coteaching at secondary level deiker

14
Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level: Unique Issues, Current Trends, and Suggestions for Success Author(s): Lisa A. Dieker and Wendy W. Murawski Source: The High School Journal, Vol. 86, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 2003), pp. 1-13 Published by: University of North Carolina Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364319 . Accessed: 18/06/2013 12:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The High School Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: annes86

Post on 27-May-2015

107 views

Category:

Education


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level: Unique Issues, Current Trends, and Suggestions forSuccessAuthor(s): Lisa A. Dieker and Wendy W. MurawskiSource: The High School Journal, Vol. 86, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 2003), pp. 1-13Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364319 .

Accessed: 18/06/2013 12:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheHigh School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level: Unique Issues, Current Trends, and

Suggestions for Success

Lisa A. Dieker, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Wendy W. Murawski, Ph.D. California State University Northridge

This paper provides readers with an overview of the unique issues present in secondary classrooms and their impact on the practice of collaborative teaching between general and special educators. The authors focus on the changes that are occurring in secondary class- rooms related to varied structures (such as block scheduling), higher standards, high stakes testing, a more diverse society, and how co-teaching can better address these issues. Readers are provided with practical strategies to enhance the effectiveness of teachers work- ing together as well as tips to avoid the poten- tial pitfalls when teaming at the secondary level.

Co-teaching (sometimes known as collaborative or cooperative teaching, team teaching, or even teaming) is an educational practice currently being discussed in most schools across the nation. This practice is increasingly observed at the secondary level as a potential method of addressing the inclusive movement. Whatever the name, many educators look to co-teaching with a colleague in anticipation, while an equal number fear or even dread the thought. This new trend in service delivery between general and special education is being embraced at all levels. However, constraints on collaboration between educators are com- pounded at the secondary level. This separation of general and special education begins with the structure at the university level and continues into the structure imposed in many school set- tings. The purpose of this article is to recognize these constraints and to suggest strategies relat- ed to the content, structure and increasing diversity of today's classrooms when attempt- ing to employ a co-teaching model at the sec- ondary level.

The practice of co-teaching initially emerged from the field of general education (Reinhiller, 1996). In 1989, Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend built upon this premise and introduced the con- cept of general and special education teachers working collaboratively. Since then, the special education literature is replete with articles espousing the potential benefits of co-teaching to students and faculty alike. Co-teaching, as

1 © 2003 The University of North Carolina Press

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

The High School Journal - April/May 2QQ3 defined by Cook and Friend (1995), is when "two or more professionals deliver substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of stu- dents in a single physical space" (p.2). In fact, according to the National Center for Restructuring and Inclusion (1995), co-teaching is the most common service delivery model for teaching students with disabilities in the gener- al education classroom. Why then would there

be any hesitation about fully accepting this service delivery model for students with dis- abilities and why do we find that concerns are magnified at the secondary level?

One of the first steps towards the acceptance and implementation of any new program is an understanding of its components and what makes it a worthwhile endeavor.

Table 1: Adapted from: Murawski, W.W. (2002). Demystifying coteaching. CARS+ Newsletter, 22(3).

2

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Secondary Co-Teaching

Table 1 identifies what co-teaching is versus what it is not (Murawski, 2002a). Too often, sec- ondary educators express disappointment in co-teaching. Unfortunately, this disappoint- ment is due to a lack of rigor in defining the support needed or in predetermining and defin- ing the roles of both teachers. What many teach- ers at the secondary level are experiencing is merely a special education paraprofessional providing in-class support to students main- streamed into their classes. Experts in the area of co-teaching (e.g., Bauwens, Cook, Friend, Hourcade, Walther-Thomas) emphasize the need for parity between educators, for heteroge- neous groups of students, and for the use of a variety of instructional models.

Special and general education teachers at the secondary level (middle and high school) are frequently confronted with many issues and challenges unique to their situation. Cole and McLeskey (1997) identified major issues that often impact the success of collaborative educa- tion at the secondary level. These issues includ- ed (a) an emphasis on a wide range of complex curricular material, (b) a lack of academic skills and learning strategies by students with disabil- ities, (c) teachers prepared as content specialists with little knowledge regarding adaptations for students with disabilities, (d) an increased pres- sure for accountability - usually in the form of standardized proficiency testing, and (e) increased autonomy among teachers at the sec- ondary level. In this article, we will address many of these specific issues as well as some of the current trends faced by secondary faculty and students. After clarifying the role of co- teaching, we will provide practical strategies and suggestions to make co-teaching a success- ful service delivery option at the secondary level.

