Understanding Shared Responsibility Between Special and General Education Teachers in the Rural Classroom

Abstract

A shared sense of responsibility for the education of students with disabilities can have positive effects on both teachers and students. When special education (SE) and general education (GE) teachers work together, this collaborative relationship is a positive variable in teacher satisfaction and retention. Furthermore, teacher collaboration and an inclusive delivery of SE services in the GE classroom can foster increased student achievement, motivation, self-esteem, and social growth. In this study, the researcher conducted individually administered surveys with 35 teachers in two rural districts to further explore the variable of a shared sense of responsibility: what tasks, how, and where responsibilities were shared. Following the presentation of the survey results is a description of the professional development that was provided to teachers in collaboration and co-teaching. Barriers and benefits to increasing teacher collaboration and co-teaching are discussed, including outcomes for students in one co-taught classroom over a 2-year period.

Keywords

co-teaching collaboration inclusion professional development rural special education

A shared sense of responsibility for the education of students with disabilities can have positive effects for both teachers and students. When special education (SE) and general education (GE) teachers have a shared sense responsibility, they work together to plan for instruction and collaboratively teach and assess students with disabilities. Researchers working in rural schools have identified that a supportive culture, similar to that of a close-knit community or family, where all teachers take ownership for the education of all students, has a positive impact on teachers (Nagle et al., 2006). Such collaboration can take many forms (e.g., consultation, co-teaching) and involve teachers in different ways (see Figure 1). Shared responsibility has been positively correlated to higher levels of teacher satisfaction and perceived levels of efficacy (Berry, 2012; Griffin et al., 2009). In addition, this type of collaborative relationship is a strong positive variable that increases the SE teacher’s plans to stay in their position (Jones et al., 2013). This, in turn, increases the consistency of SE services students receive. The high rate of attrition for SE teachers is a concern for administrators nationally (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Retention of SE teachers is particularly important in rural schools as the shortage of SE teachers is much higher in rural areas (35%) than in urban areas (11%), and the recruitment of teachers is more difficult (Brownell et al., 2005; Espinoza et al., 2018).

Figure 1.

Collaboration continuum (Berry, 2019).

It is not surprising the Council for Exceptional Children recommends collaboration between SE and GE teachers and deems it a high-leverage practice (i.e., critical practices that all special educators can use in classrooms; McLesky et al., 2017). Teacher collaboration (i.e., when teachers plan instruction based on students’ needs, teach collaboratively, and then assess the effectiveness of their teaching) has demonstrated a large positive effect (d = 0.93) on student achievement (McLesky et al., 2017). Ronefeldt et al. (2015) examined the relationship between collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. In this large-scale study, conducted in 336 schools in Florida with over 9,000 teachers, researchers found that teachers who engaged in higher quality collaboration were teachers with increased reading and math achievement in their student population. Research conducted in several districts in California underscored the importance of collaboration between SE and GE teachers. Where there was an increased level of collaboration, there was also exceptionally high academic performance for students with disabilities (Huberman et al., 2012).

Time spent in the GE classroom also appears to academically benefit students with disabilities. In a large-scale study involving over 3,000 elementary students with disabilities, investigators found that increased time spent in the GE classroom correlated to an increase in student achievement for both reading and math (Cosier et al., 2016). In addition, a more inclusive delivery of services (i.e., SE services provided in the GE classroom) resulted in an increase in motivation, self-esteem, and social growth for both students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities (Banerji & Dailey, 1995; Wolfberg & Schuler, 2009). This would suggest that when SE and GE teachers work collaboratively and share the responsibility to educate all students in the GE classroom, both teachers and students have something to gain. A question worthy of investigation arises from the findings reported in the literature: would the benefits be the same for teachers and students in rural schools?

Overview of the SATERA Project

Support and Training for Educators in Rural Areas (SATERA) was a 4-year research project (2014–2018) in two rural districts in New Hampshire. The project was conducted in three phases and had several aims. During the first phase, the aim was to investigate if SE teachers perceived they had a shared sense of responsibility for the education of students with disabilities, to examine how that responsibility was shared and identify what professional development the rural teachers desired. In the second phase of the project, the researcher sought to provide resources, support, and training to teachers in the areas they identified. The third phase of the project involved examining student achievement data for students in one co-taught classroom following the provision of teacher training in collaboration and co-teaching.

Each phase of the SATERA project will be described in a separate section of the paper. In the first section, the method used to solicit information from rural SE and GE teachers in the initial investigation is outlined, followed by the results obtained. Next, is a description of the professional development the researcher provided to teachers in the second phase of the project. The final section discusses the outcomes for students in one co-taught classroom over a 2-year period.

