Supporting Literacy Instruction for Students With Extensive Support Needs in Rural Settings Through Collaboration: So Much Better When We Work Together!

Abstract

The roles of teachers and related service providers (e.g., speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists) are vital to skill acquisition and meaningful access to the general education curriculum for students who have been identified as having significant or extensive support needs. However, often delivery of instruction can become fragmented and disjointed as time for service providers to collaborate with team members is limited in rural schools. As a result, students with more extensive support needs may not receive adequate access to systemic and meaningful literacy instruction. This article will identify the obstacles as well as three strategies special education teams can use to improve communication and collaboration.

Keywords

collaboration literacy team approach rural special education and extensive support needs

Billy is a third-grade student in a rural school who has cerebral palsy. He has limited mobility in his arms and legs, and uses adaptive equipment (e.g., a wheelchair or walker). Billy demonstrates slower speed of cognitive processing as well as limited verbal communication due to his disability. If he does not have immediate access to low or high tech communication, he will often rely on nonverbal communication such as gesturing, pointing, and glancing. He also nods and shakes his head to indicate yes or no if prompted with a question. Although his individual needs are significant, Billy participates in an inclusive classroom with nondisabled peers and has acquired strong skills in literacy throughout his education. Billy is able to read and comprehend text, encode responses using the application on his electronic tablet, and turn pages in a text (either on his tablet or with adaptive devices which enables books to be manipulated with a switch). He also uses manipulatives to sequence story elements and decodes words using simple signing strategies along with his augmentative communication device.

Billy learned and practiced each of these academic skills with the help of his special and general education teachers, related service providers, and family. In addition, because all of these people worked together, Billy also has learned to generalize these skills and use them to effectively demonstrate his understanding of instruction taking place throughout his school day. The degree of efficacy in Billy’s use of his abilities is due greatly in part to the collaborative efforts taken by his special education team. People often are surprised by Billy’s literacy skills and wonder how a child with such diverse and individual needs is able to independently demonstrate these academic skills. The short story is that Billy has worked incredibly hard. However, it is important to recognize that Billy is supported by his parents, the special education teacher, a paraeducator, the general education teacher, a speech-language pathologist, physical therapists, and occupational therapists who insist on working together to provide him cohesive and consistent language, instruction, and skill implementation.

Initially, Billy’s service providers each supported him individually to achieve specific goals. The service providers’ collaboration was restricted by the more rural nature of Billy’s school; his team was only able to connect with each other and share information during Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. When discussing Billy’s progress at meetings, his teacher, special education teacher, and related service providers used terms and jargon that pertained specifically to their own fields. This left Billy’s family feeling confused and frustrated. They felt that they were often left on their own to attempt to decipher the field-specific language. These practices created a lot of fragmentation in Billy’s instruction as well as confusion for him. Minimal progress was made toward his goals and service providers were quick to place blame on Billy’s abilities for this lack of progress. However, during a conversation at Billy’s IEP meeting his teachers, providers, and family each recognized that he was demonstrating progress and skills (indicating that he was learning) despite their lack of cohesion. So, Billy’s team decided to synchronize and streamline their efforts. The results of their collaboration promoted substantial increases in skills, decreases in refusal behavior, more efficient service coordination across rural miles, and a shared happiness between parents, general and special education teachers, related service providers, and (most importantly) Billy!

An exemplar student with extensive support needs will be described throughout this article. Copeland, Keefe, Calhoon, Tanner, and Park (2011) identify individuals with significant or extensive needs for support as students who demonstrate either moderate or severe cognitive needs (p. 1). In addition, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) uses categories to identify levels of support for individual students. According to the Schalock et al. (2010), students identified as having extensive support needs are defined as individuals who require generalized and ongoing assistance across a number of interactive domains including access and daily living skills, interpersonal and social abilities, educational and academic achievement, work-related or employment skills, and community interaction (Schalock et al., 2010). In general, those students who demonstrate a significantly increased need for support or students with more extensive support needs for support often require additional service providers to address their literacy acquisition needs as well as deliver strategic and deliberate intervention. Support needs will likely include, but are not limited to, those involving cognition, receptive and expressive language development, motor skills, and health or sensory needs.

This article addresses the importance of successful special education team collaboration in rural areas and the impact collaborative practices can have on the academic progress for students with extensive support needs. Three practices are described including collaborative planning, interprofessional collaboration, and co-teaching. The components of a collaborative planning model are also described. The collaborative planning model includes recognizing the importance of common language and instruction, as well as creating mutual goals with objectives using team members’ expertise to benefit students. Finally, this article outlines strategies that can help bridge gaps for effective service provider collaboration through team teaching and co-taught lessons. These three processes of collaboration should provide a clear way to support team member interprofessional collaboration, implement collaborative planning techniques, and support IEP implementation through either applying all or a combination of these three practices: collaborative practices, interprofessional collaboration, and co-teaching.