Content Issues Content issues that impact co-teaching at the secondary level include a) teacher preparation, b) lack of adequate planning time, and c) the need for mastery of all content areas by special educators. Because students with mild to mod- erate disabilities frequently are viewed as lack- ing the basic skills necessary to be successful in general education content classes, special edu- cation teachers often provide their instruction

in a remedial format which is not compatible with the current secondary classroom.

Many secondary general education teacher preparation programs focus on content mastery at a much higher level than their counterparts in special education. Secondary special educa- tors often are provided strong preparation in learning differences and accommodations but have limited content specific curricular knowl- edge. In fact, many special educators working within content areas have limited credits in core curricular areas during their university program (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1997). Thus, expecting general and special educators to pos- sess the same content and knowledge base is ludicrous; instead, teachers need to be taught how to recognize one another's areas of expert- ise and to collaboratively build upon those strengths. The issue of content knowledge is a major issue impacting secondary programs as many states provide special educators with K-12 certifica- tion. Despite teachers holding K-12 certifica- tion, the strategies and techniques taught in many programs often are designed to support students primarily at the elementary level. Therefore, we call upon teacher preparation programs to make educators better aware of the issues relative to content and learning differ- ences that are unique to the secondary level. Special education teacher candidates must be prepared to address these content issues.

Even if teachers are prepared to work together, the dilemma that often occurs is a lack of time to adequately discuss and plan for the instruc- tional, behavioral and logistical needs of the class. Planning time is the number one issue for many educators related to co-teaching (Dieker, 2001b). However, even if time is made avail- able, it is not always used productively. The level of discussion on content is often limited. General educators working in co-taught class- rooms need time to share the content of their curriculum, and special educators need time to discuss that content within the framework of special education students' needs and Individualized Education Programs (IEP). A few studies have reported that general educators often use their limited planning time to plan broad instruction for their classes, leaving only

3

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

The High School Journal - April/May 2003 moments for co-teachers to communicate about specific students' needs (Dieker, 2001b; Murawski, 2002b). These broad planning ses- sions frequently result in special educators being told moments before the class begins what is going to be taught that day. Communication around critical areas such as auricular concerns, IEP content needs, and behavioral or assessment issues often are left untouched, or have to be addressed in a reactive manner rather than a proactive one.

Another unique issue for co-teaching at the sec- ondary level relates to the level and focus of content knowledge. Educators cannot be expected to master all content areas. Yet, many of the students served by special educators have not been exposed to, and may not be capable of, the same level of content mastery as their nondisabled peers. Although special education teachers need to continue to build their content knowledge, at the same time general education teachers must focus on more than content in order to truly meet the needs of students with disabilities in co-taught settings. Many students with special needs have IEP goals that require behavioral or social skills instruction, in addi- tion to the content instruction. Actually, for many students in today's secondary schools, there exists a need for both content knowledge as well as interpersonal/relationship skills - not often a common focus of secondary classrooms. This apparent dichotomy between content and life skills can make it more difficult for collabo- ration to occur between general and special education colleagues, but also makes the need for said collaboration more critical for the suc- cess of all students.

Structure In addition to content issues, the structure of secondary schools imposes numerous difficul- ties for co-teaching. Secondary educators encounter challenges that include large class sizes or caseloads, wide ranges of learning needs, an overwhelming amount of paperwork (such as IEPs), and a wide variety of support staff (e.g., social worker, guidance counselor, nurse, work study coordinator) with whom col- laboration is expected to occur. These issues challenge every secondary educator, regardless of state, position, or grade level. Therefore, pro-

4

viding a flexible structure that supports both students and teachers must be a part of the plan- ning for co-taught classrooms. Success with the co-teaching model at the secondary level is dif- ficult if class schedules are not adapted to address these concerns.

In conjunction with a flexible schedule, auton- omy seems to be a desired job characteristic for many secondary education teachers. Teachers often develop their own course offerings, which can make coordination and communication between courses difficult (Schumaker and Deschler, 1988). In fact, Friend and Cook (2000) emphasize that the closed-door syndrome in many schools today makes collaboration a diffi- cult proposition. Secondary teachers find that they only know the faculty in their own depart- ment, and may realize that they do not even know those colleagues well. Additionally, the structure for special educators in most second- ary schools is one of exclusion, rather than that of inclusion. Often secondary special educators form their own specialist teams, which ulti- mately exclude their general education peers. This may further hinder their ability to plan and work in a collaborative manner with these gen- eral education colleagues. Secondary educators need to break free of autonomous teaching envi- ronments if they are truly to learn to collaborate with one another.