Phase 1: Teacher Perceptions of Shared Responsibility

The first phase of the project sought to gather information on the variable of a shared sense of responsibility between SE and GE teachers in rural schools. The researcher sought to answer the following questions: Did teachers perceive the characteristics of shared responsibility similarly? Did teachers in remote districts view shared responsibility for the education of students with disabilities differently than teachers in more centrally located districts?

Method

Participants

Two rural districts were involved in the project. The first district was located in northern New Hampshire in a remote and geographically isolated area (i.e., NECS classification of rural remote or more than 25 miles from an urban center). The second district was located more centrally in the state (i.e., NECS classification rural distant or within 25 miles of an urban center). All of the SE teachers in all of the schools in the first district (i.e., two high schools, two middle schools, four elementary schools) were asked to participate, and all of the teachers agreed (n = 16). In three of the four elementary schools in this district, there was only one SE teacher in the building.

Two of the four school administrators in the second district were willing to be involved in the study. All SE teachers in both of these elementary schools were contacted, and all agreed to participate (n = 9). To further investigate the variables of interest from a GE teacher’s perspective, the SE teachers in the second district were asked to identify the GE educators they had the most frequent contact with. These 10 GE teachers were contacted and all agreed to participate. A total of 25 SE teachers and 10 GE teachers completed the survey.

Procedures

To gather information central to the first aim of the project and ensure a high rate of participation, the researcher conducted an in-person, individually administered survey with all 35 teachers (40–60 min) at their school during the school day. Survey questions were derived from the literature on SE and GE collaboration. Surveys were administered in the first district in the fall of 2014. Professional development on topics identified in the survey took place the following spring. The SE teachers and GE teachers in second district participated in the survey in the fall of 2015. Table 1 provides survey questions on the research variables of interest. Several questions were pertinent only to SE teachers and are identified as such. The data from the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., percentages).

Table 1.

Interview Questions.

1. Do you feel that the education of students with disabilities falls entirely on your shoulders (Yes/No)? Follow-up open-response item: What makes you feel that way?

2. Who is responsible for these tasks in the GE classroom: (a) teaching new material, (b) modifying materials/curriculum, (c) assisting students in learning content, (d) managing behaviors, (e) leading IEP meetings, (f) writing the IEP, (g) supervising paraprofessionals, (h) assessing student progress?
GE, SE, Para, a combination of two (please specify which two) or someone else?

3. How would you describe the GE setting you are in? (a) GE classroom that includes students who have disabilities, (b) an inclusion classroom, (c) an inclusion classroom with tiered levels of academic and/or behavioral support, (d) other, please specify.

4. How might you characterize the co-teaching relationship you have with the GE teacher/SE teacher in the inclusive setting or is this not applicable in your school? (a) I co-plan, co-teach, co-assess with the GE/SE teacher for all students in the classroom, differentiating as appropriate. (b) I share instruction responsibilities with the GE/SE teacher—sometimes they teach, sometimes I teach. (c) I provide support to students in the GE classroom at planned times of the day. (d) I consult with the GE/SE teacher about specific students and their needs. (e) Other, please specify. (f) Not applicable.

5. SE teachers: What settings do you provide SE services in? (a) self-contained classroom, (b) inclusion classroom, (c) resource room or learning center, (d) as a classroom consultant or inclusion specialist, (e) other, please specify.

6. SE teachers: Which setting is your primary setting for teaching students with disabilities?

7. SE teachers: What sources of work-related support are available to you and how helpful are they? (e.g., SE teachers, SE administrators, GE teachers, SE team meetings, grade-level team meetings, building administrators, paraprofessionals, related service providers): Available or not available; very helpful, moderately helpful, minimally helpful, or not helpful.

8. SE teachers: Are there any supports that are not available to you that you feel would be helpful if they were available?

9. What professional development have you found helpful (e.g., technology, curriculum content, inclusion of students in the GE curriculum, teaching in the inclusion classroom, classroom management, grade/school collaboration, specific disability categories, SE processes, working with parents, alternative assessment)? Follow-up open-response item: What type professional development do you feel would be helpful if it were made available?

Note. GE = general education; IEP = individualized education program; SE = special education.

Results

The results reveal the degree to which the SE and GE teachers felt they shared responsibility, what instructional tasks and roles were being shared, and where the shared responsibility was taking place (see Table 2). The findings also identified what professional development related to a shared sense of responsibility the SE and GE teachers wanted.

Table 2.

SE and GE Teacher Perception of Shared Responsibility.