Struggles With Collaboration

Issues such as those facing Billy and his service providers are not uncommon. Students who are identified with extensive support needs frequently demonstrate complex disabilities which involve the expertise of several service providers. The term service provider is defined as a professional providing instruction or services to a student. According to Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), related services (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 [26]) are supportive services which provide individual students with identified disabilities access to education as described within the child’s IEP. In this article, the term related service provider will be used as a general term to describe members of the special education team that are not special education teachers, general education teachers, or families. Therefore, service provider will focus on occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, physical therapists, school psychologists, area nurses, and so on. The special education or IEP team will be used as an inclusive term for special education teachers, general education teachers, paraeducators, families, and related service providers. Each member of the special education team targets specific areas of student need based on their own professional focus and expertise.

Implementation of services as well as collaboration in rural areas can be especially challenging. Often, struggles surrounding constraints on time and distance as well as scheduling make collaboration among special education teams difficult (Ashburner, Vickerstaff, Beetge, & Copley, 2016; Conroy, Rude, & Phillips, 2006). In this article, collaboration is defined as individuals working together on mutual goals. These goals are developed together and shared while simultaneously highlighting team members’ individual strengths, understandings, and expertise which should strengthen team outcomes (Winchester, 2013).

Service providers in more rural areas may only have a limited amount of time with each student on their caseload. Scheduling can become increasingly challenging depending on the number of schools and their proximity. As a result of geographic and time constraints, special education teachers and related service providers traveling between and working in rural settings often have difficulty attending meetings, providing a frequent and consistent schedule of services, and gauging the lasting effectiveness of interventions (Ault, Bausch, & McLaren, 2013; Brendle, 2015; Sibon-Macarro et al., 2014). Thus, collaboration may not be made a prioritized practice, but instead something that takes place more spontaneously or reactively. Team interactions may include hallway conversations, voicemails, and brief notes versus consistent, organized, and purposeful communication.

When providers lack collaborative skills or fail to make collaboration a priority, problems can arise in skill acquisition for students with extensive support needs. Lack of collaboration may lead to fragmented instruction and a decrease in students’ skill growth as well as frustration among team members much like that which initially took place with Billy’s team. Symptoms of fragmented education include (a) lack of common language, (b) goals without a shared focus on specific areas of need, and (c) no systemic documents and/or plans to share information/progress regularly (Sayeski, 2009). For providers to effectively meet the needs of students with extensive support needs in rural areas, collaboration should be made a priority.

Literacy Instruction for Students With Extensive Support Needs

Experts in the field of literacy instruction for individuals with significant and extensive support needs such as Erickson (2017) and Spooner and Browder (2015) reiterate the gravity and importance of building literacy skills and holding high expectations for individuals with complex communication needs and more complex learning abilities. Because literacy skills are vital to self-advocacy, independence, and long-term outcomes for students (Fenlon, McNabb, & Pidlypchak, 2010), literacy instruction examples will be used throughout this article. It is acknowledged that other types of instruction certainly are as crucial for improving educational outcomes.

Improving literacy skills is essential for individuals like Billy who have been identified with extensive support needs. The complexity of his individual physical and communication needs involves his special education team instructing physical access (motor skills and self-help) as well as specific instruction for Billy to communicate, learn, and participate. Billy’s team understood that improving literacy skills could have a substantial impact on his potential for accessing education, relationships, community, and employment (e.g., Giordano, 1996; Harris & Graham, 2016; Lerman & Schmidt, 1999) and therefore made literacy instruction a priority.

Billy’s team came together to focus their efforts based on his strengths and needs. They realized that collaborating more closely around what they were each teaching would result in a tremendous positive impact on his achievement (Marzano, 2003). They agreed that literacy would be a strong area for collaboration due to the challenges surrounding the instruction as well as Billy’s complex needs. In the year 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) released a seminal report targeting the important components of literacy instruction. These areas of instruction are phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension (NRP, 2000). Although these guidelines may seem straightforward, there is increased difficulty in this task when working with individuals with extensive needs. To effectively implement instruction, it is implied that a sublexical level of understanding is in place as well as an understanding of the organization of semantics (Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). In other words, to successfully access, decode, understand, and produce written text, individuals need to have a deeper and working understanding of how sounds, letters, and language all operate together.

