|
WHEN “PATHWAYS” CROSS
Kimberly Maich
St. Anthony Elementary School, St. Anthony
with assistance from
Rosonna Tite
Faculty of Education
The mainstreaming of students with special needs in the regular classroom
became a focus of debate in the Canadian school system during the 1980s,
when the Regular Education Initiative was implemented (Winzer, 1999). This
initiative focussed on combining general and special education to provide
a diverse education system for all learners. Special education teachers
were expected to adopt a consulting role, and classroom teachers were
expected take a greater responsibility for the teaching of all students,
including those with special needs (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1991; Winzer,
1999). As a result, the proportion of students remaining in segregated
educational environments was at its lowest by 1991 (Winzer, 1999).
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the roles of special education teachers and
classroom teachers have been changing with this shift toward inclusion.
One notable trend is a new emphasis on a collaborative interagency team
approach, as evidenced by the development of student support teams at the
school level and provincial guidelines which emphasize team collaboration
( Pathways to Programming and Graduation [Pathways], Government of
Newfoundland & Labrador, 1998; Individual Support Services Plan [ISSP],
Government of Newfoundland & Labrador, 1997; Special Education Policy
Manual, Government of Newfoundland & Labrador, 1987; Special Education
Policy Manual [Draft Version], Government of Newfoundland & Labrador,
1999).
Collaboration
Two essential members of student support teams at the school level are the
special education teacher and the classroom teacher. However, provincial
guidelines provide little in the way of practical support for their
effective daily collaboration. At the same time, there is an abundance of
literature about collaboration within inclusive environments which
provides a range of models and descriptions of collaborative practices and
perceptions.
In one model, the focus is on collaborative consultation. This term goes
beyond both collaboration and consultation to emphasize Amutual trust and
respect and open communication@ and the Abelief that all educators can
learn better ways to teach all students@(Robinson, 1991, 446-447).
Similarly, collaborative consultation can be seen as a scientific art
distinct from simple cooperation in its emphasis on notions of shared
responsibility, authority and mutual empowerment (West & Idol, 1990).
Other views of collaborative consultation are more flexible about role
equality. Carr & Peavy (1986), for example, describe a collaborative
consultation model in which the special education teacher works as an
expert consultant, acting as both an instructor and a consultant
participating in a model that begins with establishing relationships and
ends with an action plan. As well, collaborative consultation can be seen
as both a way to deliver services within schools, and a process based on
discussion (West & Idol, 1990). Another approach to collaborative
consultation centres on the communication between teachers through the use
of open-ended questions (Vargo, 1998). Vargo states, AThe ultimate goal is
for general educators to feel comfortable and open to involving the
special educator with more active instructional planning for a given
student, which may lead to team planning for the entire class@ (55).
The trans-disciplinary interactive teaming model goes beyond collaborative
consultation to emphasize a team approach guided by the principles of
participation and leadership, goal development, communication, decision
making and conflict resolution (Coben, Chase Thomas, Sattler & Voelker
Morsink, 1997). Co-teaching (Ripley, 1997) and the enrichment remediation
team-teaching model (Angle, 1996) are variations on the team approach.
These models are based on the idea that all students benefit when special
education teachers and classroom teachers work together to provide direct
service within the regular classroom environment, permitting a full
sharing of goals, decisions, responsibility, assessment and classroom
management. In general, teaming models are based on the idea that teachers
should commit to using what Phillips & McCullough (1990) term a locally
defined collaborative ethic. A school-wide collaborative ethic is defined
by developing a consensus collaboration in terms of shared responsibility
and accountability, confidence in mutual benefits and a valuing of its
worth and benefits.
The claim that service delivery involving collaboration and consultation
is both practical and realistic is supported by a number of recent studies
(Howells, 2000; Bradley, King-Sears and Tessier-Switlick, 1997, cited in
Carey, 1997; Karge, McClure & Patton, 1995; British Columbia Department of
Education, 1997); yet concerns about collaboration have arisen in several
jurisdictions. In Newfoundland and Labrador, Younghusband (1999), found
that Pathways has provided little in the way of information about
implementation and that support systems have not been set up effectively.
Similarly, Philpott (2001) concluded that while Ainclusion is an ideal
that both parents and teachers aspire to@ (9), it is still necessary to
offer a full continuum of flexible student placements.
Support for inclusive practices often appear in the form of calls for
further teacher training at both the preservice and inservice levels
(Monahan, Marino & Miller, 1996; Din,1996). In one design, a curriculum
with dual certification in both general classroom and special education is
proposed (Ludlow et al., 1996). Another example is the development of a
field-based program, with cooperation between the involved university and
school district (Carey, 1997). Cooperative professional development (Glatthorn,
1990) is another suggestion aimed at the establishment of special
education-classroom teacher teams, with both parties having role parity,
using a flexible approach and professional dialogue as possible options.