A recent trend in many secondary schools is the adoption of a new type of scheduling structure, referred to as block scheduling (Retting and Santos, 1999). In its Prisoners of Time report in 1994, the National Education Commission on Time and Learning concluded "American stu- dents will have their best chance at success when they are no longer serving time, but when time is serving them." Block scheduling, in which classes are taught in increased blocks of time, is an example of how education has sought to utilize time more efficiently. Many secondary schools have already moved to block scheduling, but often without sufficient teacher preparation or research prior to its implementa- tion (Weichel, 1999). How does block scheduling impact special edu- cation and co-teaching? Several professionals believe that block scheduling can be advanta- geous for inclusionary practices, thereby bene-

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Secondary Co-Teaching

fiting students with special needs (Retting and Santos, 1999; Weichel, 1999). While all teachers of students with special needs (i.e., both gener- al and special educators) can gain flexibility with block scheduling, addressing potential areas of concern cannot be done without com- munication and collaboration among educators. The potential benefit of the block structure is for more hands-on instruction, active learning, and processing time that can benefit all students. In contrast, the possibility exists that teachers will not change their instructional techniques, which will place students with attentional, learning, and behavioral concerns in a class- room for a significantly longer amount of time and with potentially less in-class support. Assessment A national movement in education that has strongly impacted secondary education in gen- eral, and has strong ramifications for co-teach- ing, is higher stakes testing. Proficiency testing has complicated the practice of co-teaching because teachers increasingly are being pushed to teach more information faster and better to ensure everyone can pass some level of stan- dardized testing. Although, in theory, this sounds like a positive step for students with dis- abilities who have been served by a disjointed service delivery model (Dieker, 2001a), this method of measurement is problematic. A stu- dent's ability to be proficient in all subject areas and to pass a written test may not be the most effective measurement of success for all stu- dents (Levine, 2002). A fast moving curriculum also can cause conflict between the general and special education teacher who may have differ- ent goals. The general educator may be focused on covering material on the proficiency test while the special educator may be focused on the individual learning needs of students who may not be able to master all the material in such a short time period. The other fear is that the use of proficiency test- ing will serve as the barometer to measure the success of co-teaching at the secondary level. Doing so could provide both invalid and unre- liable results. Many districts are just now com- ing to the realization that students with mild and moderate disabilities will be assessed on local and state tests in a manner comparable to

that of their nondisabled peers. Schools inter- pret this to mean that they are now required to teach students with disabilities the same con- tent as their nondisabled peers. However, until students with disabilities have had the same curricular exposure from kindergarten through high school, using proficiency tests to measure the success of co-teaching is a frightening proposition to consider.

Naturally, like all aspects of education, the co- teaching process needs to be evaluated. However, the following questions must first be addressed. What outcomes should be consid- ered important? Should the use of one stan- dardized test be the determining factor of suc- cess? Do quantitative and qualitative results need to be considered in assessing the impact of co-teaching teams? These are questions that must be asked and answered on a national level related to the impact of co-teaching success at the secondary level. Some researchers have begun to explore the impact and student out- comes that result from a co-taught environment (e.g., Boudah, Schumaker, and Deschler, 1997; Dieker, 1998; Murawski, 2002b). Besides higher stakes testing, another assess- ment issue that is omnipresent in secondary classrooms is fairness in the evaluation process. This issue seems to permeate the U.S. society, wherein equal rights are interpreted by many as equal (i.e., the same) treatment. However, teach- ers need to analyze what is fair, keeping in mind the fact that the meaning of "fair" actually denotes giving everyone what they need to learn, and that not every child learns in the same way (Levine, 2002). Collaborating teach- ers should teach and model this philosophy to their students. Though often challenged and questioned by students, parents and even other teachers at the secondary level, the develop- ment of a climate that embraces the different learning needs of all students is one that is crit- ical to the success of an inclusive and collabo- rative classroom environment.

Diversity Schools also must consider how the increasing diversity of the student population will contin- ue to impact secondary classrooms (Cartledge and Loe, 2001; Leavel, Cowart, and Wilhelm, 1999). A more diverse classroom has the poten-

5

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

The High School Journal - April/May 2003 tial to positively impact the co-teaching move- ment as our society continues to embrace dif- ferent cultures. As diversity increases, teachers have to consider how they will work together to address the different languages and cultural backgrounds their students bring to the class- room (Raborn and Daniel, 1999). Teachers can collaborate on ways to expand the adaptations needed to address both cultural and learning differences. General education teachers enter- ing the classroom today often feel unprepared to support the unique learning needs of stu- dents from different cultures, in addition to those students whose unique learning needs are due to disability. Working with a special educa- tor prepared to work with diverse abilities could assist the general education teacher to meet the needs of all students more effectively. Ultimately, all teachers at the secondary level need to be prepared to serve a diverse student population, whether it be to address cultural differences or learning and behavioral needs (Leavell, Cowart and Wilhelm, 1999; Nieto, 2000).