Often, students with more significant disabilities demonstrate complex challenges with speech and language skills which can make the process of literacy instruction difficult. Furthermore, students who are identified as having more extensive support needs frequently struggle with language acquisition itself which is the foundation of English literacy instruction. As indicated by Bock and Erickson (2015), students identified with more significant or extensive needs for support are frequently perceived to be less capable of achieving thorough or complete literacy skills and are often subject to lower expectations in terms of reading and writing attainment. Interestingly, the impact of lowered expectations is frequently compounded by the tendency for teachers, parents, and providers to be uncertain of what type of instruction to use and how it should be implemented for children with disabilities (Fenlon et al., 2010). Although the concept of literacy instruction seemed overwhelming to Billy’s team at first, they believed if they worked together they could meet their goal.

The struggle to identify evidence-based and accessible literacy instruction for individuals with extensive support needs intensifies as students demonstrate increasingly complex communication needs. Even special education teachers may have limited exposure to working with students who demonstrate more extensive or severe disabilities. Furthermore, new teachers who are less familiar with more significant or extensive support needs may demonstrate fear, uncertainty, and struggle with sensations of being overwhelmed or ineffective when working with students with limited verbal/communication skills, challenging behaviors, motor limitations, and complex medical needs (Israel, Carnahan, Snyder, & Williamson, 2013; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Myers (2007) and Sturm (2003) indicated that because individuals with complex speech and language needs struggle to articulate thoughts and needs verbally, that written communication would likely be the most autonomous mode of interaction and expression. In addition, they emphasize that literacy development is vital to providing opportunities for individuals with limited speech and language to access the world (Sturm, 2003). Therefore, it is important that educators and providers should integrate augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) as well as technology to provide student access to curriculum and increase opportunities for communication. Examples of AAC can range from low to high tech and is meant to assist students with limited access to verbal interactions with access to social and academic interactions (Cafiero & Meyer, 2008). Such communication may include (but is not limited to) picture boards, simple talkers, dedicated communication devices, or communication apps that can be downloaded to tablet computers or other electronic devices.

Although the idea of providing teams with technology and assuming that communication issues have been resolved is also a misconception. For technology to be effectively implemented with students, teams must be trained on how to use and integrate the technology. Furthermore, each team member’s understanding of this technology must be thorough as the goal is ultimately to instruct and increase student’s understanding and implementation of this equipment. Fenlon et al. (2010) found that students’ alternative methods of communication frequently result in a lack of understanding or uncertainty of how to incorporate devices into individual or group instruction for both special and general education teachers. In addition, because students with extensive needs frequently work on developing skills that will help them to access daily life as well as academic instruction, they are frequently subject to less content instruction time and increased time with providers working on nonacademic skills in separate or alternative settings (Banerjee, Sundeen, Hutchinson, & Jackson, 2016). Billy’s team makes a genuine effort to provide support and instruction to Billy, his general education teacher, and his family who were all initially tentative about using the device. Although some team members continue to be more comfortable with it, they have all agreed that his access to communication cannot be limited to specific settings and team members.

Instructional Alignment

The concept of alignment is not new to education. Over the past decade, policy reports within the United States encourage the alignment of standards, curriculum, and assessment with instruction and learning progress (National Research Council, 2005, 2007). Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Algozzine (2006) as well as Thurlow, Elliott, and Ysseldyke (2003) indicated that alignment of assessments, instruction, and content standards increase the overall performance of students with and without disabilities. Yet Banerjee et al. (2016) indicate that students with extensive needs are frequently taught skills and concepts in isolation which are rarely reiterated enough or connected to overall student learning. Support services alignment with content area instruction should be considered for students with extensive needs.

Although it is unreasonable to assume that related service providers should only focus their efforts on access to academic skills, it is important that some overlap take place to achieve instructional alignment. Linking skills and standards-based instruction gives functional meaning and relevance to overall achievement while providing a deeper understanding of the content. We can increase both opportunities for content area instruction and the probability of content mastery by aligning mutual goals among special education team members.

Literacy instruction has traditionally been left to general education teachers and special education teachers while augmentative communication is often taught in isolation by speech-language pathologists or occupational and physical therapists (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2016). By perpetuating the practice of separate and isolated instruction, knowledge on teaching and using AAC remains privy to only the instructor and student. Yet Cooper-Duffy, Szedia, and Hyer (2010) found that students with extensive support needs were able to demonstrate growth in literacy when provided with a structured program that included phonics, book/written word awareness (e.g., holding the book, pointing to words, and turning pages), sight word learning, comprehension, writing and/or using augmentative communication, and vocabulary. In addition, as expectations for students with extensive needs are raised and literacy instruction is implemented at effective levels, students demonstrate gains in not only reading and writing skills but also with communication skills and social/emotional skills (Peeters, de Moor, & Verhoeven, 2011).

Enhancing Interprofessional Collaboration

Educating children with special needs has changed substantially since the implementation of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), and the IDEA (2004). These changes include a focus on increasing inclusive practices for children with special needs as well as increased accountability for student learning. With the evolution of student integration and educator accountability, it has become essential for professionals in both general and special education to work together to meet the needs of every student (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010; Robinson & Buly, 2007).