Hollingsworth (2001) focuses on improving collaboration with a
communication network. She believes collaborating teachers need to discuss
their challenges and successes by carrying out a local needs assessment
and professional development suited to these needs.
How teachers feel about their collaboration is essential to its success:
AThe relationship between the general education teacher and the special
education teacher is the most crucial one in terms of effective
collaboration for delivery of service to exceptional students who are
mainstreamed or integrated in general education classrooms@ (Stanovich,
1996, 40). Too often, teachers indicate that they are satisfied with the
quality of their collaborative roles but not with the quantity. As well,
while teaching together is considered less than ideal, classroom teachers
tend to think highly of instruction done by the special education teacher
in the special education classroom, and prefer collaborative support in
the form of verbal exchange (Voltz, Elliott & Cobb, 1994). Still,
perceptions of collaboration vary. Favourable attitudes towards
collaboration may be tempered, for example, by the expectation of a
greater work load (Bedi , 1996), by the lack of appropriate materials and
support (Minke, Bear, Deemer & Griffin, 1996; Din, 1996), by concerns
about role definition (Din,1996), and by issues of scheduling, time and
training (Minke et al., 1996; Din, 1996). Studies of collaborative
practice reflect some of these concerns. Issues of control, roles, styles,
professional territory, differences and feelings of not belonging seem to
predominate in the early stages of collaboration. Often, these
difficulties are resolved over time as classroom teachers and special
education teachers learn to share and blend their skills, while developing
respect for one another and finding renewed joy in teaching (Salend,
Johansen, Mumper, Chase, Pike and Dorney, 1997; Wood, 1998).
Although even the need to collaborate itself can be a barrier to inclusion
(Monahan, Marino & Miller, 1996), and while practices vary widely between
regions and within schools (Howells, 2000), most collaboration models and
studies of the perceptions and practices of teachers suggest that teachers
should collaborate. The special education teachers in this study are no
exception. In fact, every participant indicated that collaboration is a
necessity under Pathways and the inclusion model. Special education
teachers seem to be caught in a struggle, though, between their desire to
collaborate, and the reality of putting their wishes into practice without
much support in the school environment.
To gather information about how special education teachers in Newfoundland
collaborate when working with Pathways, seven special educators working in
one region of the province were interviewed and asked to describe their
involvement in day-to-day collaboration with classroom teachers. This
information is presented here through a description of the participants,
the study and the resulting themes that emerged from their opinions and
reflections.
Special Education Teacher Collaboration
The seven participants were all full-time teachers, either working in
full-time special education positions or, more commonly, working as both
regular classroom and special education teachers. They included two males
and five female teachers, ranging in experience from that of Elizabeth,
Faith and Samuel, all in their first year of teaching special education,
through Rose, Olivia and William, each with less than five years as
special educators, to Leah, a special education teacher with more than
twenty years of teaching experience, almost all within the special
education field. Only Olivia, Leah and Faith were fully qualified in
special education, but both Rose and William were working on their
qualifications at the time of their interviews. All of them had training
in Pathways, through their academic work or in-service training, but none
reported completing a course or in-service devoted to collaboration. They
were first interviewed by phone to share their views and practices on
inclusion, Pathways and collaboration. Each participant then completed a
week-long journal to outline their actual day-to-day collaboration with
classroom teachers, along with their reflections and suggestions.
Typically, the participants= conversations and reflections seemed to
centre on areas of concern about collaboration, especially issues with
time, isolation, and even power. Overall, they supported the idea of
collaboration with classroom teachers as it is presented in provincial
policy and did practice collaboration to a limited extent. As a result of
barriers created by a lack of practical supports in the schools, though,
they did not practise collaboration in ways typically recommended in the
literature, or even to the extent that they desired.
In or out?
Reflecting their faith in inclusion, these special education teachers
typically approved of their students remaining in the regular classroom
for most of the school day. At the same time, though, most seemed to have
no difficulty with the idea or the practice of pulling students out to an
alternate classroom for a limited part of the day; in fact, they preferred
this practice over teaching in the regular classroom. Faith described it
this way: AI do think they need some time in a self-contained classroom
where they can get the instruction they need. The direct instruction.@
Only a few teachers mentioned that they teach their special education
students in the regular classroom from time to time, and only Leah
confirmed actually more commonly teaching side by side in collaboration
with classroom teachers. In her opinion, there are definite advantages to
working in this way: AThey [the children] don=t only see me as their
teacher, I=m everybody=s teacher.@ Perhaps, in choosing not to teach
together regularly, these teachers are attempting to bypass the
difficulties associated with shared teaching, particularly the practical
challenge of trying to schedule groups of students together.
