Working Together:
A Collaborative Model for the Delivery of Special Services
in General Classrooms
Stanley L. Swartz
California State University
It only makes sense that if our goal is the integration and inclusion of all students, that teachers will need to model these behaviors. An instructional design that excludes students is unlikely to result in eventual inclusion. The example of teachers working together and aligning teaching strategies will be a powerful demonstration of the benefits of a collaborative model of service delivery. Even if the achievement gains are no greater using a collaborative model, the social benefits of inclusive classrooms are a compelling argument for this practice.
Introduction
There has been considerable discussion about the effectiveness of special services
for students with disabilities and low performing students in pullout programs;
programs that remove these students from the general classroom to special classes
or separate rooms to receive services. Though we know that students with special
needs benefit from individual and small group instruction, there is no clear
evidence that these services are improved or more effective when provided in
special education or remedial settings. In fact, there is a strong case for
the instructional and social benefits of providing for the needs of all students
in inclusive classrooms. A model for this so-called, push-in delivery of services,
where special and general education teachers collaborate to provide services
has much to recommend it. Students are not identified as special to the extent
that they must be removed from the classroom setting to receive educational
services. Classroom teachers who work with students with special needs are more
informed about student progress by the
opportunity to observe and participate in the service delivery. Special teachers
become more involved with the instruction that is delivered in general classrooms
and are perceived as a more integral part of the instructional team. Students
benefit from the reduced stigma of identification as special needs and better
alignment of teaching strategies and cooperation between the various teachers
they work with.
Many of the mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act suggest that students with
special needs should receive more benefit from their educational experience.
In addition to including these students as part of the accountability requirements,
it is necessary that they have access to core instruction and curriculum. A
parallel system of special and general education will be hard pressed to meet
this standard. The Act is clear in its intent to bring special needs and low
performing students into the mainstream of public education.
Three major criticisms of the current special education model deserve consideration.
None of these are new and have been demonstrated consistently over the past
two decades.
1. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that evaluation systems produce results
hardly better than the flip of a coin (Ysseldyke et al., 1983). We continue
to identify students as disabled using tests and procedures in which professional
examiners have no confidence and these various tests are unable to predict educational
need, the only legitimate purpose that this kind of testing could have. Students
with seemingly identical characteristics qualify for different programs, depending
on where they reside and how individuals on school staffs evaluate them (Gartner
& Lipsky, 1987). You can literally change your disability by moving from
one school district to another.
2. Growth in certain categories of disability have clearly become more a function
of political pressure and professional fad than the characteristics and needs
of students (Algozzine & Korinek, 1985). By some counts the learning disability
category grew more than 119% over a period of one decade (Edgar & Hayden,
1984-1985). This is added to research that suggests that over 80% of all of
normal students could be classified as learning disabled using the variety of
definitions currently in use (Ysseldyke, 1987). Many of the students emerging
as special needs or low performing and who are literally crying for our attention,
the so-called at risk populations, don’t fit any of our categories. In
some cases we try to force these students into existing categories labeling
them disabled unnecessarily. Many unfortunately, go unserved entirely.
3. There is considerably evidence that suggests that much of what we do in special
education is no more helpful than if we were to leave students with disabilities
in the regular class and provide no services at all (Carlberg & Kavale,
1980). The mandate in No Child Left Behind recognizes this lack of accountability
and the likely low level of student outcomes for special education programs
and seeks to remedy it with testing, among other things.
It is these kinds of data that should drive the search for alternative systems
of service delivery. The value of inclusion and teacher collaboration are both
well known. A model that can use the strengths of both special and general education
and one that is carefully planned with teacher roles clearly defined, is needed
to ensure the full benefit of each student’s educational program.
Collaborative Model
If a collaborative model is to be successful there are a number of important
considerations. A model is needed that will define a mutually beneficial cooperative
teaching relationship and one that will maximize the positive impact on students
of having more than one teacher in the same classroom.