For a team to develop and implement an outstanding IEP for a student with extensive needs, they must engage in a deep and thoughtful form of collaborative practice which takes into consideration the specific areas of expertise and assets which each member can contribute to the special education team. Thus, many educators find themselves in need of integrated practices that include a variety of strategies and instruction from each service provider to meet the needs of students with significant disabilities. According to Eccleston (2010), successfully including students with extensive support needs in meaningful instruction requires that professionals demonstrate interprofessional collaboration.

Interprofessional collaboration has become an increasingly common term used within the fields of health care and speech-language pathology. According to the Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel (2011), this practice was developed to effectively train health care professionals to work together with common objectives centered about the best methods of approaching clients. By developing their interprofessional collaboration efforts, health professionals have found that they are more successful in developing safe and effective care.

Elements of interprofessional collaboration identified by Shepherd and Hanft (2008) include (a) a willingness to work together and understanding of why it is important and beneficial, (b) a belief that each member is equally valuable, (c) that the team has a common purpose and develops goals together, (d) that the team shares responsibility for progress and effectiveness of intervention, and (f) the team makes decisions together. The process of interprofessional collaboration is difficult. Often, professionals perceive this process as an idea or goal to which teams aspire. However, it seems less like an unattainable goal and more like a strong professional practice to push toward the ideal by developing person-centered plans, growing professionally as a team, and actively including families in education. Billy’s team was able to share and disseminate expertise by coming together and working hard to be a team that works under the interprofessional collaboration guidelines. Per these guidelines, they were able to share and disseminate expertise which eased the frustration that they felt while working on goals they had made in isolation.

When we consider the benefits yielded when special education teams pull together and demonstrate effective interprofessional collaboration, the vast distances that exist between special education teachers and service providers who travel between rural schools to supports students and teams can be made less challenging (e.g., Alfonso, Walker, Gupta, Telfair, & Colquitt, 2015). For example, Billy’s service providers and family worked to be consistent on vocabulary instruction and on how each goal and activity tied together. They also aligned their understanding and expectations related to Billy’s current levels of performance and ways that each team member would work to meet his goals. In addition, Billy’s general education teacher, special education teacher, parents, and special education paraeducator made a distinctive effort to increase communication and opportunities around instruction, practice, and progress monitoring. They also increased collaboration to keep each other current on how instruction was being implemented and invested time with related service providers to train one another using Billy’s assistive technology. The teams’ commitment to these collaborative efforts also provided opportunities for them to refresh one another on the practices and vocabulary that they have already established with Billy (e.g., wait time, prompting) and revisit their current goals to assess their progress.

Interprofessional Collaborative Plan

Providers bring very specific areas of expertise to the IEP of a child with extensive needs. As a team, it can be difficult to find commonalities amid the areas of need identified through both formal and informal assessments administered from each individual field. However, looking at the individual areas of literacy, there are clear areas of overlap that can be targeted in a collaborative manner via each specialist. Douglas, Ayres, Langone, Bell, and Meade (2009) found that students with cognitive disabilities made stronger growth when presented with this accessible multimodal approach to literacy. For example, Billy’s team wanted him to actively participate to demonstrate knowledge. His special education teacher and speech-language pathologist wanted to work together with Billy to increase his proficiency with AAC, the occupational therapist and physical therapist worked with special education, general education, and Billy’s parents on positioning with the device, thereby increasing Billy’s access and ability to communicate. By having special and general education teachers as well as related service providers and parents generate person-centered goals and share expertise, students with significant support needs are granted stronger access to instruction as well as a deeper understanding of how they might generalize and apply skills. Therefore, for providers to effectively collaborate to meet the diverse needs of children with significant support needs, service providers should consider the issues identified resulting from fragmented instruction including (a) goals that lack a shared focus on specific areas of need, (b) lack of common language and instruction, and (c) lack of documentation and progress monitoring.

Common Goals and Instruction

The development of common goals and instructional strategies are essential to effective interprofessional collaboration among special educators and classroom teachers (Madigan & Schroth-Cavataio, 2011). In the case of students with significant support needs, this logic should span among all providers working with the child. Integrating essential components of literacy in a meaningful and systematic way while remaining cognizant of vital accommodations, such as augmentative communication and assistive technology, is an intensive task.