STRATEGIES How can secondary schools support a more diverse learning environment that at the same time embraces the skills of two professionals working together to meet the needs of all stu- dents? From initial research, findings indicate that teachers find co-teaching to be one of the essential tools for increasing job satisfaction and embracing the wide range of needs in today's classrooms (Bauwens and Hourcarde, 1989; Dieker, 2001b; Friend and Cook, 2000; Murawski, 2002b). However, for the practice of co-teaching to be successful at the secondary level, several strategies should be considered in the areas of content, structure, assessment and diversity (see Appendix A). Content Strategies Have Proactive Discussions. In effective sec- ondary schools, an emphasis on collaboration across the curriculum of general education and special education exists. Time is provided prior to co-teaching to ensure that the appropriate curriculum is in place and students' needs have been discussed. If time also is taken to consider proactive instructional accommodations that may be necessary, the chance of students with

6

disabilities being successful in co-taught set- tings increases. In addition, because many sec- ondary schools require credits for grade promo- tion or graduation, time also must be spent determining how students will be assessed or evaluated. Teachers may decide to include grades for both process and product, or deter- mine that some students will be graded prima- rily on the attainment of their IEP goals and objectives. Whatever the decision, it is most important that co-teachers make that decision collaboratively and proactively.

Vary Instructional Practices. When both teach- ers involved in the relationship uphold the co- teaching process, a climate is established whereby differences are considered an asset and many exciting instructional practices emerge (Pugach and Johnson, 2002; Salend and Garrick-Duhaney, 2002). Two powerful strate- gies that often are underutilized to address con- tent issues at the secondary level are the use of peer tutoring and cooperative learning. Research shows that cooperative learning can be a powerful and effective tool for inclusive settings (Hogan and Prater, 1993; Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock, 2001; Sutherland, Wehby, and Gunter, 2000). Teachers delivering effective practices in co-taught settings use these tools in their teaching to address the dif- ferences in students' learning needs while at the same time creating a positive climate (Dieker, 2001b). In fact, having two teachers to coordi- nate and facilitate cooperative learning groups is invaluable; co-teachers can provide for more effective monitoring and input than if a single teacher were attempting this approach. Peer tutoring allows students to work together and provide one another with assistance in the general education setting (Allsopp, 1997). Most students with mild disabilities have areas of strength. Utilizing a peer-tutoring model sup- ported by one of the co-teaching partners, stu- dents with disabilities could serve as a peer tutor in some areas and be supported by a fel- low peer tutor in other academic areas. The need for secondary students to have the oppor- tunity to both receive assistance and provide support to peers is critical to their social and emotional health and well-being. Cooperative learning and/or peer tutoring models provide

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Secondary Co-Teaching direct support of students from their peers. These types of instructional models allow both teachers to work with all students, while at the same time creating a structure to foster inde- pendence for students with disabilities.

Participate in Collaborative Preservice Preparation. Content issues between general and special educators should be addressed at the preservice level. Faculty in teacher prepara- tion programs need to model inclusive prac- tices. University programs need to include gen- eral and special education preservice or inser- vice teachers in the same courses. Joint preser- vice preparation will allow teachers to learn to collaborate while recognizing and potentially valuing the different frames of reference prior to being thrown together in the school setting (Murawski, 2002c). This type of preparation also ensures that both educators have a similar understanding of their roles in a co-taught, inclusive classroom.

Structural Strategies Expect Progression Through Stages. Secondary schools are beginning to embrace structures that allow students to work together more frequent- ly (e.g., cooperative learning, constructivist models). This same expectation for collabora- tion amongst teachers exists if we expect all stu- dents to be successful. One of the primary com- ponents for successful co-teaching at the sec- ondary level is an understanding of the process and the willingness to be flexible as the process develops. Norris (1997) suggests co-teaching relationships go through three stages as teachers work together: forming, storming, and norming. In the first stage, teachers share their pet peeves, create a daily routine, and discuss how they will interact with one another and with the stu- dents. In this highly collaborative relationship, co-teachers must take the time to clarify their roles. Although the general educator is valued as the content specialist and the special educa- tor is considered the learning strategy expert, roles may be switched. The important issue is that teachers value one another's strengths and that parity between educators is clearly evident.

In Norris' second stage, she recognizes that co- teaching resembles any interpersonal relation- ship in which conflict can occur. The important part of this stage is that co-teachers are willing

to work through the difficult times and learn from this process. Finally, in the third stage, co- teachers begin to create their own norms for the classroom as they work in sync for the benefit of all students.