Even when these special education teachers did collaborate at times by
teaching together with classroom teachers in the regular classroom
environment, it was more likely to end up as simply just being together in
the same room, or what one research team terms as parallel teaching (West
& Idol, 1990), rather than truly teaching collaboratively. As Olivia
reflected in her journal, AI think some teachers fear having another
teacher in the class with them. I suppose they find it a bit
intimidating.@ Further elaborating, she went on to say: AUsually the
special education teacher is just the special education teacher and that=s
that. And he or she is just for slow students and that=s her domain, and
the regular teacher has her domain or his domain, and a lot of people
assume that it=s two separate things.@
Pulling students out for instruction was carried out for a number of
reasons beyond that of teacher preference and student need. For example,
William was directed to use a pull-out model by local school
administration: AI didn=t make the choice, I didn=t ask for the choice,
that=s what I was given. That was my assignment when I came: the principal
said, >Your job is special ed.... this is how we do it in the school.
These students are being pulled out and they=re going to come to your
classroom.=@ Faith asserted the sheer logistical impossibility of working
the regular classes of all the students on her caseload: AI just can=t go
into all their classes.@ Leah, Olivia and Samuel all noted that classroom
teachers seem not yet prepared for full collaboration in the form of
teaching together. Leah said, ASome people ... I don=t think you can do
anything to make them comfortable with it. And I don=t think we can force
it.@ Olivia wrote: AI think some teachers fear having another teacher in
the class with them. I suppose they find it a bit intimidating,@ and
Samuel reflected that some teachers give the impression that they feel the
need to have control in their own classrooms. Perhaps this is why special
education teachers working in the regular classroom are informally
referred to Apushing in@ to classrooms when they are not Apulling out@
students (for example, United Federation of Teachers, 2002).
For members of the educational community who are satisfied with using
partial pull-out to supplement inclusion, the withdrawal of students seems
to be a non-issue. But for those who do wish to participate in
collaborative teaching, supports need to be provided to remove barriers
such as those indicated by special education teachers. According to these
special education teachers and others, this can happen through the
encouragement of instructional innovations and changes to existing
organizational arrangements (Robinson, 1991). Such changes, though, are
not always possible at an individual level: they must be supported by
school administration and district policy, in both theory and practice.
Fortunately, as West & Idol (1990) suggest, in addition to teaching
together, collaboration is also considered to be a process that focuses on
shared decision-making and problem-solving. In other words, collaboration
is also talking together. This talking together is how teachers in this
study preferred to collaborate B although it also came with its own
challenges. One of these problems was time.
Where does the time go?
An examination of how teachers spend their time together also provides
insight into what they believe is important. The special education
teachers in this study typically talked together during meetings which
they usually described as spontaneous or informal. For example, William
said, ASo I just consult with the teacher then, just outside her door
about what they were doing.@ Likewise, Olivia noted that, AIt just comes
out of the blue .... Somebody could say something and then somebody will
say something else. Before you know it, you=re in a deep conversation
about a certain child.@ You might Apop into a teacher=s classroom@
reflected Rose, or simply Amention back and forth to each other@ to
collaborate, said Faith.
Clearly, these teachers preferred spending their time focussed on
discussing their special education students and their program needs. Rose
recounts such everyday conversations as going something like this: AHow
was >Joe= today? I did this with Joe today; what do you think about it?@
and AWhy do you think that is?@ AWe discuss the students in her class
quite a bit and generally try to work together on solving problems that
arise,@ is how Elizabeth described a common focus of her chats with
classroom teachers.
During conversations, the main priority of the special education teachers
seems to be about trying to create some continuity for students who are
switching back and forth between different classrooms for instruction.
Rose emphasized that these informal conversations are essential: AIt=s
actually impossible to do justice to a child=s education without
understanding how that child is performing and behaving in all other
aspects of his education as well. And to do that you need to be constantly
in collaboration with the regular classroom teacher.@ William agreed that,
AWhat one teacher=s doing certainly leads into what another should be
doing, and it=s also... more beneficial.@
These meetings generally take place in the staffroom or in the regular
classroom. With limited or no formal preparation time, what might seem a
natural time to collaborate becomes virtually impossible. As William
laughingly considered, AWhen you get a prep period ... somebody else is
working.@ Elizabeth echoed the consensus when she summarized that, AThere=s
really no time during the day.@ Instead, teachers seem to find some time
to meet either during instructional time or after school.