To drive common instructional strategies, it is vital for IEP teams to first begin with goals and objectives that target similar areas and can be used to reinforce each other’s work. In Billy’s case, the team recognized that both special and general education teachers were working on decoding strategies including segmenting sounds and blending them. During the IEP meeting, the speech-language pathologist agreed that to streamline and generalize instruction, she should reinforce their instruction while working with Billy’s augmentative communication. The occupational therapist added that she could have Billy sort, reach, and transfer letters in consonant, vowel, consonant (CVC) words during her session as well. Billy’s IEP team demonstrated that when they come together and strategically plan and implement common or integrated goals, the skills that they are working on are often more generalizable and reinforce each team member’s work. Students frequently benefit from the impact of the deliberate and streamlined instruction and expectations made possible through effective interprofessional collaboration. In addition, common goals increase the transparency among service providers and offer insight to team members on how instruction and accountability looks in their individual field of expertise (Robinson & Buly, 2007).

Common Language and Instruction

Frequently, the strategies and instruction employed by special educational providers are implemented in isolation (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Clear communication between special education team members is an element of interprofessional collaboration that is often overlooked. Common language is applying similar definitions for shared concepts (Robinson & Buly, 2007). Establishing common language and instruction includes clearly communicating which terms are being used to teach a concept or prompt students. This practice also involves team members being increasingly cognizant of the professional jargon that is used within specific fields and areas of expertise. This is particularly important in rural areas where related service providers may not be physically present as often as they might be in urban and suburban schools. When team members use common language throughout the school day to instruct, reinforce, and prompt a student with significant disabilities, the likelihood of skill retention should increase. This is especially important within rural schools when resources are often scarce and special education teams must rely heavily on one another to reinforce skills when they are traveling to other schools. When professionals establish a consistent language and approach to instruction between one another, confusion is minimized for teachers, related service providers, paraeducators, parents, and the student.

Utilizing a common set of terms and consistent language is especially important for parents and paraeducators who spend substantial time with students. These team members may not have a formal background in education to support their understanding of what each professional is referring to with field-specific vocabulary. For example, when the special education team sat down for Billy’s annual meeting, it was Billy’s parents who brought it to the attention of the team that when they helped Billy with his homework that they told him to “sound out” words in his head. In contrast, the special education teacher mentioned that she taught him to tap each sound and then slide them together and the general education teacher clarified that she had him pull down each sound and join them. It suddenly became very apparent that presenting Billy with activities that shared a common goal, but presenting them in such a disjointed manner, could be very confusing to a child who already struggles with understanding language as well as reading. Each member of the team was working hard to instruct Billy in segmenting and blending sounds to increase his reading skills. However, as the team engaged in deeper discussion surrounding the systemic manner in which they were approaching the task, they realized that their approach would not garner the results that they each desired due to the disconnect that existed. If Billy’s team really wanted to increase his learning, they needed to streamline their language and instruction to make it accessible to Billy. The team understood that learning, recognizing, and sharing terms used in each of their individual disciplines and communicating them consistently and concisely would directly support Billy’s learning.

Documentation and Progress Monitoring

In the preschool to 12th-grade setting, general and special education teachers frequently discuss issues at IEP meetings and then return to their classrooms, often with completely different understandings about the words used in the conversation about a particular student (Robinson & Buly, 2007). To effectively track and report student progress, teams must establish a way to consistently communicate both formal and anecdotal data collected around the common goals and instruction that they have established. This can be done with weekly meetings, electronic communication, or a combination of multiple methods, but is imperative in determining next steps for student instruction.

Tools for Collaboration

One method for encouraging effective communication between team members is to develop a form (either electronic or paper) that can integrate student progress and can be utilized by all members of the special education team. By establishing a form to reflect upon regularly, the team can more effectively uncover patterns in student and provider performance (Jones, 2012). In a digital age that is increasingly fast-paced, it could be advantageous to the special education team to develop an easily accessed electronic space to collect and share data. This could be a private folder on the school’s server, a Google Docs page, or a secure online district site. However, it is critical that all members be able to efficiently navigate whichever system the team chooses to implement. If members do not feel tech savvy, this process can also be carried out with paper copies and face-to-face connections.

Because many related service providers within rural schools are typically divided among multiple schools that span many miles, it often is easier to remain consistent with electronic input that is easily accessed by the team. Some teams have found success in e-mailing, texting, or leaving voice messages for each other. However, communications should be deliberate and consistent. If these communications become more like “hallway conversations” versus effective collaboration, then the team must revisit their approach. Ultimately, if progress monitoring is maintained throughout the process, all of the data collected can be implemented and utilized to assist with the development and direction of a student’s next IEP.