Vary Co-Teaching Approaches. A variety of approaches have been developed to explain the ways in which co-teachers can work together in the general education classroom. Educators must recognize the need to vary instruction based on the subject matter, the specific lesson being taught, the students involved, and the goals of instruction. At times, direct instruction with either one or both of the teachers in front of the class may be the best method to deliver particular content. If so, educators may choose to implement a "One Teach, One Support" or a "Team Teaching" strategy (Cook and Friend, 1995). However, splitting a class in half so that each educator can take a heterogeneous group with which to work may be a better option for some lessons. In that case, "Parallel Teaching" would be selected (Cook and Friend, 1995). Other potential options for co-teachers include "Station Teaching" (students work in small groups which rotate), "Alternative Teaching" (a small group of heterogeneous students work with one educator for re-teaching, pre-teaching, or enrichment while the other instructor con- tinues with the large group), and a combination of these options (Cook and Friend, 1995). The flexibility provided by having two teachers in the same classroom should not be wasted by a reluctance to try new instructional techniques or a reliance on one teacher to provide all direct instruction. In fact, doing so may result in the special education teacher feeling like a "glori- fied aide", which can lead to a reluctance on the part of special education faculty to participate in a situation that does not value their expertise and training (Trent, 1998). Increase Communication Between Subject Matter Teachers. A team structure unique to secondary schools is the departmental struc- ture. While teachers at the elementary level work and collaborate by grade, teachers at the secondary level focus primarily on their specif- ic subject content matter - oftentimes to the exclusion of any other course provided. As Schumaker and Deshler (1988) point out, a

7

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 9: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

The High School Journal - April/May 2003 focus on content rarely allows for teachers to collaborate across disciplines or grade levels. Therefore, students in grades 6-12 do not have connections made for them between English and social studies, or math and science, as they may have had during their elementary years. These connections often are vital for students with disabilities to help put into context the fre- quently abstract concepts taught in upper-level classes. In addition, the lack of communication between educators means that students with difficulties in one class may be struggling with similar problems in other classes. These diffi- culties often are not caught or remediated; instead, the student merely receives failing grades in multiple classes. If an increase in com- munication between educators occurs, strate- gies might be suggested that enable the student to compensate for his/her difficulties and suc- ceed.

Select Your Co-Teaching Partner(s) Carefully. When it comes to scheduling, secondary teach- ers face a different situation than those at the elementary level. While elementary teachers often can co-teach for an entire day by includ- ing a special educator's caseload into a general education class, secondary educators teach by class periods. This type of structure can com- plicate both delivery of instruction and plan- ning, because special education teachers are fre- quently required to work not only across subject matters but also across grade levels. A question often asked then is 'should special educators plan to co-teach all five or six classes with the same general educator'? The answer is no. Secondary special educators find that the luxu- ry of teaching with one co-teacher is rare at the secondary level. Instead, they often must work with 2 or more teachers to address the various grades and content areas of the students on their caseload.

Another question often posed is 'should special educators plan to co-teach five or six different content classes with different general educa- tors'? The answer to this question also is no. At the core of co-teaching is relationship building and co-teachers find that collaborating with more than 2 to 3 other educators on a daily basis makes it difficult to build relationships and teach various content areas. Obviously, the

8

amount of time and commitment varies depending on the type of collaboration estab- lished between teachers. Co-teaching is a form of collaboration that takes a significant amount of time and commitment from both partici- pants. If it is to be done well, special educators cannot realistically expect to co-teach with a large variety of partners in the same day. Use Active Learning Techniques to Assist with Attention and Instructional Needs. Other preva- lent issues that have arisen, especially related to block scheduling, include attentional, instruc- tional, and curricular concerns. We believe that these issues, while valid, are easier to address when a co-teaching situation is in place. For example, special educators have been trained to deal with attention difficulties and to develop strategies for modifying instruction so that it is accessible for all students. A co-taught environ- ment allows special education teachers to model these strategies for their general educa- tion colleagues. These strategies then enable the general educator to avoid the lecture format, while still addressing the needed content for students. Having two teachers in the room also helps with proximity control and classroom management, allowing more time to be spent on the curriculum

With block scheduling, special educators may find it easier to make accommodations, if the philosophical concept (more time for process- ing and active learning) of block scheduling is embraced. Accommodations for students with learning differences can easily be made in class- rooms in which active learning is occurring. Activity-based classrooms, which historically have been limited to physical education, music, and art in which students with disabilities often are included, meet the needs of students with auditory, visual, and kinesthetic/tactile learning styles. This type of instruction also lends itself to more meaningful and productive roles for both teachers. If a secondary classroom still functions in the old paradigm of lecture and strictly paper/pencil activities, modifications are difficult to make and yet are essential. Instruction done in a purely lecture type format relegates the special educator (who is less like- ly to deliver content lectures due to the differ- ence in content knowledge) to silence, to quiet-