Variable	District 1 SE teachers^a	District 2 SE teachers^b	District 2 GE teachers^c
	%	%	%
Overall shared responsibility	44	66	80
Shared with GE teachers	57	16	25
Shared with SE teachers	42	33	88
Shared tasks in the GE classroom
Teacher of new material	25	33	0
Modifying curriculum	56	88	50
Assist in learning content	12	11	30
Behavior management	25	44	40
Supervising paraprofessionals	12	55	20
Assessment of student progress	56	100	100
Co-teaching relationship in GE setting
Co-plan, co-teach and co-assess	6	12	0
Team teaching	6	0	0
SE supports students at planned times	31	66	20
Consult with GE or SE teacher	31	22	80
Not applicable	31	0	0
Settings for providing SE services
GE classroom	67	100	−
Resource room	67	100	−
Consult with GE teacher	42	20	−
Primary location for SE services
GE classroom	12	11	−
Resource room	69	78	−
Consult with GE teacher	18	11	−

Note. SE = special education; GE = general education; minus sign (−) = not asked of this group.

n = 16. ^bn = 9. ^cn = 10.

To what extent was the responsibility shared?

When asked if the responsibility for the education of students with disabilities fell entirely on their shoulders, results indicated that GE teachers perceived that they shared this responsibility to a larger extent (80%, n = 10) than the SE teachers felt they shared responsibility (i.e., District 1: 44% [n = 16]; District 2: 66% [n = 9]). SE teachers in both districts indicated the responsibility of educating students with disabilities was theirs alone. When asked to elaborate, several SE teachers in this group commented that they were legally responsible for making sure that each student’s individualized education program (IEP) was followed. Others stated they did not have the time to work together. One kindergarten through third-grade SE teacher’s comment is representative of this group:

Overall it [educating students with disabilities] is my responsibility. I think that the classroom teachers are responsible to collaborate just as I am responsible to collaborate with them. I think it [working together] would be there if I had time—I don’t have time and I don’t know if the [GE] teachers have time to fit that in.

Next, the survey asked teachers about commonly performed tasks when educating students with disabilities in the GE classroom and teachers were asked to identify who performed these tasks. GE teachers mentioned sharing the tasks with their SE counterparts at a much higher level (88%) than the SE teachers did. In contrast, 57% of the SE teachers in District 1 and 16% of the SE teachers in District 2 identified the GE teachers as someone they shared a task with.

What tasks were shared?

The percentage of teachers that identified both GE and SE teachers as responsible for the specific task are listed in Table 2. GE and SE teachers generally agreed they shared the tasks of assessing student progress, modifying the curriculum, and managing student behavior. GE and SE teachers, however, had different perspectives when it came to sharing the role of assisting students with disabilities in learning content and teaching new content in the GE classroom. SE teachers did not feel that they shared the responsibility of supporting students with disabilities in learning content when in the GE classroom (District 1 = 12%; District 2 = 11%) to the same extent GE teachers (30%) felt they shared this role with the SE teacher. On the contrary, GE teachers felt they had sole responsibility for teaching new content to students with disabilities (0% shared), while both sets of rural SE teachers perceived they shared this teaching responsibility with their GE counterparts to some degree (District 1 = 25%; District 2 = 33%).

SE teachers in GE classrooms

When the SE teachers were asked how they would describe the GE setting, 73% selected “a classroom that includes students with disabilities” rather than choices that included the term inclusion (see Table 1). When asked to describe their relationship with the GE teacher in the inclusive setting, SE teachers indicated their primary role in the GE classroom was to support students at planned times of the day (District 1 = 31%; District 2 = 66%). A very small percentage of SE teachers saw their relationship as one of co-teaching and co-assessing students with disabilities (District 1 = 6%; District 2 = 12%). On the contrary, most of the GE teachers (80%) characterized their relationship with the SE teacher as consultative rather than sharing instructional responsibilities (i.e., co-teach 0%; team teach 0%).

Where were teachers sharing responsibility?

SE teachers were asked about the settings where they provided SE services (i.e., self-contained classroom, inclusion classroom, resource room or learning center, as a classroom consultant). SE teachers reported they provided services to students with disabilities in the GE classroom (District 1 = 67%; District 2 = 100%) as well as in a separate setting such as a resource room (District 1 = 67%; District 2 = 100%). Teachers in the rural remote district relied to a larger extent on a consulting model for service delivery (District 1 = 42%; District 2 = 20%). However, the majority of the SE teachers in both districts reported that the primary placement for delivering SE services was a pull out setting such as the resource room (District 1 = 69%; District 2 = 78%). Very few SE teachers in either district reported delivering services primarily in the GE classroom (District 1 = 12%; District 2 = 11%).

Needed structures and support

SE teachers were asked about the sources of support they had available to them. Did SE teachers have the structures in place and the support they needed to take on a more collaborative role in the GE classroom? When analyzed as a group, most of the SE teachers in both districts (89%) identified GE teachers as a helpful source of professional support; however, only a third (35%) of SE teachers were able to attend weekly grade-level team meetings with GE teachers. As has been mentioned previously, one of the chief barriers to having a meaningful role in the GE classroom, identified by the SE teachers’ comments, was the lack of common planning time with the GE teachers.