Like many teachers, special educators are always busy carrying out the
usual duties of their teaching role (Younghusband, 2000), including the
assessment demands and paperwork that come with Pathways,\; yet the
teachers in this study did manage to find limited time to collaborate at
least by talking with classroom teachers. However, what is conveyed here
is that they have to create time to collaborate by taking the time
previously allocated to other aspects their work, or by adding the
collaboration time to their workday. Time for collaboration appears simply
not to exist in the typical school, although finding time to collaborate
is both an expectation and a necessity with the current practice of
special education. Although Dettmer et al. (1993) assert that constraints
of time should not hold back collaboration planning, the lack of time for
these teachers and others (Voltz et al., 1994, Kauffman & Trent, 1991) is
clearly a key inconsistency between the theory and reality of
collaboration under Pathways. Rose summarized this discrepancy well when
she wrote, AAs for the collaboration itself, it would be nice to sit down
for a while and discuss further what to do about this particular student.
But the question I keep asking myself constantly is: >Where do I get the
time to do all the things that need to be done?=@ Indeed, finding any time
to talk together is a frustrating and unwelcome challenge for many special
educators.
If special education teachers believe that talking together is an
essential type of collaboration, and policy stands behind this belief,
schools need to support its practice. Rather than expecting individual
teachers or pairs of collaborating teachers to create collaboration time,
schools need to find a creative way to provide such necessary time. As
Rose again reflected, AWell, again, that=s always a big problem I=ve sort
of had with Pathways and all those types of things is that fact that ... I
believe it is a good system, but the problem is when you=re not provided
the resources to carry it out as successfully as it can be carried out.
And I always find that very frustrating. Like for example they talk about
how important it is to collaborate with teachers.... but if you don=t give
me the time to do that, how do you expect me to do it?@ Finding time,
though, is not the only area where special educators are in need of
practical supports: challenging isolation is another.
Alone in a crowd
Dettmer, et al. (1993) noted that often a teacher might feel Astranded on
a crowded island that is devoid of adult interaction and stimulation@ (4).
Special education teachers seem even more vulnerable than classroom
teachers to these feelings of isolation since they are often separated
from normal school routines. This certainly appeared to be the case for
Olivia, who mused that, ASpecial education can be isolating at times.@
Others were able to point out numerous instances of dealing with some form
of isolation, either physically or psychologically. In part, this seems to
be the inevitable result of withdrawing students to a special education
classroom for instruction. Although withdrawal does not inherently have a
negative effect on the quality of instruction and learning (Hallahan &
Kauffman, 1991), it can have a negative effect on teachers (Hollingsworth,
2001). Any adverse effects of this physical isolation, though, are
obviously not so negative that teachers are willing to discontinue its
voluntary practice. As well, even in situations where special education
teachers choose to teach alongside classroom teachers in the regular class
setting, they were often still isolated to the extent that they generally
limit most of their attention to the special education students in order
to, as Leah noted, Ameet the needs of the students that I have ISSPs for,
or my students, I call them.@
It is of course impossible to avoid the irony here: although special
education teachers express their great desire to collaborate, they are
making a choice that contradicts this desire and leads, instead, to
isolation. Indeed the idea that collaborative, inclusive classrooms have
been a factor in preventing the isolation that occurs when teachers
typically work alone (Salend et al., 1997) is not being fulfilled.
Perhaps, then, it is not that isolation is inherently negative enough to
avoid, but rather that there is not enough motivation to lean towards
collaboration (Dettmer, Thurston & Dyck, 1993).
When participants reflected on talking together with classroom teachers, a
recurrent theme was the noticeable lack of direct feedback to special
education teachers from the classroom teachers with whom they were
working. Leah, for example, noted that classroom teachers have not said
anything directly to her, such as, AThis collaboration bit is great.@ She
wonders instead if Amaybe we don=t praise each other enough.@ When writing
about her collaboration, Elizabeth reflected positively on one experience
of talking together with a classroom teacher, but obviously felt this was
outside of the norm when she wrote, AMaybe others need to be more like her
[the classroom teacher]?@ The important point is that this lack of
feedback may lead to a feeling of isolation, in addition to the reality of
physical isolation.
These feelings, though, seemed to be somewhat mediated by other kinds of
positive feedback. These favourable impressions usually centred on the
development of positive relationships between collaborating teachers.
Rose, for example, cited a classroom teacher as being Avery respectful@ of
her opinions and having Aopen and honest@ interactions, Elizabeth noted
that another was Avery easy to talk to,@ and William discussed his
positive feelings about a Agood rapport.@ As well, these teachers seemed
to rely on their own intuition when no direct feedback was made available
to them, and determined most relationships to be positive.
Overall then, feelings of isolation arose when these teachers were not
provided with direct feedback about their efficacy, but their isolation
appeared to be mediated by indirect feedback. The special education
teachers in this study usually purposefully chose physical isolation over
in-class collaboration with classroom teachers against the typical
recommendations of educational researchers. To improve the likelihood of
special education teacher isolation, teachers need to be given motivation
to teach together through the provision of practical supports,
encouragement and feedback. Although collaborative teaching is one way to
support both inclusion and the provision of direct special education
services, it seems obvious that schools do not expect their teachers to
use this method. Perhaps schools could provide modelling and practice in
teaching collaboratively, and emphasize the importance of positive
feedback from all involved members, including school administration.
Individual school staffs may need to consider a group consensus to begin
to implement collaborative teaching. If special education teacher and
classroom teachers do in fact attempt teaching together, though, further
issues do continue to arise, such as negotiating authority between these
teacher pairs.
A struggle for command
Although Dwyer & Patterson (2000) assert that it is now time to view the
classroom as a shared space including all key members of the educational
community, the teachers in this study indicate that the sharing of space
and roles does not come without a struggle. For example, as William
described it, AThe homeroom teacher may not mind you coming in and
suggesting things ... [but then] there=s someone else who doesn=t want you
to tell them how to do their job. And you don=t want to do that anyway
.... it took me a while to figure out who I could say what to.@ Similarly,
Rose wrote that, ATeachers working together is much more effective than
teachers dictating to one another. I feel it=s very important to establish
a good rapport with each teacher and to make one another feel comfortable
in expressing [our] beliefs and their concerns.@ Faith lamented:
ASometimes I wonder if what I have to say is as important or whatever? So
I sort of keep my mouth shut a lot more than perhaps I should.@
Clearly, some special education teachers avoid similar struggles by
withdrawing students for instruction rather than teaching together with
classroom teachers, as the teachers in this study typically did. These
choices seemed to give the special education teachers greater independence
and eliminate the difficulties associated with resolving day-to-day
boundary struggles. For example, William noted, AI think that both of us
would be more comfortable working on our own that way [because then]
they=re mostly out and they=re my students on my course,@ And Rose stated,
AI find it hard sometimes when people say you should do this, this and
this with kids, but I always feel very strongly that what you should do
depends on the individual student and the individual situation.@
Similarly, Samuel noted a common attitude among classroom teachers when he
said, ASome totally whole-heartedly, yes, collaborate. More others are
just sort of, >Well, okay, that=s a good idea, but you take the student
outside of my class=@ or that, AShe=s got her students in her class, and
she teaches the way she ... wants to teach, and I=m there and I=m working
with that student.@ William acknowledged that difficulties in working out
role boundaries can come from the special education teacher as well as the
classroom teacher when he maintained that, AIt could be me too. I mean, it
can, it can go both ways right? .... It could be just something that I=m
not comfortable with, and would not rather approach it.@
Thus, although these teachers supported the ideals of collaboration, they
simultaneously withdrew from the challenge of developing appropriate role
boundaries in their teaching relationships. Once again, these special
education teachers seemed to be voicing their willingness to fulfil the
demands of collaboration B in theory B but they appeared to be unwilling,
on their own, to take the personal risks needed to put these ideals fully
into practice. Clearly, school administrators will need to consider that
teachers need to be supported in attempting new initiatives in an
environment that supports risk-taking. More importantly, it will be
necessary to create an environment where teaching together and negotiating
new relationships is not seen as a risk, but rather understood as a
worthwhile challenge in the fulfilment of best teaching practices.
Three wishes
The teachers in this study described a number of serious barriers to their
collaboration with classroom teachers, but none of them reacted to these
barriers by suggesting discontinuing or even minimizing their attempts to
collaborate. Just the opposite attitude existed: these teachers
consistently confirmed Howell=s (2000) idea that collaboration helps to
solve problems, improve situations and meet challenges and needs that
would not be otherwise met individually. When asked to provide their
thoughts on what would be needed to support collaboration, the teachers
were quick to point out three areas: formal, planned time to talk together
with classroom teachers preferably during the instructional day,
in-service education on collaboration, and additional training in the
interpersonal skills necessary to carry it out successfully.
The ideal of planned collaboration time was summarized by Olivia who
suggested that it “would be beneficial to set a particular time aside once
a week to discuss student progress with teachers. Even once a week or
every couple of weeks would be great.@ She had heard of times when the
special education teacher Awill actually slot in a certain amount of time,
probably after school, to talk to specific teachers, probably once a
week.@ Apparently skeptical about whether this in fact was a real
possibility, she added, AOr is that too much I wonder? .... Is that asking
too much?@ When considering an ideal school in an ideal world, Rose mused
that she would have, Athree periods a week where I could sit down with a
teacher and we could discuss the students= progress and where we feel we
could go on from here.@ She imagined that ideally schools would provide
Atime allotted to actually sit down and discuss those things.@ William, on
the other hand, imagined ideal time for collaboration unfolding this way:
AFirst thing in the morning ... after the good mornings are said, we can
sit down .... do you have anything pressing that that kid needs to be
doing right now? If not, this is what I=m doing. Any suggestions as to
anything I should be doing more or extra or am I doing too much that that
kid can=t handle.@ Leah envisioned that, ideally, Awe=d have time in the
evening before.@ Samuel believed that an ideal model would be to Ameet
with the other teachers ...before we actually have the student .... that
the two teachers can have off, and we can discuss and talk about different
ideas.@
Like Olivia, though, Elizabeth thinks that being provided with time to
collaborate during the instructional day is unlikely. In fact, she
responded with: AI think that=s funny! [laughter] Because I don=t think
we=ll ever get it .... pardon me for being so sarcastic [laughter
continuing] but I don=t think, I really don=t think that=s going to
happen.@ Clearly, time is a critical issue, for these teachers and others
(Phillips & McCullough, 1990; Robinson, 1991).
As a number of researchers agree, special education teachers who choose to
collaborate also need a venue to develop the skills that area necessary
for collaboration (Bedi,1996; Dettmer, Thurston & Dyck, 1993; Robinson,
1991). The majority of those in this study agreed, indicating that they
would benefit from some type of professional in-service training in
collaboration. Olivia suggested that this could be accomplished by using
Aa moderator, or someone, like I said, that could give us even an hour, or
a couple of classes in how they use it [collaboration] , or a couple of
classes in how they use it, or what it=s used for, or how it can be used.@
Faith reflected, Aeven if it was just on Pathway Two, just to stress the
importance of it. And the importance of documentation and collaboration
with the classroom teachers, to help this child.@
Some indicated that even time to talk with other special education
teachers would be welcomed in the form of William=s suggestion of
Aperiodic get-togethers@ or Leah=s wish to be able to Asit down sometime,
and say, >Look, this is how we collaborate.=@ Others emphasized the
necessity of including training in collaboration at a preservice level;
for example, as Elizabeth pointed out, AI don=t think special education
should be like a separate thing that you go in and like a degree that you
go in and get. I think that there should be some parts of it included in
your program ....because you deal with things like that every day in your
classroom.@
Finally, teachers in this study seemed to be in agreement with Robinson=s
(1991) view that effective collaboration needs Aknowledge and skills in
the process of collaboration and knowledge and skills in effective
teaching practices@ (448). The most common focus of knowledge and skills
for collaboration training suggested by these special education teachers
fell within the bounds of training in interpersonal skills. This wish was
summarized by William who reflected, AYou=re learning people skills. And a
lot of us, even though we are supposed to be teaching people, we lack
that.@ In addition, Rose noted that, AIt=s always nice to get some ideas
about how to get along better with other people, because there may come a
time when my collaboration with the regular classroom teachers may not run
so smoothly as it is right now.@ She observed that it is Aimportant to
learn to respect other people=s ideas even if you don=t agree with them
sometimes,@ a feeling echoed by William who indicated that he wanted to
know how to Aapproach someone when you=re sure that what you could suggest
is going to benefit this kid, but you know that a certain teacher is just
going on a different wavelength altogether.@
Rose referred to the importance of learning Aideas and things on how to
deal with teachers that are more difficult,@ and Olivia linked this with
parent-teacher relationships as well, by noting that she would like to
focus on Ahow to collaborate with parents so you don=t sound like you=re
the know-it-all ...you want to make the parents feel like they=re your
equals and that their opinions are just as important as yours, which they
are .... and how do you handle certain situation, or what would you do if
a parent said this, or a parent disagreed.@ These skills could also
benefit classroom teachers, if they could help motivate classroom teachers
to share their teaching tasks. Faith suggested that she would like to
learn to assist classroom teachers in knowing that Athat they can come to
the special education teacher .... for help and advice; that you don=t
have to do it all on your own.@ Overall, then, they seem to be suggesting
that interpersonal skills training, although ultimately targeted at
enhancing student learning, can also be applied to teacher-teacher and
parent-teacher relationships in collaboration.
Overall, special education teacher wishes for collaboration in an ideal
world centre on the need for formal, planned collaboration time,
inservicing in collaboration, and training in interpersonal skills
development. To meet these objectives, teachers are quite surely in need
of support, leadership and advocacy from school administration. It is
interesting that for most, these ideals seemed to be viewed as little more
than wishful thinking.
Looking ahead
Overall, the special education teachers in this study seemed to agree in
theory with the ideals of inclusion and collaboration. In practice, they
do carry out inclusion for the majority of the instructional day, and
engage in collaboration in a limited manner. It seems clear, however, that
without support, they are not likely to be able or willing to explore
fully the potential of true collaboration, as described in the literature.
To support special education teachers better, provincial policy needs
first to emphasize day-to-day collaboration between the teachers who are
responsible for students with special needs, for example by expanding on
the collaborative roles each is expected to play in the step by step
process of implementing an ISSP plan. More particularly, the Special
Education Policy Manual (Draft), Pathways and ISSP documents need to be
modified to more explicitly recommend effective approaches to teaching
together and talking together. As well, provincial and school board
policies must provide individual school staffs with the authority to
implement supportive, practical changes.