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 10: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Secondary Co-Teaching

ly working with one or two students throughout the class period, or to the position of classroom assistant. On the other hand, in an environment that utilizes a variety of instructional tech- niques, the special educator can play a more equal role on the co-teaching team. Therefore, when used as it was intended, block scheduling has the potential to support the diverse learning needs of students and to make better use of the unique skills brought forth in a classroom sup- ported by co-teaching. Create Common Planning Periods for Co- Teachers. Another factor that must be addressed by schools implementing block scheduling is the role of planning time. While most schools provide teachers with a planning period, the options for collaboration may be limited if co-teachers do not have commonly scheduled planning periods. Ensuring that co- teachers have a regular time to co-plan, co- assess student work, and progress through the stages of storming, forming and norming is a huge asset in ensuring student success.

Provide Flexibility for the Special Educator. Depending on the type of block schedule select- ed (e.g., Copernican, ABAB), a special educator may be limited in the number of classes he/she can co-teach. These limitations may impact the special educator's options to work across numerous content areas where students with disabilities on their case load may be placed. Some schools are dealing with this new struc- ture by encouraging special educators to devel- op flexibility within their co-teaching schedule. For example, instead of only co-teaching with 3 teachers, a special educator may choose to col- laborate with 6 teachers, reducing in-class co- teaching time to only 2-3 days a week per class. Other strategies being used are to teach for half of the period with one teacher and with anoth- er for the other half of the block, or to provide in-class support through the use of a parapro- fessional when the special education teacher is needed elsewhere. Naturally, in this model, training for paraprofessionals would need to be addressed. Although this more flexible struc- ture may not allow for the smoothest service delivery, it does allow more options to meet a wider range of students' needs. The importance

of developing a consistent schedule and main- taining ongoing communication with each gen- eral education co-teacher is critical.

Establish Clusters or Interdisciplinary Families. In some cases, special education teachers may need to work with a cross-categorical group of students in a content specific area. Many high schools are recognizing that special educators cannot be the masters of all content areas. Therefore, schools are increasingly moving toward a family model in which connections across content areas are made by having an interdisciplinary family (similar to the middle school model). Another option often selected is to have special educators divide their department members by areas of expertise, allowing a special educator to serve all students with disabilities within a spe- cific content area. For example, this structure allows a special educator with a math back- ground to co-teach in multiple math classes, serving students with needs in those classes (not necessarily only students with IEPs), as opposed to attempting to assist students in a variety of content areas. This model of service delivery for co-teaching allows the special edu- cator to troubleshoot across a specific content area and to be involved in curriculum develop- ment, textbook adoptions and proficiency test- ing in that specific area. It encourages collabo- ration within the special education department as well. However, in some schools, having too few special educators in a department limits this approach. In such instances, areas such as science and math, or social studies and English, can be clustered so that the special educator can at least narrow his or her focus to fewer specif- ic content areas.

Obviously, a single structure will not work for every situation at the secondary level; however, it is suggested that novice co-teachers start small (Dieker and Barnett, 1996; Gately and Gately, 2001). A successful co-teaching experi- ence during one class period will frequently lead to multiple co-teaching situations in the future. If teachers try to co-teach in multiple classes without any prior experience, they often find themselves overwhelmed and unwilling to participate in the future.

9

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 11: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

The High School Journal - April/May 2003 Assessment Strategies Consider Alternative Methods of Assessment The issue of assessment currently overshadows education at all levels but seems especially prevalent at the secondary level. For years, sec- ondary schools have been locked in a letter grade, grade point average, and class rank pro- cedure, whereas many elementary classrooms have adopted checklists, curriculum-based assessments, and/or portfolio grading practices. A few highly innovative secondary schools, however, are beginning to embrace alternatives to letter grades, such as portfolios, checklist grading and IEP grading (Marzano, 2000; Schomaker, 2001). These inventive schools rec- ognize the difficulties inherent to simply using a letter (such as an A, B or C) to represent a semester long set of skills students have mas- tered (Schmoker, 2001) and the inadequacies this theoretically "shared knowledge" repre- sents. The utilization of rubric grading systems and other alternatives instead provide both a stronger knowledge base and support learning as a process, not just as an end product. These types of alternative grading systems also pro- vide parents with clearer information related to their child's performance (Marzano, 2000). Special educators are more well versed in the areas of alternative and curriculum-based assessments than their general education coun- terparts and could assist with this move towards innovative evaluations when in a co- teaching situation.