Student Instructional Profile and Progress Sheets (SIPPS)

Another approach for collaboration is the SIPPS shown in Figure 1. It is centered on common language, instruction, goals, and progress monitoring. Through the process of developing and utilizing the SIPPS, the special education team gains insight to each individual student’s needs, goals, baseline scores, accommodations, and modifications (Sayeski, 2009). In addition, specific terminology and/or interventions being implemented with the student should be included. According to Sayeski (2009), the implementation of SIPPS with special education teams can help scaffold common language and can serve as an effective planning guide to an IEP team. The SIPPS should outline key components of the IEP and translate into simple instructional plans for educators. This approach becomes increasingly successful when members of the team demonstrate their interventions and support strategies in the classroom with other team members present. Because rural schools must frequently share limited resources, including special education teachers and related service providers, a method of simplifying and unifying data collection for special and general education teachers servicing students with disabilities by collecting student information on a single form is useful. As student needs grow increasingly complex and service providers are expected to travel longer distances to access rural schools to connect with students, teachers, and additional service providers, there is a need to expand the scope of this tool to include all service providers. The SIPPS could be a significant asset to multiple providers’ collaboration. The tool is essentially an inventory that can be individualized to meet the needs of each student and their team. Each member of the IEP team should contribute to this form. It should include specific goals, baseline data, and regular progress monitoring data. In the case of students with extensive needs, notes should be made relative to tools or assessments used, modifications made, technology implemented, and instruction provided. Goals and progress can be combined, meaning that the team puts all of the information together in one place for practitioners to see, hence increasing collaboration. Because, “In the end, how the collaborative relationship looks is not a sign of educationally meaningful collaboration; rather, the instructional outcomes for the students with disabilities within the general education setting are the benchmark for measuring success” (Sayeski, 2009, p. 43).

Figure 1.

Student Instructional Profile and Progress Sheet (SIPPS) example.

Here, interprofessional collaboration serves to streamline the instruction as well as disseminate best practices for other providers to integrate into their interactions with the student. For example, because literacy is rooted in language and communication, speech-language pathologists are a vital asset to the development of effective literacy skills for students with extensive needs. In addition, effective literacy instruction has been shown to increase communication skills and social skills (Fenlon et al., 2010). In short, this is often a symbiotic relationship where the special education teacher, general education teacher, speech-language pathologist, parents, and paraeducator work closely to streamline instruction for the student.

For example, because Billy’s providers were often driving long distances from individual agencies, communication and coordination of services became challenging. In addition, communication between team members that are more mobile (particularly where cellular service and Internet service were not always guaranteed) can be difficult or impossible. In Billy’s case, SIPPS became a vital component to daily interaction for his providers. Special education and general education teachers could keep close track of changes in service delivery based on Billy’s daily needs. His paraeducator and parents were kept abreast of his performance and worked hard to reinforce and practice skills and providers were able to be quickly informed of all of Billy’s needs, especially the literacy skills the team had targeted for that week.

Co-Teaching

Co-teaching can evoke a sense of excitement or frustration when presented to a special education team. This process can be taxing for the adults involved. Nonetheless, if a student can receive additional benefit from team members working and instructing together, it is important that the skills and strategies that they are learning are generalized throughout settings. Research has demonstrated that co-teaching can be an effective method of collaboration and can assist educators in establishing common language and instruction as wells as sharing and dissemination of expertise (Friend, 2008). Co-teaching is described as a method for teachers to work collaboratively by providing students with extensive needs the instruction and services to which their IEP entitles them while ensuring access to general education curriculum within the least restrictive environment (Friend, 2008).

Furthermore, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2016) released information indicating that the roles of service providers (specifically speech-language pathologists) have changed drastically over the years. With these adapted expectations, the increased need for collaboration with educators has become vital to the success of students in schools. In fact, researchers conducting a study in the Netherlands found that students with cerebral palsy who received integrated and increased literacy and mathematics instruction demonstrated increased expressive and receptive communication and social skills when compared with those who received less instruction because they were pulled out of instruction for various therapies (Peeters et al., 2011). By integrating a provider’s instruction into the student’s natural classroom and routines, students are held accountable for generalizing skills and strategies with support. Teachers and paraeducators are also able to gain exposure to model lessons covering skills that benefit the student that can likely be generalized to other students and future students. In addition, other students in the classroom gain access to modeled appropriate interactions with a student with extensive needs as well as cuing systems that promote the student’s independence. Finally, the literature indicates that use of collaborative teaching increases self-esteem, increases student access to general curriculum, and reduces social stigma among students (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; Arthaud, Aram, Breck, Doelling, & Bushrow, 2007; Lowenbraun, Madge, & Affleck, 1990).

As Billy’s team attempted to establish a common language, his speech-language pathologist chose to begin working with Billy in his general education classroom in an effort to decompartmentalize their time together. This rather small adjustment has benefited both Billy’s communication and made a significant difference in his writing. In addition, Billy’s special education teacher, general education teacher, and paraeducator were able to gain access to the strategies and language that were being used to improve Billy’s unique language development. Both vocabulary and skills surrounding the instruction and reinforcement of receptive and expressive communication not only allowed educators and paraeducators to continue reinforcing the speech-language patholgist’s work while she was called to other schools, but also provided Billy’s classmates with indirect modeling of how they can best interact with their peer and friend.