At the school level, principals need to consider a commitment to
collaboration, perhaps
through the use of more flexible scheduling. This could be accomplished by
reorganizing the school day, for example, or by having local school
administrators assign collaboration time, or by making use of student
grouping, support staff, volunteers, student teachers or substitute time
as suggested by West & Idol (1990). Similarly, perhaps school staffs need
to consider their overall attitude towards collaboration and work towards
developing a collaborative ethic initiative to ensure that staff have
consistent expectations and goals for collaboration (Phillips &
McCullough, 1990). School faculties could network locally and with a wider
community, sharing information through the use of text, technology or
teacher conferencing (Brown & Sheppard, 1997). In this way, teachers who
are geographically dispersed could share, learn and reflect through modes
such as Acomputer links, newsletters, fax machines, and occasional
seminars and conferences@ (10) as a flexible model for rural regions.
Making use of a centrally-located teacher centre for the collaborative
development of innovations in skills, materials through dialogue is
another possibility. Similarly, accessing an on-line community such as the
Virtual Teacher Centre (Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association,
2001), a new provincial initiative, is another alternative where groups
such as Online Learning Teams can be utilized. Here, the focus is on the
professional development needs of a small group of self-paced, networking
teachers who are focussed on meeting goals to find the best classroom
practices.
To resolve power issues, school administrators might consider implementing
interpersonal skills development training and in-service training on
teacher collaboration. A focus on both of these areas should provide
teachers with a greater knowledge of possible roles for collaboration and
ideas about how to carry out these roles professionally, deflecting
potential conflict and building a collaboratively community of teachers.
Such training could be provided through involving all staff in a model of
staff development, which centres on long-term commitment to professional
growth towards a goal (Dettmer, Thurston & Dyck, 1993). As an alternative,
programs of skills development, described by Brown and Sheppard (1997) as
periodic workshops over a given period of time, including classroom
coaching to help transfer skills that are learned to the classroom
environment, could be implemented. Other possible ideas include mentoring
programs or teacher institutes (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon cited in
Brown & Sheppard, 1997), distance education, or making use of school
administration days. As well, these plans could be linked with other
existing district initiatives involving school improvement or teacher
growth.
It will be interesting to see how collaboration will change and develop
over time under Pathways. Further research seems indicated in a number of
areas: comparative studies of novice and experienced teachers; regional
and provincial differences in support and implementation; and the
perspectives of classroom teachers, to name just a few.
What this exploratory study shows, however, is that if collaboration is to
be successful in its initial stages, the province will need to begin by
providing school boards and local schools with the authority and practical
means to implement supportive, practical changes. If schools and school
systems plan for their special education and classroom teachers to
practice effective inclusion, the demands of its implementation in turn
necessitate teacher collaboration. Teacher collaboration, in turn, demands
the provisions of time and training that special educators clearly
require.
References
Angle, B. (1996). 5 steps to collaborative teaching and enrichment
remediation.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(1), 8-10.
Apple, M. (1993). Cultural Politics and the Text. In Official Knowledge
(pp. 44-63). New
York: Routledge.
Bedi, A. (1996). Collaboration between Regular and Special Education
Teachers
for Educating Students with Mild Disabilities. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation
Services.
British Columbia Department of Education. (1997). Review of learning
assistance
services report. Victoria: BC Ministry of Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. Ed 423651)
Brown, J. & Sheppard, B. (1997). Professional development: what do we know
and
where are we going? Morning Watch, (Winter), 17pgs. Retrieved 22 July,
2001 from the Memorial University of Newfoundland Web site:
http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win97/pdfinal.htm.
Carey, L.K. (1997). Inclusion training for pre-service teachers - from
theory to
best classroom practice. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 52-58.
Carr, R.A. & Peavy, R.V. (1986). A consulting role for the resource
teacher. In
Bachor, D.G. & Crealock, C., Instructional Strategies for Students with
Special Needs. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.
Coben, S.S., Chase Thomas, C., Sattler, R.O. & Voelker Morsink, C. (1997).
Meeting
the challenge of consultation and collaboration: developing interactive
teams. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 427-432.
Dettmer, P., Thurston, L.P. & Dyck, N. (1993). Consultation, Collaboration
and
Teamwork for Students with Special Needs. Needham Heights: Allyn and
Bacon.
Din, F.S. (1996). How special education services are delivered in kentucky
regular public schools in the context of the educational reform movement.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED400643)
Dwyer, S.C., & Patterson, D. (2000) Listening to elementary teachers: a
first step to
better inclusive practice. The Journal of the International Association of
Special Education, 3(1), 37-58.