Defining Roles
One major objection frequently voiced regarding cooperative teaching is role
confusion. Special teachers express frustration with being assigned a role that
is similar to that of a teacher’s aide or assistant teacher. Though physically
in the classroom, they still provide instruction that is isolated and not part
of the regular flow of instruction. In other circumstances, special teachers
are given full responsibility for instruction while the classroom teacher observes
or performs other duties. This often looks like a “tag team wrestling”
style of teaching, where one teacher is up teaching and the other is down and
then the roles are reversed. This procedure loses the power of two teachers
available for instruction. Classroom teachers on the other hand, are unclear
about what the role of special teachers should be in a general classroom setting.
Special education is so heavily regulated, that who the special teacher can
work with, and under what circumstances, is an apparent confusion.
Clarity of roles for both the special and classroom is an important prerequisite
to an effective collaborative model (Arguelles et al., 2000). A model of instruction
where each teacher has a separate but collaborative function is useful. Instruction
where students are convened in small groups, generally homogenous groups, provides
the opportunity for each teacher to take the lead role for the group they are
working with. Common goals and objectives are set and the teachers agree to
use similar teaching methods. The group convened by the special teacher can
include students identified for special education or remedial services but might
also include students who just need extra support. Instruction provided by the
special teacher should be supplemental to that provided by the classroom teacher
rather than replacing an opportunity for these students to participate in instruction
provided by the classroom teacher. With careful coordination of instructional
goals, the need for additional planning should be minimized.
|
Teacher Roles are:
clearly defined
separate but collaborative
Teachers share:
goals and objectives
common teaching methods
minimal planning
Scheduling Considerations
Another obstacle to a collaborative model is one that involves scheduling. Students
with special instructional needs are typically distributed somewhat evenly throughout
the general classrooms in any particular school. The pull-out model has been
adopted in many schools as one that is convenient to the teacher. Students with
similar needs are convened at a central location, the special education classroom
or remedial reading room, from various classrooms. This appears to be a logistically
sound model but one that is less than optimal for instruction. Scheduling problems
might also include a specified amount of service to be provided, often in minutes
per day or week, specified by an instructional plan and in the case of identified
special education students, the Individualized Education Program (IEP). These
plans are often cited as making collaboration difficult, if not, impossible.
Maximum flexibility is needed to implement a collaborative model. The classroom
teacher must be able to alter the daily classroom routine on short notice. The
special teacher needs to schedule services that are perhaps shorter in duration
but at the same time can be more strategic and effective. The model assumes
that the students with special needs will remain in the general classroom and
that the teacher will rotate among classrooms to provide services to small groups
of students or even an individual student. Since curriculum and teaching methods
will be aligned, the special teacher should be able to use instructional materials
that are available in the classroom.
The recommended procedure is that the special teacher establish a general schedule
of time to be spent in each classroom. This should not be a rigid schedule rather
one that allows both special and classroom teachers some latitude to finish
activities. When the special teacher enters the classroom the teacher concludes
the activity in progress and sends the students to group activities. The classroom
teacher convenes her small group in one area of the room and the special teacher
convenes her group in a different area. The remainder of the students are sent
to literacy centers, reciprocal teaching groups, or some other suitable small
group activity (Miller, et al., 1998). Teachers might also choose to move around
the room and support the work of students in small group activities. Students
work best independently in groups when they are familiar with the procedures
and understand the expectations for their work in small groups. A good test
for student readiness for literacy centers or independent small group work is
to send all students to small groups and the teacher observes and coaches them
so that they can work without assistance. When the teacher is able to sit in
the middle of the room and not be approached with questions about the job to
be done or group procedures, then the teacher can convene her own group with
confidence.
Scheduling is:
flexible and mutually determined
allows for two teacher directed groups to run at one time
provides suitable activities for all students
 |
Questions About Fairness
Implementation of a collaborative model inevitably raises the issue of fairness.
These questions focus on both what is fair for the student with special needs
and for the typical or average student. Can special students have their educational
needs met in the general classroom? Are there not services that are so specialized
that they need to be delivered in a separate or isolated setting? What is the
impact on the typical student of students with special needs being served in
the general classroom? Will this attention to the special student take away
from the services available to the regular student? Is this fair to either group
of students?
Much is made about the commitment to diversity in the public school system.
The obligation to consider the various backgrounds and experiences of our students
is widely embraced. The needs of students of different races, ethnicities and
languages are factored into the kinds of educational experiences that we provide.
There is little debate about the appropriateness of this practice. However,
there are other issues of diversity that need consideration in this formula.
The range of diversity in the public schools includes not only students with
cultural and linguistic differences but also differences in learning and behavior.
There is not a cogent argument made in the research literature that suggests
that accommodating those students who present cultural or linguistic differences
is appropriate and the same accommodation for learning and behavioral differences
is less so. An instructional model that is truly inclusive is one that considers
each area of diversity equally important.
Areas of Diversity:
cultural
linguistic
learning
behavioral
To program for each of these areas necessitates differentiated instruction to
ensure that each student receives an appropriate array of services. This differentiation
can raise questions of fundamental fairness. Fairness is a more complicated
issue than just providing the same program for all students. What is truly fair
is to provide all of our students access to and benefit from the full range
of educational opportunities in our schools. This is what No Child Left Behind
should mean at the classroom implementation level.
As fairness is considered it is useful to look at various perspectives. At the
lowest level is the concept of equality. Equality is simply providing the same
for everyone. The downside of this perspective is that we know that each student
is not the same and providing only equal instruction will fall far short in
ensuring success. At another level is the perspective of equity. Equity is an
achievement based concept. Those who work harder or achieve more receive more.
In a perfect world equity might be considered fair. But the factors that impact
students and their performance abilities make equity-based practice perhaps
appropriate in the world of business but a poor fit in education. The kind of
fairness that makes most sense in schools and classrooms is one of need. Each
student is provided for according to his or her need. Given the range of diversity
and the various needs that these will create, providing instruction that is
appropriate for each individual student will be that which uses an individual
consideration of instructional needs.
Concepts of Fairness:
equality
same for everyone
equity
achievement based
need
to each according to their need
To accomplish education that is need based, a model of differentiated instruction
is recommended. Differentiated instruction is a term used to describe teaching
that accommodates the unique needs of individual students. It is a way to teach
that is mindful of the diversity represented in our student population. The
elements that need to considered are three, expectations, instruction, and evaluation.
If we understand the range of diversity in a typical group of students the acceptance
of differentiated instruction is reasonable. For example, students who have
a first language other than English can be expected to need instruction different
from those whose first language is English. Students with a learning disability
or lower cognitive abilities might need types of instruction different from
the majority of students in the classroom. The third element, that of differentiated
evaluation, is somewhat more problematic relative to questions of fairness.
Can the same system of evaluation for all, given the differences in learning
and ability, be fair? Such a system of evaluation only continues to punish students
for individual differences that are beyond their control. Only a system that
considers the diverse nature of students and instruction that encompasses different
expectations, instruction that considers these differences, and evaluation that
sets appropriate standards for individual students, meets the standard of fairness
that is fundamental to our goal of providing the best instruction for each individual
student.
Differentiated Instruction:
expectations
instruction
evaluation
Teaching Methods that Support Collaboration
A number of research based teaching methodologies are recommended as effective
in a collaborative model. Each is appropriate for both special needs students
and students in general classrooms. They are all designed to allow teachers
to focus on small groups of students while allowing the rest of the class to
participate in appropriate independent learning activities. Both classroom and
special teachers use the same teacher methods to avoid student confusion. It
should be remembered that some students with special needs are confused by classroom
routine and the collaborative model can avoid the two separate routines found
when instruction is provided in separate locations.
