirmed this assessment. It appears that Mrs. Adams's hunch was correct: collaborative teaching seems here to stay in inclusion classrooms. Typically in such situations, two teachers—one for students with disabilities and one for general education students—work together to develop a differentiated curriculum that meets the needs of the whole class. These two teachers collaborate on planning and presenting lessons, evaluating student work, and managing the classroom.

The Legal Basis for Collaborative Teaching

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) ensures access to free and appropriate education for students with disabilities. Although the law does not specifically mandate teaching teams in inclusion classrooms, it does require districts to place students with disabilities in the “least-restrictive environment” (LRE). The “supplementary aids and services” referred to in the following IDEIA language may be interpreted as including collaborative instruction:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children that are not disabled . . . special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The Individualized Education Planning Team

The decision as to what constitutes an LRE for each special education student is up to that student's individualized education program (IEP) team. At a minimum, the IEP team must include

• The student's parents or guardians.
• Someone who can interpret the results of the completed evaluations.
• A general education teacher.
• A special education teacher.
• A representative of the school district (frequently, but not always, the school principal).

The primary purpose of the IEP team is to consider what setting or combination of settings is most appropriate for meeting the student's identified needs. Although the law requires a continuum of placement alternatives, it is clear that placement in a general education classroom with appropriate supports and services is favored. The school administration will not be able to overrule the team's decision in this regard, but it will have a major influence on how collaborative instruction is implemented.

Research

The following are some examples of findings on inclusion teaching teams that are drawn from the research base:

• Fishbaugh and Gum (1994) note that when one Montana school district implemented inclusion programs for students with disabilities in some of its elementary schools, it resulted in two to three years of academic improvement for several of the students.
• An analysis of inclusion programs in Minnesota concluded that they helped students with mild disabilities to perform better on reading assessments (Deno, Maruyana, Espin, & Cohen, 1990).
• In a 1992 study, Jenkins and colleagues found that students in an inclusion program did significantly better on vocabulary, total reading, and language skills assessments than did students in schools with pullout programs.
• England (1996) found that test scores in collaboratively taught classrooms remained steady in the first year of one Missouri district's inclusion program, whereas the scores in the district's pullout program did not.
• Waldron and McLeskey (1998) examined the effects of one inclusion program on the reading and math achievement of students with disabilities and found that the students did better than did their counterparts in resource center classrooms. In addition, Waldron and McLeskey found that students with mild learning disabilities who were in inclusion programs showed progress comparable to that of their general education peers.
• Rea, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas (2002) found that students in inclusion classrooms earned higher grades, did better on standardized tests, and attended school more frequently than did their peers in pullout programs.
• In a study of 43 classrooms in 14 schools, Cole and Meyer (1991) found that students in inclusion classrooms did better on assessments of social competence than did students in pullout programs.
• Saint-Laurent and Lessard (1991) found that teachers of inclusion classrooms reported more significant behavioral improvement among students with disabilities than did teachers of pullout programs.
• Hunt and Farron-Davis (1992) determined that students with severe disabilities placed in inclusion programs were subject to IEPs with more references to best practices than were students in pullout programs. Students in inclusion classrooms were also less likely to be engaged in isolated activities.
• Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, and Goetz (1994) found significant differences between students in inclusion classrooms and those in pullout programs in the following areas: level of engagement in school activities, type of activities engaged in, type and level of participation in integrated school environments, and level of social engagement with peers and adults.
• Hunt, Soto, Maier, and Doering (2003) studied the effect of an inclusion teaching team on six students and found that, when implemented consistently, the model was associated with increased academic skills, engagement in classroom activities, interactions with peers, and student-initiated interactions.
• Odom, DeKlyen, and Jenkins (1984) found no difference between general education students in inclusion and noninclusion classrooms on cognitive, linguistic, and social development measures.
• After analyzing test results and report cards in a rural Minnesota elementary school, Sharpe, York, and Knight (1994) found no significant academic or behavioral changes among general education students educated alongside peers with disabilities.
• In a study of cooperative learning groups, Hunt, Staub, Alwell, and Goetz (1994) concluded that general education students who worked with peers who had severe disabilities saw no adverse effect on their level of academic achievement.
• Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, and Palombaro (1995) found that instructional time for general education students is not adversely affected by the presence of students with severe disabilities in the classroom.
• Helmstetter, Peck, and Giangreco (1994) surveyed 166 Washington state high school students who had been in inclusion classrooms and found that they did not believe inclusion caused them to miss out on other valuable educational experiences.
• In a yearlong ethnographic study, Murray-Seegert (1989) concluded that general education students become more tolerant of others as they become more aware of their peers' needs.
• Helmstetter and colleagues (1994) found that inclusion helps general education students develop positive attitudes towards classmates with disabilities.
• According to Staub and Peck (1995), inclusion programs help general education elementary students to more effectively communicate with peers who have special needs and to be more supportive of them in their daily interactions. The authors also found that many general education students become more strongly committed to moral and ethical principles as a result of interacting with special education classmates.
• Helmstetter and colleagues (1994) and Staub, Schwartz, Gallucci, and Peck (1994) note that inclusion programs seem to have a positive effect on relationships among students, and Fryxell and Kennedy (1995) found this to be just as true for students with severe disabilities.
• In a study of middle school students with severe disabilities, Kennedy, Shakla, and Fryxell (1997) found that those in an inclusion classroom interacted more frequently with general education peers, provided and received more social support, and had larger, more durable networks of general education classmates than did students in a pullout program.
• Although Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, and Schattman (1993) found that most teachers of inclusion classrooms initially react negatively to teaching a mixed group, they also found that 17 of the 19 teachers they studied indicated that, after teaching one student with severe disabilities for a year, they were willing to teach another the following year.
• In a survey of 680 teachers and administrators in 32 schools, Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevin (1996) found that educators believe inclusion helps change their attitudes and job responsibilities for the better. The study also found that levels of administrative support and collaboration were powerful predictors of positive attitudes toward full inclusion.
• Praisner (2003) conducted a survey of 408 elementary school principals and found that roughly one in five had positive attitudes toward inclusion (the rest were uncertain). Principals with more positive attitudes were more likely to place students in less restrictive settings. Survey results lead Praisner to emphasize inclusion practices that allow principals to work with all types of students with disabilities, and to recommend more specific training for principals in special education instruction.