Desired training

Both sets of teachers requested professional development in differentiating instruction in inclusion settings and co-teaching. When examined as a whole, over half (52%) of SE teachers in the study expressed a desire for additional training in co-teaching and the inclusion of students in the GE classroom. Over one-third (36%) of SE teachers expressed the desire for more training in content areas (i.e., reading and math). Twenty percent of GE teachers stated that professional development in modifying curriculum and providing accommodations for students in the GE classroom would help them to be more effective teachers. Half of the GE teachers desired training in specific disability types and SE processes.

Discussion

The findings from Phase 1 of the project indicate that rural SE and GE teachers have a different understanding of a shared responsibility for educating students with disabilities. Overall, the GE teachers perceived that they shared responsibility with the SE teachers to a greater extent than SE teachers perceived they shared responsibility with their GE counterparts. Rather than both SE and GE teachers taking ownership for the education of all students and engaging in co-planning, co-instruction, and co-assessment when SE teachers were in GE classrooms, their job appeared to be modifying materials, managing student behaviors, and supporting the students on their caseload at planned times of the day. Overall, the majority of SE teachers in both rural districts involved in this study provided services to SE students by pulling them out of the GE classroom. It is interesting to note that the SE teachers in the rural remote district indicated a higher percentage of shared responsibility (57%) with GE teachers. This may be due to the professional isolation associated with being the only SE professional in the school or teaching in a geographically isolated area. Such professional isolation may be the catalyst for SE teachers seeking out professional support from their GE colleagues.

In keeping with findings from a national study (Weiss & Lloyd, 2002), both SE and GE teachers expressed a desire to shift their role in the GE classroom to one of more collaborative involvement. It is interesting that both sets of teachers requested support in areas that the other could provide information about such as curricular content, modification of materials, and SE processes if teachers had the time and opportunity to share information and strategies. Efforts to provide teachers with training in collaboration were the focus of the second phase of the SATERA project, and a partnership developed between a regional university and the schools involved in the project.

Phase 2: Meeting the Professional Development Needs of Rural Teachers

At the conclusion of Phase 1, the researcher met with administrators and SE teachers in each district to discuss and confirm the survey findings and brainstorm ways to meet the professional development needs identified by the teachers. The teachers in District 1 had a variety of needs and limited time for professional development. Subsequently, in the spring of 2015 the researcher and colleagues provided a series of five 90-minute workshops on a variety of topics (e.g., evidence-based practices for students with autism, behavior management strategies, collaboration with GE teachers).

A common theme identified from the remarks from SE and GE teachers in the second district was the need for professional development in collaboration and teaching students with disabilities in the GE classroom. Administrators in District 2 were able to allocate several in-service professional development days to focus on this work. The following discussion outlines the four half-day professional development sessions on collaboration and co-teaching that were offered to 16 District 2 teachers throughout the spring and fall of 2016.

Professional Development in Collaboration and Co-Teaching

The researcher and a team of university colleagues provided professional development in establishing a collaborative relationship to eight voluntary pairs of SE and GE teachers from both elementary schools. Two half-day sessions took place in the spring. During the first session, teachers were asked to think about collaboration in terms of a continuum (see Figure 1). Using the models of co-teaching established by Friend (2008; i.e., One Teach One Observe, One Teach One Assist, Parallel Teaching, Station Teaching, Alternative Teaching, Team Teaching), SE and GE teacher partners redefined their relationship by first identifying the strengths and expertise they each brought to the co-teaching relationship. The teachers examined their expectations for working together in the GE classroom. At the onset of the training, pairs identified existing teaching structures that incorporated some aspects of a collaborative model (e.g., One Teach One Observe, One Teach One Assist). All teachers were able to identify some form of collaboration and co-teaching they currently employed, a discovery that empowered teachers to try the models they were less familiar with.

During the second session, teachers discussed the barriers they perceived as standing in the way of their collaboration and brainstormed solutions together to overcome those barriers. Since common planning time appeared to be the greatest barrier to developing collaborative relationships, teachers advocated for administrative support in scheduling that time. Some restructuring of responsibilities took place so that teachers had blocks of time to plan, teach, and assess student progress together (Murawski & Spencer, 2011). Co-teachers had time during each session to plan out co-taught lessons for the coming weeks using an online co-teaching template (Murawski, n.d.). The eight pairs of teachers made a commitment that spring to start with a co-teaching model they felt comfortable with and set a goal to try out one or two additional co-teaching models in the coming fall.

The researcher provided coaching to four teachers that requested this type of support. Prior to coaching sessions, the researcher asked teachers to identify a focus for the observation (e.g., improved student engagement, time on task). The class was observed during a co-taught lesson. The researcher took data on the teacher-identified focus and discussed the data with the teachers following the observation. Teachers talked through possible teaching strategies to achieve their self-selected goals.

Barriers to Co-Teaching and Solutions

In the following fall of 2016, the eight pairs of teachers met again with the researcher. In the third session, information was reviewed from the previous sessions and teachers discussed their experiences with co-teaching. Teachers shared successful co-teaching lessons and perceived barriers to working together. As mentioned, the teachers felt the greatest barrier in implementing a shared sense of responsibility was common planning and teaching time. Despite a restructuring of the fall schedule, an increased demand for student services had preempted some of the common planning and teaching time that had been allocated. Clearly for these teachers, meeting the needs of their students was a priority. They voiced frustration over the stumbling blocks that prevented them from working together. Teachers expressed their discouragement in being able to achieve their co-planning and teaching goals without the time they required. Nevertheless, teachers voiced a commitment to carve out the time they knew was necessary.

During the fourth and final session, it was clear that creative solutions had evolved, and these solutions had provided teachers with the support and time required to sustain an increased level of collaboration and opportunities for co-teaching. For example, the coordinator of student services for the district volunteered to provide some relief teaching so teachers could have common planning and teaching time. The principals of both schools reevaluated and revised the block schedule and allocated additional SE and GE time together. Teachers also co-planned using online platforms such as Planbook.com and Google Docs. Teachers carved out additional time for co-planning during lunch breaks, before school, and/or afterschool, going beyond their contracted hours. Such commitment demonstrated their strong desire to give the new partnership with their co-teacher a chance. Supported by the group’s collective solutions and with administrative support, teachers recommitted themselves to finding the time necessary to make shared responsibility work.

In addition, that fall, a professional learning community (PLC) on co-teaching was initiated by the district’s coordinator for student services. Participation in the group was voluntary. PLC meetings were held biweekly on topics generated from readings in 30 Days to the Co-taught Classroom (Kluth & Causton, 2016). Thus, in keeping with the research on establishing effective and sustained change in teaching practice (Darling-Hammond, 2010), during this phase of the project teachers were provided time to work together during the trainings, had coaching and mentoring available in newly acquired skills, and ongoing peer support through the PLC.

Phase 3: A Case Study

Inspired by the information and support in collaboration and co-teaching provided to District 2, one pair of SE and GE teachers requested the opportunity to co-teach students both with and without disabilities in the GE classroom throughout the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school year. This pair of teachers engaged in planning, instruction, and assessment of all students over the 2-year period. The experiences of the two teachers and a cohort of 13 students who received instruction and services in the classroom for both years, became the basis for a case study in shared responsibility. The following sections review assessments used, achievement data for three groups of students in this cohort, and reflections from teachers and students on learning in a co-taught classroom over a sustained period of time.

Method

Data from assessments routinely given to all students to monitor student progress in the academic areas of reading and math were gathered by the SE teacher throughout the 2-year period and shared with the researcher. Assessments to measure reading comprehension skills included the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBLES) Maze and Daze (University of Oregon, 2018–2020). Both measures required the student to silently read a passage where several words had been omitted. The student selected the correct word from a set of choices based on their understanding of the passage. The ability to read fluently and accurately was assessed by students’ performance on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF; University of Oregon, 2018–2020) and the Reading Curriculum Based Measurement (R-CBM; Shinn & Shinn, 2002). Reading fluency on both assessments were measured by the number of correct words the student could read in 1 minute. A comprehensive assessment (i.e., Northwest Evaluation Association [NWEA] Language Arts; NWEA, 2011) required by the state measured students’ overall reading and language arts skills. The Mathematics Concepts and Application (M-CAP) assessment was given to measure the students’ understanding of how to solve mathematic problems as well as the Mathematics Computation (M-COMP) which measured the students’ ability to correctly calculate math problems (part of AIMSweb; Pearson Education, 2012). A comprehensive assessment (i.e., Northwest Evaluation Association Math; NWEA, 2011) required by the state measured overall mathematics ability and skills.

Participants

Teachers gathered data for the 13 students who received instruction and services in the GE classroom from the same pair of co-teachers during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school year. Data were disaggregated by the SE teacher into three groups: (a) students without disabilities (n = 6), (b) students with a Section 504 plan (n = 3), and (c) students receiving SE services as delineated by an IEP (n = 4). The SE teacher indicated that students with a 504 plan or an IEP had high incidence disabilities such as a specific learning disability or attention deficit disorder. The specific disabilities of the students were not disclosed. When in the classroom, the researcher noted that it was difficult to identify the students with disabilities in either group.

Procedures

The co-teachers administered the assessments to all students in the class in the fall, winter, and spring of both years. To ensure the confidentiality of individual students, data were aggregated by the SE teacher into composite means for the three groups of students and shared with the researcher. Due to the limited size of the sample, descriptive statistics (i.e., means and gain scores) are reported. Gain scores were calculated by finding the difference in mean scores for the beginning of third grade and the end of fourth grade. Results for each group (i.e., Peer Group, 504 Group, IEP Group) were compared to scores provided by the developer of the assessment for the national group of students the test was normed with (see Table 3 for results).

Table 3.

End of 4th Grade Mean and 2-Year Gain in Reading and Math Achievement.

Measure	Peer group^a		504 group^b		IEP group^c		Norm group
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M
Reading comprehension
Maze	29	6.1	35	5.7	20	11	20
Gain	18		16		13		7
Daze	31	7.2	30	6.2	20	4.2	24
Gain	18		20		14		16
Reading fluency
DORF	143	37.3	146	46.7	89	36	115
Gain	46		31		37		45
R-CBM	163	58.6	153	41.3	105	27.7	139
Gain	42		36		35		50
NWEA language arts	213	11.6	214	5.2	204	20.3	213
Gain	12		18		12		25
Math
Concepts	31	13.6	28	2	19	11.5	18
Gain	28		19		16		11
Computation	51	20	61	5.2	44	14.5	50
Gain	21		37		30		26
NWEA math	214	11.7	206	2.6	210	10.9	205
Gain	17		15		26		15

Note. IEP = individualized education program; DORF = Dibbles oral reading fluency; R-CBM = reading curriculum based measurement; NWEA = northwest evaluation association.

n = 6. ^bn = 3. ^cn = 4.

Results

Reading comprehension

Following 2 years of receiving instruction in a co-taught classroom, students with an IEP were equivalent (M = 20) with the achievement of the norm group (M = 20) on the Maze. These students with disabilities nearly doubled the gains made in reading comprehension skills on this measure (M = 13) when compared to the progress made over the 2 years by the norm group (M = 7). Classmates in the cohort without disabilities performed higher on both comprehension measures (Maze, M = 29; Daze, M = 31), as did their classmates with a 504 plan (Maze, M = 35; Daze, M = 30), when compared to the achievement of the norm group (Maze, M = 20; Daze, M = 24). The average gain on the Maze for students without disabilities and students with a 504 plan (M = 18, 16 respectively), was more than double the gain made by the norm group over the same 2 years (M = 7).

Reading fluency

On both measures of reading fluency, students with an IEP performed consistently below (DORF, M = 89; R-CBM, M = 105) the norm group (DORF, M = 115; R-CBM, M = 139) and made fewer gains over the 2-year period on either measure (DORF, M = 37; R-CBM, M = 35) when compared to those students in the norm group (DORF, M = 45; R-CBM, M = 50).

On the contrary, classmates in the cohort without disabilities and classmates with a 504 plan demonstrated higher levels of reading fluency on the DORF (M =143, 163 respectively), as well as the R-CBM (M = 146, 153 respectively), when compared to the scores of the norm group (DORF, M = 115; R-CBM, M = 139). Gains on the DORF for students without disabilities (M = 46) were similar to the gains made by the norm group (M = 45). On the second fluency measure, R-CBM, students without disabilities and students with a 504 plan did not make gains (M = 42, 36 respectively) comparable to the students in the norm group (M = 50).

Overall language arts skills

The cohort as a whole, including students with disabilities, performed similarly to the norm group on a general measure of language arts achievement required by the state (NWEA Language Arts; Peer Group: M = 213; 504 Group: M = 214; IEP Group: M = 204, Norm Group: M = 213). However, the norm group demonstrated twice the gain (M = 25) on the assessment when compared to the gains made by students in the cohort without disabilities, those with a 504 plan, and students with an IEP (M = 12, 18, 12 respectively).

Math concepts

On the M-CAP mathematics concepts and application assessment, the achievement of students in the cohort without disabilities, students with a 504 plan, and students with an IEP was higher (M = 31, 28, 19 respectively) than the achievement of the norm group (M = 18). Gain over the 2-year period achieved by the peers without disabilities, students with a 504 plan, and those students with an IEP on this assessment were above, if not double (M = 28, 19, 16 respectively), the gains made by the norm group (M = 11) over the same 2-year period.

Math computation

In the area of math computation, students with an IEP did not perform as well on the M-COMP (M = 44) when compared to the achievement of the norm group (M = 50); however, the achievement of students with a 504 plan was above the norm group after 2 years (M = 61). Average gains in math computation skills for students receiving SE services with an IEP as well as students with a 504 plan (M = 30, 37 respectively) were above the gains made by the norm group (M = 26).

Overall mathematics skills

On an assessment of overall mathematics skills required by the state (NEWA Math), the achievement of the students without disabilities, the students with a 504 plan, and the students with an IEP, was only slightly higher (M = 214, 206, 210 respectively) than the achievement of the national norm group (M = 205). Gains made on the assessment by students with an IEP were greater (M = 26) than the students the assessment was normed with (M = 15).