Teach Skills Designed to Aid with Transition to Society. The focus of secondary education must be on the future success of all students in soci- ety. Unfortunately, the prospects for students with disabilities in the job market are dim when progress and achievement are measured by standardized assessments. For those schools with a strong focus on self-advocacy and self- determination skills for students at the second- ary level, the prospects are more encouraging. Increasingly, schools are starting to involve stu- dents at the middle and high school level with transitional services that are mandated for stu- dents with disabilities beginning at the age of 14. In order to be effective, however, the focus of these services needs to be directed more at developing meaningful future employment out-

10

comes and less about merely demonstrating compliance with the law. Again, the need for collaboration between general and special edu- cators as they determine how best to develop meaningful future employment outcomes for all students is clearly evident. Co-teachers will need to work together to determine how best to infuse these types of transitional skills into the course content.

Assess the Impact of Co-Teaching. In the evalu- ation of co-teaching, the impact of academic, social and employment outcomes for students with disabilities must be considered in assess- ment at the secondary level. Currently, a need exists for more empirical research in the area of co-teaching (Murawski and Swanson, 2001). Because the effectiveness of co-teaching appears to rely heavily on the relationship between teachers, researchers have been hesi- tant to attempt to measure outcomes. However, co-teachers need to begin the process of data collection on their own in order to be able to document outcomes from this type of collabo- rative endeavor. Co-teachers could have stu- dents participate in content-driven pre-post assessments, complete questionnaires or sur- veys about their experiences in a co-taught class, or collect curriculum-based assessments over time to demonstrate student achievement. This data should be compared to student out- comes in classes in which co-teaching is not occurring. In addition, student progress toward their IEP goals (for students with disabilities) is another method by which the effectiveness of co-teaching should be assessed. Assessment drives instruction; in this case, co-teachers must continue to assess their co-teaching situation to improve instruction to meet students' needs in an inclusive class.

Diversity Strategies Adapt Co-Teaching Approaches to Meet Diverse Needs of Students. The practice of co- teaching was developed to address the needs of students with learning or behavioral needs. However, teachers employing this model argue that it allows the needs of a more diverse stu- dent population to be met (Dieker, 2001b). For example, through the use of alternative teach- ing, a co-teaching team could address the stu-

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 12: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Secondary Co-Teaching dents who need further differentiation, to include remediation or even gifted instruction (Hughes and Murawski, 2001). In one example, co-teachers provided instruction for 30 minutes each period to a large group and the remaining 30 minutes were spent in small group instruc- tion. The focus of the small groups for three days a week was remediation activities, where- as the other two days a week the focus was on enrichment activities. Creative models like this one can be used when two teachers are present in the classroom to open the door to meet a greater range of learning needs.

Explore Culturally-Responsive Teaching. Co- teachers can demonstrate culturally-responsive teaching by facilitating situations in which stu- dents are able to share their own cultures or experiences. Students benefit by being able to draw on personal experiences and prior knowl- edge. Having two teachers in the same class- room allows for more opportunities for differ- entiation and sharing. Co-teachers can employ a parallel teaching approach to reduce the stu- dent-teacher ratios allowing students to be divided by interests (for example, students in a history class who want to explore South America in the 1800's and students who want to explore North America in the 1800's could do so). Students could then return to the large group and teach one another about their new- found knowledge. In addition, co-teachers can share their various frames of reference and cul- tural backgrounds as the class progresses, enabling students to see collaboration modeled between two adults with differing experiences. When co-teaching is done in a purposeful man- ner, the teaching team considers not only the needs of students with disabilities, but also the needs of all students. As the diversity of our nation's classrooms continues to expand, mod- els such as co-teaching are needed at all levels to ensure the success of each student, especial- ly at the secondary level where the greatest learning gaps can occur.

Conclusion With so many variables impacting secondary education today, any changes introduced to staff must be carefully planned and executed.

The first key to success in co-teaching is to start early and clearly identify how the process will be implemented as well as evaluated. All too often in education, change is introduced (or even mandated) without the implementation of a preconceptualized and flexible evaluation plan that can be used to immediately respond to difficulties. Other factors that will assist in greater success with this model include admin- istrative support, the provision of planning time prior to the start of the semester, as well as open discussions about grading, accommodations, and behavior management. Another simple but powerful strategy is to schedule students (both with and without dis- abilities) into co-taught classes prior to the rest of the school schedule. This last tip may seem improbable but many schools have found this simple step to be pivotal to the success of co- teaching (Murawski, 2002b). Scheduling stu- dents first allows co-taught teams to spend time proactively reviewing their students' files, IEPs, and other documentation relevant to instruc- tional planning. It is also important to remem- ber that the likelihood of success for co-teaching is greatly decreased if teams are assigned the day before school starts and students' academic and behavioral needs are considered only by where the schedule will accommodate them instead of where their needs can best be served.