Creating a School Culture That Supports Inclusion Teaching Teams

It was late August, and Mr. James was busy putting the final touches on the school's master schedule. Just when he was almost finished, he received a call from Ms. Jackson, who was a 4th grade teacher in her sixth year of teaching at the school. After exchanging the usual pleasantries, Ms. Jackson got to the point.

“Mr. James,” she began, “there is a rumor going around that you have assigned me the inclusion class this year. You know that I love all of my students and I work really hard, but I just don't think I can teach those kids. I haven't had any experience or training working with disabled children. It isn't true that you assigned me to teach that class, is it?”

Although it was true that Mr. James had assigned Ms. Jackson to the inclusion class, he valued Ms. Jackson as a teacher and wanted to keep her happy, so he decided to tell her it was not true, reasoning that he could assign a recently hired 4th grade teacher to the class instead; this person was excited to have been hired, and probably would not complain.

Contrast Mr. James's response with Mrs. Sharpe's. One day, Mrs. Sharpe, also a principal, received a message from her secretary that Ms. Williams had called. Ms. Williams was a 3rd grade teacher with five years of experience at the school. Mrs. Sharpe decided to return the call before going to a meeting at the central office. Ms. Williams did not bother with the usual pleasantries, choosing instead to get right to the point.

“I received my class assignment, and it shows that I am teaching with Mrs. Rose [the special education teacher]. I want to know if I am teaching one of those classes with all the special education kids. If so, that is unacceptable and I want it changed immediately. I didn't come to this district to teach those kids.”

While listening patiently and keeping her cool, Mrs. Sharpe steadfastly conveyed her unwillingness to change Ms. Williams's assignment. She communicated her belief that Ms. Williams would find coteaching to be a positive experience. Despite Ms. Williams's intimations that she would look for another job if she were not reassigned, Mrs. Sharpe expressed her conviction that coteaching was not optional at the school.

Here we have two principals faced with a decision related to collaborative teaching. Each chose a course of action that communicates a strong message: whereas Mr. James's actions reflect a belief that coteaching is a burden to be thrust upon those least likely to object, Mrs. Sharpe's actions reflect a belief that it is a nonnegotiable opportunity for professional growth.

Deficit Versus Competence Orientation

Because language and behaviors influence the way that teaching teams are perceived, educators should avoid a deficit orientation—that is, words and actions that emphasize what students cannot do—as this prevents teachers from addressing student strengths. On the other hand, a competence orientation—words and actions that emphasize what students can do—help create a climate in which all students' skills, interests, and abilities can emerge. Instead of ranking and comparing students, teachers focus on understanding them as individuals and providing adapted learning environments that support the integration, participation, and growth of all students.

To demonstrate a competence orientation, educators should

• Focus on the individual rather than on the disability (e.g., students with disabilities rather than handicapped students).
• Expect all students to participate academically and socially. When students are struggling to complete an assignment or are not participating, they should be encouraged and assisted. Educators must convey high expectations for all students through determination and persistence.
• Act promptly and decisively when they encounter behavior that is inappropriate and hurtful to others. A firm response to put-downs models acceptance of individual differences.
• Correct teacher and student misperceptions of “fairness” regarding the accommodations provided to students with disabilities. Fairness does not entail giving everyone the same thing; rather, it entails giving each person what he or she needs to succeed. Until educators come to agreement on this issue, students with disabilities will achieve limited success in collaboratively taught classrooms.
• Speak directly to students rather than to educational assistants or interpreters.
• Provide opportunities for all students to assume age-appropriate positions of leadership.
• Reflect a sense of ownership regarding all students. When a student with a disability demonstrates problem behavior or difficulty learning, it is appropriate to seek advice and guidance from those with the appropriate expertise; however, educators must be involved in problem-solving and follow-up activities.
• Not allow parents to choose whether or not to have their students in collaboratively taught classrooms. A good educator would no more allow this than allow parents to choose their children's classroom based on race.

Your Role

Although most of the available research supports inclusion, you must ensure that certain conditions are met if the program in your school or district is to succeed. The criteria for effective teaching teams are not discrete and easily identifiable; in fact, they are intertwined and often as hard to untangle as the backlash on a fishing reel. There are also many different ways in which collaborative teaching teams can act effectively—a principle that systems theorists refer to as “equifinality” (Katz & Kahn, 1978). According to this principle, different teams can reach the same outcome under dissimilar conditions and using different means. Even when the task at hand is identical, no single performance strategy will work equally well for all groups.

When teaching teams do not succeed, individual teachers are usually blamed. Such judgments are misplaced: although teachers are critical to the success of any team, they often face significant barriers to effective performance, such as insufficient planning time. Rather than try to manage individual teachers as they attempt to collaborate with each other, you should create the necessary conditions for teaching teams to prosper while also allowing them to develop their own unique styles and strategies. In the next chapter, we'll examine the steps it takes to create these conditions.