Discussion

Reading

Students without disabilities in this cohort and those with a 504 plan appeared to perform well on measures of reading comprehension following 2 years of instruction in the co-taught classroom. Despite making sizable gains at the end of the 2 years in the co-taught classroom, the performance of students with disabilities in reading comprehension and overall language arts skills was not notably different from the norm group. There were, however, sizable differences for the students with an IEP on measures of reading fluency. Students’ fluency skills were lower, on average, and gains were less than the norm group over the same 2-year period. The co-teachers reported that while instruction in decoding and reading fluency received attention in third grade, these skills were not a focus in fourth grade. Rather, in the second year, both co-teachers focused on reading comprehension and the math skills of their students.

Mathematics

The scores of the cohort of students in the study, including students with and without disabilities, were similar to the norm group on all math assessments: understanding and applying math concepts, math computation, and a general measure of mathematics ability. There were no noteworthy differences on these assessments between the norm group and the performance of the three cohort groups.

On the state math achievement test, students with an IEP made the greatest amount of gain, nearly twice the gain made by the norm group. The emphasis the co-teachers placed on instruction of math concepts and computation during the second year of co-teaching may have had a positive impact on the knowledge and skills of these students.

Unsolicited comments

Over the course of this case study, the researcher periodically visited classrooms to support teachers through coaching in co-teaching or to provide requested materials. During these visits, teachers and students commented on their experiences. Field notes were generated for these unsolicited conversations. The comments provide additional information important to the understanding of how teachers and students perceived being involved in the co-taught classroom.

Co-teacher perceptions

One fourth-grade co-teacher reflected positively about the experience, “A co-taught classroom is an ideal way to have an inclusive classroom. It provided opportunities for GE and SE students that they wouldn’t otherwise have.” A third-grade co-teacher felt co-teaching had re-energized her:

This year has been the best of my teaching career. I feel like I am finally meeting all the needs of my students where they are at. It has challenged me to think outside of the box and helped me grow as an educator.

The sentiments of both teachers align with those found in the literature (e.g., Murawski & Spencer, 2011; Scruggs et al., 2007).

Another teacher’s comments emphasized the social benefits of students learning in a co-taught classroom.

The learning that happens in a co-teaching classroom goes far beyond the standards. Students learn empathy, respect, and kindness. Teaching in a co-teaching classroom allowed me opportunities to become a better teacher and provide the best education for all of my students.

Student perceptions

When talking about learning in a co-taught classroom, students’ comments were generally supportive. “Two teachers is [sic] fun,” observed one student, “They can plan fun things. They couldn’t do that with just one teacher. It’s like they can read each other’s minds.” Other students brought forward distinct advantages of having two teachers in the room, “Two teachers helps [sic] a lot. I get help quicker, usually.” “One teacher can work with one kid while the other keeps going.” “It’s easier to have groups, like in reading. We can have smaller groups.” Similarly, a different student commented, “Two teachers have more skills, because they’re good at different things. You get two points of view with two teachers.” “Yeah, they’re positive and work together really hard.”

Understandably, there were negative aspects to co-teaching that surfaced for learners, “You can’t just sit and do nothing. They will notice you.” A different student pointed out, “When they’re out it’s hard, because we’re used to two and just get one.” Some co-teaching models (i.e., parallel teaching, alternative teaching, station teaching) had disadvantages from one student’s point of view. “Sometimes it’s hard to hear during spelling because of the noise.”

Implications and Future Directions

The generalization of results from the SATERA project is limited by the small number of teachers and students in the study. Nevertheless, the findings from the survey and the case study do identify several possible actionable steps that may be of value to rural administrators and teachers. Providing opportunities that support in-service teachers to engage in meaningful conversations around collaboration appears to be of paramount importance (Zagona et al., 2017). As the survey results indicated, the rural SE teachers delivered SE services in ways that denied them the support of their GE colleagues. Specialized instruction, provided by the SE teachers, primarily took place in settings that were separate from the GE classroom. When in the GE classroom, SE teachers were managing behavior and modifying materials on the fly rather than co-planning in advance. This lack of preplanning preempted SE teachers from working as equal partners with GE teachers to meet the needs of students in the classroom. Rural schools and districts have an opportunities to provide the training necessary to shift this paradigm and create the necessary structures. Grade-level team meetings or common time for planning and co-teaching offer teachers a way to share information and be able to support each other in educating students with disabilities. In turn, these supports could result in SE teachers who have a meaningful sense of shared responsibility and an increased sense of efficacy in their role in the GE classroom (Berry, 2012). Such opportunities might also allow GE teachers to confidently plan appropriate accommodations and modifications of content, instruction, and assessments for their students with disabilities.