Implications for Practitioners

When we consider what this all means for rural special education teams, the thought of implementing these strategies could seem overwhelming. Nevertheless, we also recognize the importance of putting the needs of students with extensive needs first as well as effectively implementing practices that are more labor and time intensive early on to render a stronger system of practice in the future. By working collaboratively, highlighting and sharing individual areas of strength, and being deliberate about implementing organized, mutual, and student-centered goals, special education teams are putting student outcomes first. According to Murawski and Dieker (2008), the attributes and positive impacts of co-teaching outweigh the challenges and time investments including the opportunity that all providers have to share the accountability and workload, but also the enjoyment and recognition of the positive impact that their hard work has on a child’s life and achievement. As rural special education team members experience unique challenges to communication, like regular times to connect due to vast rural miles, these strategies will not always look perfect. Distance, time, and fewer resources make implementation challenging in rural settings. However, the goal of streamlining each provider’s practice should ultimately assist in bridging those gaps and ease the stress that working in isolation can intensify.

Conclusion

Students with extensive support needs are frequently removed from core academic subjects to receive additional services (e.g., occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech-language services) during their school day. As a result, if providers have not collaborated effectively, students with extensive needs will receive less literacy instruction than students without disabilities. Fragmented and decreased instruction can be compounded with provider frustration or lack of knowledge, and frequently leads to lowered expectations for students (Fenlon et al., 2010). These issues can be targeted and resolved when providers collaborate and work together.

As a team begins to effectively collaborate, share goals, implement common language, and clearly document student data, rural miles that impact collaboration will hopefully begin to close. It will likely take some time to implement these strategies consistently. However, like many processes, as this practice becomes a regular practice, and provider strategies, language, and interventions become more familiar, the team should become more efficient. Teams also may elect to co-teach to reinforce these practices leading to an increasingly streamlined instructional set which provide on-site providers with direct access to interprofessional collaborative skills. As providers, educators, and paraeducators work more closely, the potential for mentorship of skills becomes increasingly apparent (Murawski & Dieker, 2013) which is advantageous to rural schools working with students with extensive needs. The three processes of collaboration we have described in this article provide a clear way to support team member interprofessional collaboration, implement collaborative planning techniques, and support IEP implementation.

By implementing all or a combination of these three practices (i.e., collaborative practices, interprofessional collaboration, co-teaching) consistently, students with extensive support needs will receive a more effective, relevant, and streamlined intervention system. This should decrease the degree of fragmentation within the school day for students with extensive needs and ultimately increase their individual performance in targeted areas of learning. Just ask Billy!

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Affleck

J. Q.

Madge

Adams

Lowenbraun

(1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54, 339–348. doi:10.1177/001440298805400408

Alfonso

M. L.

Walker

A. D.

Gupta

Telfair

Colquitt

G. T.

(2015). “It all goes back to the services”: A rural/urban comparison of service providers’ perceptions of challenges and facilitators to disability services. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 434–440.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/PI2010-00317/

Arthaud

T. J.

Aram

R. J.

Breck

S. E.

Doelling

J. E.

Bushrow

K. M.

(2007). Developing collaboration skills in pre-service teachers: A partnership between general and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 1–12. doi:10.1177/088840640703000101

Ashburner

Vickerstaff

Beetge

Copley

(2016). Remote versus face-to-face delivery of early intervention programs for children with autism spectrum disorders: Perceptions of rural families and service providers. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 23, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2015.11.011

Ault

M. J.

Bausch

M. E.

McLaren

E. M.

(2013). Assistive technology service delivery in rural school districts. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32, 15–22.

Banerjee

Sundeen

Hutchinson

S. R.

Jackson

(2016). Factors that explain placement decisions for students with multiple disabilities: Findings from national data. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17, 110–122. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12363

Bock

A. K.

Erickson

K. A.

(2015). The influence of teacher epistemology and practice on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 138–153. doi:10.1177/1540796915591987

Brendle

(2015). A survey of response to intervention team members’ effective practices in rural elementary schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(2), 3–8. doi:10.1177/875687051503400202

10.

Browder

D. M.

Wakeman

S. Y.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Algozzine

(2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 1. doi:10.1177/001440290607200401

11.

Cafiero

J. M.

Meyer

(2008). Your child with autism: When is augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) an appropriate option? Exceptional Parent, 38, 28–30.

12.

Conroy

P. W.

Rude

Phillips

J. S.

(2006). Rural challenges to educating English language learners with visual impairments. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(4), 16–24. doi:10.1177/875687050602500403

13.