Glatthorn, A.A. (1990). Cooperative professional development: facilitating
the growth
of the special education teacher and the classroom teacher. Remedial and
Special Education, 11(3), 29-50.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1999). Special Education Policy
Manual
(Draft). St. John=s: Department of Education, Division of Special
Education Services.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1998). Pathways to Programming
and Graduation: A Handbook for All Teachers and Administrators. St.
John=s: Department of Education, Division of Student Support Services.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1997). Coordination of Services
to
Children and Youth in Newfoundland and Labrador: Individual Support
Services Plans (Revised). St. John=s: Department of Education, Division of
Student Support Services.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1996). Programming for Individual
Needs:
Individual Support Services Plans. St. John=s: Department of Education,
Division of Student Support Services.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1987). Special Education Policy
Manual.
St. John=s: Department of Education, Division of Special Education
Services. Hallahan D.P. & Kauffman, J.M. (1991). Exceptional Children:
Introduction to Special
Education. Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hollingsworth, H.L. (2001). We need to talk: communication strategies for
effective
collaboration. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 4-8.
Howells, K. (2000). Boldly going where angels fear to tread. Intervention
in School
and Clinic, 35(3), 157-160.
Karge, B.D., McClure, M. & Patton, P.L. (1995). The success of
collaboration
resource programs for students with disabilities in grades 6 through 8.
Remedial and Special Education, 16(2), 79-89.
Kauffman, J.M. & Trent, S.C. (1991). Issues in service delivery for
students with
learning disabilities. In Wong, B.Y.L. (Ed.) Learning about Learning
Disabilities (pp. 465-481) San Diego: Academic Press.
Ludlow, B.L., Wienke, W.D., Deasy, G. & Henderson, J. (1996). Fostering
integration in
rural classrooms: the mainstream practicum project. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. 364769).
Minke, K.M., Bear, G.G., Deemer, S.A., & Griffin, S.M. (1996). Teachers=
experiences
with inclusive classrooms: implications for special education reform. The
Journal of Special Education, 30(21), 152-186.
Monahan, R.G., Marino, S.B. & Miller, R. (1996). Rural teachers= attitudes
toward
inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 394775)
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association (2001). Virtual Teacher
Centre.
Retrieved May 18, 2002 from: http://www.virtualteachercentre.ca/learning_teams/default.asp.
Phillips, V. & McCullough, L. (1990). Consultation-programming:
instituting
the collaborative ethic in schools. Exceptional Children, 56(4), 291-304.
Philpott, D. (2001) Inclusive education: reviewing the criticism to find
direction? In
Morning Watch, (Winter), 14pgs. Retrieved July 5, 2001 from the Memorial
University Web site: http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win21/philpott.html.
Ripley, S. (July 1997). Collaboration between general and special
education teachers.
(ERIC Digest Reproduction Service No. ED 409317)
Robinson, S.M. (1991). Collaborative consultation. In Wong, B.Y.L. (Ed.),
Learning
about Learning Disabilities (pp. 441-463). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ripley, 1997
Salend, S.J., Johansen, M. Mumper, J., Chase, A.S., Pike, K.M. & Dorney,
J.A. (1997).
Cooperative teaching: the voices of two teachers. RASE: Remedial and
Special Education, 18(1), 3-11.
Stanovich, P.J. (1996). Collaboration - the key to successful instruction
in today=s
inclusive schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, September 1996,
32(1), 39-42.
United Federation of Teachers (2002). President hears chapter concerns,
2pgs. Retrieved on July 9, 2002 from the United Federation of Teachers
Website: http://www.uft.org/?fid=194&tf=1333.
Vargo, S. (1998). Consulting teacher-to-teacher. Teaching Exceptional
Children,
30(3), 54-55.
Voltz, D.L., Elliott, R.N. & Cobb, H.B. (1994). Collaborative teacher
roles: special
and general educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 27(8), 527-535.
West, J.F & Idol, L. (1990). Collaborative consultation in the education
of mildly
handicapped and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1),
22-31.
Winzer, M. (1999). Children with Exceptionalities in Canadian Classrooms.
Fifth
Edition. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada.
Wood, M. (1998). Whose job is it anyway? Educational roles in inclusion.
Exceptional Children. 64(2), 181-195.
Younghusband, L. (2000) Teacher stress in one school district of
Newfoundland and
Labrador: a pilot study. Morning Watch, (Fall), 21pgs. Retrieved on July
5, 2001 from the Memorial University Website: http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/fall00/younghusband.htm.
Younghusband, L. (1999). Where are we going on Pathways? Morning Watch,
(Fall),8pgs.
Retrieved on March 28, 2000 from the Memorial University Web site: http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/fall99/young.html.
Zigmond, N. & Baker, J.M. (1995). Concluding comments: current and future
practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2),
245-250.
|