It is important to note that the amount of time students with disabilities spend in the GE classroom is on the rise and the national trend has received some scrutiny (Fuchs et al., 2018). The findings from the SATERA project case study underscore the assertion that a continuum of services is necessary to maximize the academic performance of students with high incidence disabilities. Achievement gains, in the areas of reading comprehension and math application, for some of the students in the co-taught classroom, were equivalent to or above the normative group. Yet, in the second year, intensive, individualized instruction in reading fluency was not provided and some of the students receiving SE services in the GE classroom were unable to close the gap between their achievement and those of their peers without disabilities. The lesson learned by the co-teachers was this: co-teaching does not automatically yield positive academic outcomes for all students. Rather, inclusive service delivery combined with intensive intervention for those students who need it appears to be the more effective approach.

An additional implication of this research is in the area of preservice teacher training. Parallel SE and GE programs prepare teachers with methods and materials aimed at teaching learners of various abilities. However, such training may be insufficient in developing critical knowledge and skills in collaboration (Zagona et al., 2017). In some rural schools, research has exposed the perspective of “your kids” and “my kids” rather than “our kids” or a shared sense of responsibility (Berry & Gravelle, 2013). Specific training and practice working together is essential and may provide the catalyst for a pedagogical shift so that all students become every teacher’s responsibility (Allday et al., 2013). College and university faculty need to prepare teachers with the skills and dispositions necessary to plan, assess, and teach together when educating students with disabilities in rural GE classrooms.

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.

ORCID iD

Ann B. Berry

References

Allday

Neilsen-Gatti

Hudson

(2013). Preparation for inclusion in teacher education pre-service curricula. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(4), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413497485

Banerji

Dailey

(1995). A study of the effects of an inclusion model on students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 511–522.

Berry

(2012). The relationship of support to satisfaction and commitment for special education teachers in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100102

Berry

(2019). Benefits and barriers to increasing shared responsibility between general and special educators in rural schools [Paper presentation]. American Council for Rural Special Education 38th Annual National Conference, Alexandria, VA, United States.

Berry

Gravelle

(2013). The benefits and challenges of special education positions: Listening to the teachers. The Rural Educator, 34(2), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v34i2.400

Brownell

Bishop

Sindelar

(2005). NCLB and the demand for highly qualified teachers: Challenges and solutions for rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050502400103

Carver-Thomas

Darling-Hammond

(2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.

Cosier

Causton-Theoharis

Theoharis

(2016). Does access matter? Time in general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513485448

Darling-Hammond

(2010). New policies for 21st century demands. In Bellanca Brandt

(Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 34–49). Solution Tree Press.

10.

Espinoza

Saunders

Kini

Darling-Hammond

(2018). Taking the long view: State efforts to solve teacher shortages by strengthening the profession. Learning Policy Institute.

11.

Friend

(2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(2), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.%25y.v2i2p9-19

12.

Fuchs

McMaster

Lemons

(2018). Students with disabilities’ abysmal school performance. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 33(3), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12180

13.

Griffin

Kilgore

Winn

Wilborn-Otis

Hou

Garvan

(2009). First-year special educators: The influence of school and contextual factors on their accomplishments and problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406408330870

14.

Huberman

Navo

Parrish

(2012). Effective practices in high performing districts serving students in special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 25(2), 59–72.

15.

Jones

Youngs

Frank

(2013). The role of school-based colleagues in shaping the commitment of novice special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900303

16.

Kluth

Causton

(2016). 30 days to the co-taught classroom. Northloop Books.

17.

McLesky

Barringer

Billingsley

Brownell

Jackson

Kennedy

. . . Ziegler

(2017). High leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. https://systemimprovement.org/uploads/files/CEC-HLP-Web.pdf

18.

Murawski

(n.d.). Elementary co-taught lesson plans. 2Teach. https://2teachllc.com/elementary-lesson-plans

19.

Murawski

W. W.

Spencer

S. A.

(2011). Collaborate, communicate, and differentiate! Improving student learning in today’s diverse classrooms. Corwin.

20.

Nagle

Hernandez

Embler

McLaughlin

Doh

(2006). Characteristics of effective elementary schools for students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050602500302

21.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2011). Technical manual for measures of academic progress and measures of academic progress for primary grades. https://www.richland2.org/RichlandDistrict/media/Richland-District/AdvancED/Standard%205/5.1/5-1-NWEA-Technical-Manual-for-MAP-and-MPG.pdf

22.

Pearson Education. (2012). AIMSweb technical manual. NCS Pearson, Inc.

23.

Ronefeldt

Farmer

McQueen

Grissom

(2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562

24.

Scruggs

Mastropieri

McDuffie

(2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401

25.

Shinn

M. R.

Shinn

M. M.

(2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcomes measurement. Edformation. https://www.aimsweb.com

26.

University of Oregon. (2018–2020). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills: Technical Manual (8th ed.). https://dibels.uoregon.edu

27.

Weiss

Lloyd

J. W.

(2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360020101

28.

Wolfberg

P. J.

Schuler

A. L.

(2009). Fostering peer interaction, imaginative play and spontaneous language in children with autism. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 15, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/026565909901500105

29.

Zagona

Kurth

MacFarland

(2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969