Cooper-Duffy

Szedia

Hyer

(2010). Teaching literacy to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 30–39.

14.

Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

Calhoon

A. J.

Tanner

Park

(2011). Preparing teachers to provide literacy instruction to all students: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 126–141. doi:10.2511/027494811800824499

15.

Douglas

Ayres

Langone

Bell

Meade

(2009). Expanding literacy for learners with intellectual disabilities: The role of supported eText. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 35–44. doi:10.1177/016264340902400304

16.

Eccleston

(2010). Successful collaboration: Four essential traits of effective special education. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 11, 40–47.

17.

Erickson

K. A.

(2017). Comprehensive literacy instruction, interprofessional collaborative practice, and students with severe disabilities. American Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 26, 193–205.

18.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub. L. 114-95 (2015).

19.

Fenlon

A. G.

McNabb

Pidlypchak

(2010). So much potential in reading! Developing meaningful literacy routines for students with multiple disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 42–48.

20.

Friend

(2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(2), 9–19.

21.

Friend

Cook

Hurley-Chamberlain

Shamberger

(2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9–27.

22.

Giordano

(1996). Literacy programs for adults with developmental disabilities. San Diego, CA: Singular.

23.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

(2016). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence-based practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 77–84. doi:10.1177/2372732215624216

24.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). P. L. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647.

25.

Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. (2011). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Retrieved from https://ipecollaborative.org/uploads/IPEC-Core-Competencies.pdf

26.

Israel

Carnahan

C. R.

Snyder

K. K.

Williamson

(2013). Supporting new teachers of students with significant disabilities through virtual coaching: A proposed model. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 195–204.

27.

Jones

B. A.

(2012). Fostering collaboration in inclusive settings: The special education students at a glance approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 297–306.

28.

Lerman

R. I.

Schmidt

S. R.

(1999, May). Functional literacy and labor market outcomes. Paper presented at the conference on Helping Low-Wage Workers: Policies for the Future, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

29.

Lowenbraun

Madge

Affleck

(1990). Parental satisfaction with integrated class placements of special education and general education students. Remedial and Special Education, 11(4), 37–40. doi:10.1177/074193259001100408

30.

Madigan

J. C.

Schroth-Cavataio

(2011). Building collaborative partnerships. Principal Leadership, 12(3), 26–30.

31.

Marzano

R. J.

(2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

32.

McLeskey

Billingsley

B. S.

(2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap? Remedial and Special Education, 29, 293–305. doi:10.1177/0741932507312010

33.

Murawski

Dieker

(2008). 50 ways to keep your co-teacher: Strategies for before, during, and after co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 40–48.

34.

Murawski

Dieker

(2013). Leading the co-teaching dance: Leadership strategies to enhance team outcomes. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

35.

Myers

(2007). “Please listen, it’s my turn”: Instructional approaches, curricula and contexts for supporting communication and increasing access to inclusion. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 32, 263–278.

36.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

37.

National Research Council. (2005). Systems for state science assessments. In M. R.

Wilson

M. W.

Bertenthal

(Eds.), Committee on testing design on K-12 science achievement. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

38.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

39.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, §1119 (2002).

40.

Peeters

de Moor

Verhoeven

(2011). Emergent literacy activities, instructional adaptations and school absence of children with cerebral palsy in special education. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 659–668.

41.

Robinson

Buly

M. R.

(2007). Breaking the language barrier: Promoting collaboration between general and special educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, 83–94.

42.

Sayeski

K. L.

(2009). Defining special educators’ tools: The building blocks of effective collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 38–44.

43.

Schalock

R. L.

Borthwick-Duffy

S. A.

Bradley

V. J.

Buntinx

W. H. E.

Coulter

D. L.

Craig

E. M.

. . . Yeager

M. H.

(2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

44.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

McDuffie

K. A.

(2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.

45.

Shepherd

Hanft

(2008). Team faces and spaces. In Hanft

Shepherd

(Eds.), Collaborating for student success: A guide for school-based occupational therapy (pp. 73–104). Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press.

46.

Sibon-Macarro

Abou-Rjaily

Stoddard

Sandigo

Peterson

Ross

(2014). Rural perspectives of models, services, and resources for students with hearing impairments. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(4), 24–32.

47.

Snow

C. E.

Griffin

Burns

S. M.

(Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48.

Spooner

Browder

D. M.

(2015). Raising the bar: Significant advances and future needs for promoting learning for students with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 28–32.

49.

Sturm

J. M.

(2003). Writing in AAC. ASHA Leader, 8(16), 8–27.

50.

Thurlow

M. L.

Elliott

J. L.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2003). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

51.

Winchester

(2013). Two meanings of collaboration in education. Interchange, 44, 149–151.