In Primary and Intermediate Classes
Teaching methods recommended are familiar to teachers and are considered best
practices. Though many of the methods are used in both elementary and secondary
classrooms, the focus of instruction can be adjusted to meet the skill levels
of the students.
Guided Reading
Guided reading, by any name, is where teachers pull together small groups of
students for specific instruction in reading. Classroom organization using guided
reading and literacy centers is an effective way to use a collaborative model
of service delivery for special education and remedial reading (Swartz, Shook,
& Klein, 2003). The classroom teacher convenes a guided reading group and
sends the rest of the students to literacy or content focused centers. During
this time period, the special education or remedial reading teacher can work
in the classroom and convene an additional group for guided reading or work
in existing literacy centers with groups selected by need and/or disability.
The special teacher might also choose to work with a group of students, using
another teaching method such as interactive writing. The opportunity to work
one-to-one is also possible using this model. The work done by the special teacher
should be additional rather than replacement. The students could participate
in guided reading twice, once with the classroom teacher, and once with the
special teacher.
Interactive Writing
Interactive writing in the classroom is generally a whole class activity (Swartz,
Klein, & Shook, 2001). Interactive writing is a procedure where the teacher
and students: 1) share a common knowledge base or experience that can be the
focus of the writing; this might be a story read or a current event, 2) negotiate
the message that they will write, 3) share the writing between the teacher and
students, and 4) use this writing for various extensions, such as shared reading
or independent writing.
Interactive writing also lends itself to homogenous, small group instruction.
The special teacher can convene a group of students, identified as needing similar
levels of support, to work on both reading and writing skills and, in some cases,
to help students learn the procedure necessary for them to participate effectively
in whole class interactive writing. Interactive writing can focus on both phonics
and comprehension and is a systematic way to help students understand print
as they both learn to read and write.
In Middle and High School Classes
Though there are different considerations for collaboration in middle and secondary
schools, collaboration is still found to be an effect support option (Rice &
Zigmond, 1999). Many middle and high school teachers continue to use guided
reading with small groups of students to support continued growth in phonics
and comprehension skills. Text selections can include typical fiction used in
English or nonfiction more common in subject areas. Secondary teachers have
identified various other teaching methods that lend themselves to a collaborative
model.
Guided Reading
Secondary teachers continue to use guided reading groups as a way to support
struggling readers. Instruction is direct in areas of difficulty and blends
the focus on skills with that of increasing comprehension. The advantage of
guided reading in secondary classrooms is that skill development can continue
for those students who need this work while maintaining the necessary emphasis
on content and the core curriculum.
Literature Discussion Groups
As students become more proficient readers, teachers have found literature discussion
groups to be an effective way for to students to work independently with various
texts. These independent groups allow the teacher to convene other groups who
need more teacher support and direction. In literature discussion groups, students
read a selected text and then use various strategies to analyze and discuss
the reading. Students read texts at their instructional level (90-95% word-identification
accuracy and 75% comprehension accuracy) and then use a process that includes
discussion and content analysis that support comprehension of what is read.
Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal Teaching is a small group discussion where students themselves facilitate
the discussion of a text selection (Palincsar, Ransom & Derber, 1988-89).
The teacher rotates among small groups of four to six students to monitor and
support the process. Students are asked to 1) predict, make a judgement about
what the paragraph will say, 2) read, read the section aloud, 3) clarify, determine
if there are any words or ideas that are unclear, 4) question, ask questions
about important information in the selection, and 5) summarize, paraphrase in
one or two sentences what the selection was about.
Interactive Editing
Interactive editing is an effective teaching method to increase reading and
writing skills and to support student development of comprehension skills (Swartz,
Klein, & Shook, 2001). Students are lead through a process of identifying
key content in selected passages and then using this content for various writing
purposes. It is an effective whole group teaching method and can also be used
in small groups for teaching points that reflect student confusions.
Benefits of Collaboration
A special teacher once told me that her students preferred the special education
classroom to the general education classroom. And she said that she could protect
them from the rough and tumble nature of the classroom; in other words reality.
This is most certainly the bad news and recommends against placement in special
classes, not for such a placement. When students think of themselves as so different
that they need to be separated from their peers, we have accomplished our worst
fear. And that is, students who think, I don’t fit with the others, I
am too different. This is an attitude difficult to overcome and one that will
not accomplish our goal of inclusion.
Collaboration is based on the assumption that services provided using an in-class
model can be more effective than those that pull a student out of the classroom.
It also assumes that aligning teaching methods used with students in special
education and remedial reading benefits the student. Classroom teachers and
special teachers should use the same teaching methods. The very students who
are most confused by classroom routines, the special needs students, are asked
to learn two different routines and frequently very different teaching methods.
In the classroom, reading is taught one way and in the special classroom, reading
is taught an entirely different way. The value of student familiarity with teaching
methods and expectations shared by special teachers and the classroom teacher
cannot be overestimated.
Teachers have not been trained in cooperative teaching or in a collaborative
model. Teacher training focuses almost exclusively on a classroom where one
teacher orchestrates all activities. An effective implementation of a collaborative
model needs professional development that supports new ways of teaching and
working together.
Conclusion
The practice of excluding special needs students from general education classrooms
should only continue if there is a compelling reason to do so. There appears
to be no such reason. No educational or social benefits have been identified
that justify the isolation and exclusion of students with special needs. Quite
the contrary, students identified as special and taught outside the mainstream,
are just that, outside the mainstream.
Collaboration between special and general classroom teachers has much to recommend
it. If sound teaching is the key to student achievement, as most in the profession
believe, this can be delivered using a collaborative model. There is no compromise
in the collaborative model, rather the
assurance that all students can learn together.
References
Arguelles, M., Hughes, M, & Schumm. (2000). Co-Teaching: A different approach
to inclusion. Principal, 79(4), 48, 50-51.
Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular
class placement for exceptional students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special
Education, 14, 295-309.
Edgar, E. & Hayden, A.H. (1984-85). Who are the students special education
should serve and how many students are there? The Journal of Special Education.
18(4), 523-539.
Algozzine, B. & Korinek L. (1985). Where is special education for students
with high prevalence handicaps going? Exceptional Student., 51, 388-394.
Gartner, A. & Lipsky, D.K. (1992). Breaking the yoke of special education.
National Learning Differences Network Newsletter and reprinted in The Special
Edge. 7(1), September/October 1992. Sacramento, CA; California Department
of Education.
Miller, A., Valasky, W., & Melloy, P. (1998). Learning together: The evolution
of an inclusive class. Active Learner, 3(2), 14-16.
Palincsar, A., Ransom, K., & Derber, S. (1988-89). Collaborative research
and development of reciprocal teaching. Education Leadership, 37-40.
Rice, D., & Aigmond, N. (1999). Co-teaching in Secondary Schools.
ED 432 558.
Swartz, S.L. (1993). Restructuring special education: Three generations
of school reform. Carlsbad, CA: University Associates Press. www.universityassociatespress.com
Swartz, S.L., Klein, A.F., & Shook, R.E. (2001). Interactive writing
and interactive editing. Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S.L., Shook, R.E., & Klein, A.F. (2003). Guided reading and
literacy centers. Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Ysseldyke, J.D., Thurlow, M., Graden, J. Wesson, C., Algozzine, B. & Deno,
S. (1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision-making.
Exceptional Educational Quarterly. 4, 75-93.
Stanley L. Swartz, is Professor of Education at California State University,
San Bernardino. He is also the Director of the Foundation for Comprehensive
Early Literacy Learning (www.cell-exll.com) and the Autism Research Group.
E-mail, stanley_swartz@eee.org
Web page, www.stanswartz.com