Indeed, the areas of content, structure, assess- ment, and diversity are replete with the need for change. However, change in education is diffi- cult, especially at the secondary level. When changes are implemented with thought, time, and planning, co-teaching can ultimately be beneficial for all students. The success of all students is critical for teachers, students, par- ents and administrators at a time when our country has placed such a strong emphasis on high stakes testing. The stakes have been raised for all students, to include students with diverse abilities. To meet these challenges head on in the ever changing and more complex world of secondary education, teachers and administrators are encouraged to look to co- teaching as a feasible option by which to meet these high standards.

11

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 13: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

The High School Journal - April/May 2003

Appendix A.

12

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 14: Coteaching at secondary level deiker

Secondary Co-Teaching References Allsopp, D. (1997). Using classwide peer tutoring to

teach beginning algebra problem-solving skills in het- erogeneous classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 367-379.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and spe- cial education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17-22.

Boudah, D. J., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(4), 293-315.

Cartledge, G., and Loe, S. A. (2001). Cultural diversity and social skill instruction. Exceptionality, 9 (1 and 2), 33-46.

Cole, C. M. and McLeskey, }. (1997). Secondary inclu- sion programs for students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(6), 1-15.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, 1-16.

Dieker, L., & Barnett, C. (1996). Tips for successful co- teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 5-7.

Dieker, Lisa. 1998. "Co-Teaching: A process to support students with special needs in social studies." Social Studies Review 37: 62-65.

Dieker, L. (2001a). Collaboration as a tool to resolve the issue of disjointed service delivery. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 263- 269.

Dieker, L. (2001b). What are the characteristics of "effec- tive" middle and high school co-taught teams? Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 14-25.

Dieker, L. 2002. Co-Planner (semester). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design (also available at www.amazon.com).

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1997). Tis the season. Learning, 26(1), 27-29.

Gately, S.E. and Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47.

Hogan S., & Prater, M. (1993). The effects of peer tutor- ing and self-management training on on-task, aca- demic, and disruptive behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 18(2), 118-128.

Hughes, C. E., & Murawski, W. W. (2001). Lessons from another field: Applying co-teaching strategies to gift- ed education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 195-204.

Leavell, A.G., Cowart, M., & Wilhelm, R.W. (1999). Strategies for preparing culturally responsive teach- ers. Equity and Excellence in Education, 32. 64-71.

Levine, M. (2002). A Mind at a Time. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & and Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research- based strategies for increasing student achievement VA: ASCD.

Murawski, W. W. (2002a). Demystifying coteaching. The CARS+ Newsletter, 22(3), 17-19.

Murawski, W. W. (2002b). An analysis of student out- comes in cotaught settings in comparison to other special education service delivery options for stu- dents with learning disabilities. Paper submitted for publication.

Murawski, W. W. (2002c). Including co-teaching in a teacher preparation program: A vital addition. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 6(2), 113-116.

Murawski, W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analy- sis of co-teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-267.

National Center for Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National study on inclusion: Overview and summary report. New York: Author.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of Time. Washington, DC: Author.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity. NY: Longman. Norris, D. M. 1997. Teachers' perceptions of co-teaching

in an inclusive middle school: A look at general and special education teachers working together with stu- dents with learning disabilities. Unpublished disser- tation: George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Pugach, M. C, & Johnson, L. J. (2002). Collaborative practitioners: Collaborative schools. Denver: Love Publishing Company.

Raborn, D. T, & Daniel, M. J. (1999). Oobleck. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(6), 32-40.

Reinhiller, N. (1996). Coteaching: New variations on a not-so-new practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(1), 34-48.

Retting, M. D., & Santos, K. (1999). Going on the block: Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in high schools with block scheduling. Teaching Exceptional Children, 13(2), 32-39.

Salend, S. J., & Garrick-Duhaney, L. M. (2002). Grading students in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 8-15.

Schmoker, M. (2001). The Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools. VA: ASCD.

Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (1988). Implementing the regular education initiative in secondary schools: A different ballgame. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 36-42.

Sutherland, K., Wehby, J., & Gunter, P. (2000). The effec- tiveness of cooperative learning with students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A literature review. Behavioral Disorders, 25(3), 225-238.

Trent, S. C. (1998). False starts and other dilemmas of a secondary general education collaboration teacher: A case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(5), 503-513.

Weichel, W. A. (1999). Building Success: Block by Block. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Council for Exceptional Children (April), Charlotte, NC.

13

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions