Improving Access to the General Curriculum for Students With Disabilities Through Collaborative Teaching

1
Improving Access to the General Curriculum for
Students With Disabilities Through Collaborative
Teaching

• Your name here
• Date, location, etc.

2
Session Overview

• Introduction to national assistance centers and
  The Access Center
• Introduction to co-teaching
• Planning strategies
• Scheduling examples
• Stages of co-teaching applied to the classroom
• Scenario examples

3
The Access Center

• National Technical Assistance Center
• Funded by the U.S. Department of Education,
  Office of Special Education Programs
• Focus on issues of access
• What is access?
• Active learning for students with disabilities of
  the content and skills that define the general
  education curriculum

4
The Access Centers Mission

• To provide technical assistance that strengthens
  state and local capacity to help students with
  disabilities learn through general education
  curriculum

5
The Access Centers Goals

• With an emphasis on research-based programs,
  practices, and tools, our services are intended
  to
• Increase awareness among educators
• Help educators to be informed consumers
• Assist educators to implement and evaluate
  programs, practices, and tools

6
Improving Access for Students With Disabilities
Through Collaborative Teaching
7
Background

• General educators are more receptive to change
  when they have background knowledge and a chance
  to participate in the decisions rather than being
  given a special education mandate to follow.

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
8
Background (cont.)

• Special educators have developed a tendency to
  own students on individualized education plans
  (IEPs), which decreases the voice and
  participation of classroom teachers in
  collaborative problem solving.

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
9
Aligning Practices Through Co-Teaching

• Co-teaching is becoming one of the fastest
  growing inclusive practices in school.
• Despite this rapid increase in popularity,
  co-teaching remains one of the most commonly
  misunderstood practices in education.

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
10
Defining Co-Teaching

• Co-teaching occurs when two or more
  professionals jointly deliver substantive
  instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of
  students in a single physical space.

Cook Friend, 1995, p. 1
11
(No Transcript)
12
Three Major Models

• Consultant model
• Coaching model
• Collaborative (or teaming) model

Friend Cook, 2003
13
Most Common Approaches

• One Teaching, One Drifting
• Parallel Teaching
• Station Teaching
• Alternative Teaching
• Team Teaching

Friend Cook, 2003
14
One Teaching, One Drifting

• One teacher plans and instructs, and one teacher
  provides adaptations and other support as needed
• Requires very little joint planning
• Should be used sparingly
• Can result in one teacher, most often the general
  educator teacher, taking the lead role the
  majority of the time
• Can also be distracting to students, especially
  those who may become dependent on the drifting
  teacher

Friend Cook, 2003
15
Parallel Teaching

• Teachers share responsibility for planning and
  instruction.
• Class is split into heterogeneous groups, and
  each teacher instructs half on the same material.
• Content covered is the same, but methods of
  delivery may differ.
• Both teachers need to be proficient in the
  content being taught.

Friend Cook, 2003
16
Station Teaching

• Teachers divide the responsibility of planning
  and instruction.
• Students rotate on a predetermined schedule
  through stations.
• Teachers repeat instruction to each group that
  comes through delivery may vary according to
  student needs.
• Approach can be used even if teachers have very
  different pedagogical approaches.
• Each teacher instructs every student.

Friend Cook, 2003
17
Alternative Teaching

• Teachers divide responsibilities for planning and
  instruction.
• The majority of students remain in a large group
  setting, but some students work in a small group
  for preteaching, enrichment, reteaching, or other
  individualized instruction.
• Approach allows for highly individualized
  instruction to be offered.
• Teachers should be careful that the same students
  are not always pulled aside.

Friend Cook, 2003
18
Team Teaching

• Teachers share responsibilities for planning and
  instruction.
• Teachers work as a team to introduce new content,
  work on developing skills, clarify information,
  and facilitate learning and classroom management.
• This requires the most mutual trust and respect
  between teachers and requires that they be able
  to mesh their teaching styles.

Friend Cook, 2003
19
(No Transcript)
20
Getting Started
21
Where to Begin Building Bridges

• Walking across the bridge, leaving the familiar
  ground of working alone, is the first act of
  collaboration. All parties are in neutral
  territory, with the security of knowing they can
  return to land better, stronger, and changed. And
  perhaps they will return to the same side of the
  bridge even though they started from opposite
  sides.

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
22
What is Change?

• Change is always
• Risky
• Scary
• But it can also be
• Rewarding
• Fun

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
23
Collaboration Wont Just Happen

• Deliberate
• Structured
• Systematic
• Ongoing

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
24
Why Wont it Just Happen?

• Some possibilities might be
• Little understanding of curriculum, instruction,
  and assessment between general and special
  educators
• Collaboration does not occur without a
  student-driven reason and a deliberate structure
  with resources.

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
25
Why Wont it Just Happen? (cont.)

• General educators begin with the curriculum first
  and use assessment to determine what was learned.
• Special educators begin with assessment first and
  design instruction to repair gaps in learning.
• No wonder we are talking different languages.

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
26
How Can We Work With This?

• Provide purpose and structure
• Create baseline and a plan for scaffolded change
• Provide a visual map to guide discussion
• Keep discussions objective
• Allow many issues to be put on the table for
  consideration

Steele, Bell, George, 2005
27
Sounds Good . . . Now What?

• Getting Co-Teaching Started at the Building and
  Classroom Levels

28
Action Steps

• Administrators should
• Provide information and encourage proactive
  preparation from teachers
• Assess level of collaboration currentlyin place
• Pre-plan
• Implement slowly . . . baby steps!

Murawski, 2005
29
(No Transcript)
30
Considerations

• Teachers need to volunteer and agree toco-teach.
• Co-teaching should be implemented gradually.
• Attention needs to be given to individualized
  education plan (IEP) setting changes that an
  inclusive classroom may invoke.
• Goals and support services need to reflectthe
  new learning experiences that students will
  receive in general education classes.

Murawski Dieker, 2004
31
Not an All-or-Nothing Approach

• Teachers do not have to commit to only one
  approach of co-teaching.
• Teachers do not have to only co-teach.
• Co-teaching is not the only option for serving
  students.
• Some students with disabilities may be in a
  co-taught classroom for only part of the day.

Murawski, 2005
32
Limitations and Potential Drawbacks

• Co-teaching is not easy to maintain in schools.
• There may not be enough special educators for a
  co-teaching program.
• Co-taught classrooms may be disproportionally
  filled with students with disabilities.
• Special educators can function more as a teaching
  assistant than as a co-educator.

Friend Cook, 2003
33
Benefits of Collaboration

• Shared responsibility for educating all students
• Shared understanding and use of common assessment
  data
• Supporting ownership for programming and
  interventions
• Creating common understanding

Friend Cook, 2003
34
Effective Co-Planning
35
Pre-Planning

• Co-teaching requires thoughtful planning time.
• Administrative support is essential.
• Here is where the alignment of special and
  general education occurs
• Make this time as focused as possible
• Take turns taking the lead in planning and
  facilitating

Murawski Dieker, 2004 Dieker, 2002
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
Provide Weekly Scheduling Co-Planning Time

• Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one
  scheduling/planning period (4560 minutes) per
  week.
• Experienced teams should spend10 minutes to plan
  each lesson.

Dieker, 2001 Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
39
Effective Classroom-Level Planning

• Co-teachers should show a shared commitment and
  enthusiasm.
• Both teachers names should be posted on the door
  and in the classroom.
• All meetings and correspondence with families
  should reflect participation from both
  co-teachers.
• Skilled planners trust the professional skills of
  their partners.

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
40
Effective Classroom-Level Planning (cont.)

• Effective planners design learning environments
  for their students and for themselves that demand
  active involvement.
• Effective co-planners create learning and
  teaching environments in which each persons
  contributions are valued.
• Effective planners develop effective routines to
  facilitate their planning.
• Planning skills improve over time.

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
41
Two Stages of ClassroomCo-Planning

1. Getting to know each other
2. Weekly co-planning

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
42
Getting to Know Each Other

• Ease into working with one another
• Deal with the little things first
• These typically become thedeal-breakers down the
  road, and preventing these road blocks earlycan
  make life easier.

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
Getting to Know Each Other (cont.)

• Important to spend time talking and getting
  better acquainted with eachothers skills,
  interests, and educational philosophies
• Having a semistructured preliminary discussion
  can facilitate this process.
• Discuss current classroom routinesand rules

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
46
(No Transcript)
47
Getting to Know Each Other (cont.)

• Consider a pilot test
• It may be necessary to plan together during the
  summer (i.e., prior to development days involving
  all staff).

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
48
Getting to Know Each Other (cont.)

• Consider completing a teaching style inventory
• Compare how each of you prefers to structure
  assignments, lessons,classroom schedule, etc.
• Examples
• http//fcrcweb.ftr.indstate.educationu/tstyles3.h
  tml
• http//www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html

49
(No Transcript)
50
Weekly Co-Planning

• Effective weeklyco-planning is based on
  regularly scheduled meetings,rather than
  fittingit in.
• Important to stay focused
• Review content in advance of meeting

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
51
Weekly Co-Planning (cont.)

• Guide the session with the following fundamental
  issues
• What are the content goals?
• Who are the learners?
• How can we teach most effectively?

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
52
Weekly Co-Planning (cont.)

• Shape instructional plans
• Establish timelines and priorities
• Assign preparation tasks

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
Scheduling Co-Teaching
56
Collaborative Scheduling

• Collaborative Scheduling A
• Collaborative Scheduling B
• Collaborative Scheduling C

Walsh Jones, 2004
57
Collaborative Scheduling A

• Special educator divides teaching time between
  two different classes in the same day.

Walsh Jones, 2004
58
Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling A

• Enables students with disabilities to access a
  broader range of general education classrooms,
  including AP and honors
• Ensures the availability of direct support from a
  special educator for critical parts of the
  instructional programs
• Improved ratio of students with disabilities to
  students without disabilities

Walsh Jones, 2004
59
Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling A

• Requires effective consulting skills on the part
  of the special educator
• Larger danger that the special educator will not
  be seen as an equal partner to the general
  educator
• Could possibly disrupt the class routine

Walsh Jones, 2004
60
Collaborative Scheduling B

• The special educator divides time between two
  different classes.
• The involvement of the special educator varies by
  days of the week, not within classes in the same
  day.

Walsh Jones, 2004
61
Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling B

• Advantages are similar to Collaborative
  Scheduling A.
• Co-teachers report an ability to implement a full
  range of co-teaching models because of the
  planned involvement of both teachers in complete
  classes on certain days ofthe week.

Walsh Jones, 2004
62
Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B

• Challenges are similar to Collaborative
  Scheduling A.
• Teachers need to be cognizant of the presence of
  two teachers on only certain days of the week.
• Students with specific support and accommodation
  requirements have to be well aligned to the
  schedule.

Walsh Jones, 2004
63
Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B (cont.)

• Requires general educator to be able to implement
  IEP requirements in the absence of the special
  educator
• Special educator burnout is an issue because of
  the greater demand of knowledge of the general
  education curriculum.
• Requires supervisory judgment regarding which
  teachers can effectively plan and implement this
  model

Walsh Jones, 2004
64
Collaborative Scheduling C

• The special educator serves as a resource to the
  interdisciplinary team.
• His/her schedule is established weekly on the
  basis of instructional activities.
• Requires the greatest amount of flexibility and
  planning by an interdisciplinary team of teachers

Walsh Jones, 2004
65
Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling C

• Special educator is present when needed most for
  instructional support.
• Instructional need dictates the cooperative
  teaching role, not the calendar or time of day.
• Most responsive to students needs and schedules.

Walsh Jones, 2004
66
Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling C

• Requires the highest degree of planning and
  buy-in by a team of teachers

Walsh Jones, 2004
67
Co-Teaching in Action
68
Instruction

• Most difficult but also the most rewarding
• There are things that can be done to maximize
  success and rewards
• Review the different approaches to co-teaching
  and think about how each might look in a
  classroom
• Discuss each others learning style preferences
  to see how these can be incorporated into the
  lesson to assist students with varying styles

Murawski Dieker, 2004
69

• We get along very well. We are both flexible and
  have developed similar expectations for students
  and similar classroom management styles. We feed
  off each others comments and teaching styles. We
  switch which groups we work with so that we both
  get to perform a variety of roles with all our
  students. We work together develop together and
  bounce things off each other. Working as a team
  makes you feel good.

Salend, Gordon, Lopez-Vona, 2002
70

• I dont think Id like to work in this type of
  program again. She felt like a visitor in my
  classroom, and we never connected personally. We
  struggled because of differences in roles,
  teaching and communication styles, and
  philosophy. The students also were confused. They
  felt that I was the teacher and she was my aide.
  I felt like she was always watching me and
  judging me. We didnt know how to do it and
  received little support from our principal.

Salend, Gordon, Lopez-Vona, 2002
71
Instructional Tips

• Develop unobtrusive signals to communicate with
  each other
• Create signals for students that are consistent
  and can be used by either teacher
• Vary instructional practices
• Clearly display an agenda for the class, which
  includes the standard(s) to be covered and any
  additional goals
• Avoid disagreeing with or undermining each other
  in front of the students
• Strive to demonstrate parity in instruction
  whenever possible by switching roles often
• Avoid stigmatization of any one group of students

Murawski Dieker, 2004
72
Three Stages of Co-Teaching Relationships

• Beginning Stage
• Compromising Stage
• Collaborative Stage

Gately, 2005
73
Three Stages of Co-Teaching as They Apply to

• Physical Arrangement
• Familiarity With the Curriculum
• Curriculum Goals and Modifications
• Instructional Presentation
• Classroom Management
• Assessment

Gately Gately, 2001
74
Physical Arrangement
75
Physical Arrangement Beginning Stage

• Impression of separateness
• Students with disabilities vs. general education
  students
• Little ownership of materials or space by special
  educator
• Delegated spaces which are rarely abandoned

Gately Gately, 2001
76
Physical ArrangementBeginning Stage (cont.)

• Invisible walls
• A classroom within a classroom

Gately Gately, 2001
77
Physical ArrangementCompromising Stage

• More movement and shared space
• Sharing of materials
• Territoriality becomes less evident.
• Special educator moves more freely around the
  classroom but rarely takes center stage.

Gately Gately, 2001
78
Physical ArrangementCollaboration Stage

• Seating arrangements are intentionally
  interspersed.
• All students participate in cooperative grouping
  assignments.
• Teachers are more fluid in an unplanned and
  natural way.

Gately Gately, 2001
79
Physical ArrangementCollaboration Stage (cont.)

• Both teachers control space Like an effective
  doubles team in tennis, the classroom is always
  covered.
• Space is truly jointly owned.

Gately Gately, 2001
80
Familiarity With the Curriculum
81
Familiarity With the Curriculum Beginning Stage

• Special educator may be unfamiliar with content
  or methodology used by the general educator.
• General educator may have limited understanding
  of modifying the curriculum and making
  appropriate accommodations.
• Unfamiliarity creates a lack of confidence in
  both teachers.

Gately Gately, 2001
82
Familiarity With the Curriculum
Compromising?Collaborative Stages

• Special educator acquires a knowledge of the
  scope and sequence and develops a solid
  understanding of the content of the curriculum.
• Special educator gains confidence to make
  suggestions for modifications and accommodations.

Gately Gately, 2001
83
Familiarity with the Curriculum
Compromising?Collaborative Stages (cont.)

• General educator becomes more willing to modify
  the curriculum, and there is increased sharing in
  planning and teaching.
• Both teachers appreciate the specific curriculum
  competencies that they bring to the content area.

Gately Gately, 2001
84
Curriculum Goals and Modifications
85
Curriculum Goals and Modifications Beginning
Stage

• Programs are driven by textbooks and standards,
  and goals tend to be test-driven.
• Modifications and accommodations are generally
  restricted to those identified in the IEP little
  interaction regarding modifications to the
  curriculum.
• Special educators role is seen as helper.

Gately Gately, 2001
86
Curriculum Goals and Modifications Compromising
Stage

• General educator may view modifications as
  giving up or watering down the curriculum.

Gately Gately, 2001
87
Curriculum Goals andModifications Collaborative
Stage

• Both teachers begin to differentiate concepts
  that all students must know from concepts that
  most students should know.
• Modifications of content, activities, homework
  assignments, and tests become the norm for
  students who require them.

Gately Gately, 2001
88
Instructional Presentation
89
Instructional PresentationBeginning Stage

• Teachers often present separate lessons.
• One teacher is boss one is helper.

Gately Gately, 2001
90
Instructional PresentationCompromising Stage

• Both teachers direct some of the activities in
  the classroom.
• Special educator offers mini-lessons or clarifies
  strategies that students may use.

Gately Gately, 2001
91
Instructional PresentationCollaborative Stage

• Both teachers participate in the presentation of
  the lesson, provide instruction, and structure
  the learning activities.
• The chalk passes freely.
• Students address questions and discuss concerns
  with both teachers.

Gately Gately, 2001
92
Classroom Management
93
Classroom ManagementBeginning Stage

• Special educator tends to assume the role of
  behavior manager.

Gately Gately, 2001
94
Classroom ManagementCompromising Stage

• More communication and mutual development of
  rules
• Some discussion for individual behavior
  management plans

Gately Gately, 2001
95
Classroom ManagementCollaborative Stage

• Both teachers are involved in developing a
  classroom management system that benefits all
  students.
• Common to observe individual behavior plans, use
  of contracts, tangible rewards, and reinforcers
• Development of community-building and
  relationship-building activities as a way to
  enhance classroom management

Gately Gately, 2001
96
Assessment
97
Assessment

• With the current emphasis on high-stakes tests,
  co-teaching provides an effective way to
  strengthen the instructionassessment link
• Discuss grading before it becomes an issue
• Consider a variety of assessment options
• Offer menus of assignments
• Share the grading load and align grading styles

Murawski Dieker, 2004
98
Assessment Beginning Stage

• Two separate grading systems are often maintained
  separately by the two teachers.
• One grading system may also be exclusively
  managed by the general educator.
• Measures tend to be objective in nature and based
  only on a students knowledge of the content.

Gately Gately, 2001
99
AssessmentCompromising Stage

• Two teachers begin to explore alternate
  assessment ideas.
• Teachers begin to discuss how to effectively
  capture students progress, not just their
  knowledge of the content.

Gately Gately, 2001
100
AssessmentCollaborative Stage

• Both teachers appreciate the need for a variety
  of options when assessing students progress.

Gately Gately, 2001
101
(No Transcript)
102
(No Transcript)
103
Evaluation

• Researchers have been reluctant to measure
  outcomes of co-teaching. This provides a good
  opportunity for teachers to engage in their own
  action research. They should begin to collect
  data on their own to document outcomes.
• Teachers and administrators should evaluate
  co-teaching situations at least once per year.
• The rule that assessment informs instruction
  should also apply to co-teaching As co-teachers
  continue to assess their situation, they must
  ensure that they are improving their instruction
  to best meet students needs in an inclusive
  classroom.

Murawski Dieker, 2004 Friend Cook, 2003
104
Co-Teaching Scenarios
105
Activity Directions

• Each group will read and discuss their scenario.
• Be prepared to report back to the group with a
  summary of the scenario, including
• Comments about pros and cons
• Personal insight into why the example was a
  positive or negative experience for the
  co-teachers

106
Upper Elementary andMiddle School Earth Science
107
Working Relationships

• Elementary team volunteered middle school team
  was assigned.
• Both teams were upbeat and able to interject
  appropriately during the lesson and displayed
  mutual respect.
• Both teams indicated a genuine trust and respect
  for their partners.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
108
Strengths as Motivators

• Both teachers on both teams claimed ownership for
  all of the students who were enrolled.
• Teachers emphasized importance of enthusiastic
  teaching while maintaining effective behavior
  management.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
109
Time Allocated forCo-Planning

• Elementary team did not have time allocated for
  co-planning
• Met before/after school and at lunch
• Because they enjoyed each others company, lack
  of scheduled co-planning time did not appear to
  be a barrier to effective instruction.
• Mentioned that it would have been easier ifthe
  administration had allowed them time
  forco-planning

Mastropieri et al., 2005
110
Time Allocated forCo-Planning (cont.)

• Seventh-grade team had a common free period for
  planning during which time they could
• Review where they were in the content
• Determine what needed to be coveredand by when
• Develop optimal ways to present information and
  complete activities

Mastropieri et al., 2005
111
Appropriate Curriculum

• Both teams used a hands-on,activity-based
  approach to instruction
• Made content more concrete
• Lessened the language and literacy demands of
  tasks

Mastropieri et al., 2005
112
Appropriate Curriculum (cont.)

• Activity-based instruction lends itself very well
  to co-teaching
• Teachers can share more equitably in instruction.
• In fact, teachers appear to be more likely to
  share instruction in a hands-on approach.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
113
Effective Instructional Skills

• Both teams used effective instructional skills
• Framework of daily review, presentation of new
  information, guided and independent practice
  activities, and formative review
• Effective classroom management, including good
  behavior as a prerequisite for participation in
  activities, such reinforcers as positive
  comments, and tangibles

Mastropieri et al., 2005
114
Disability-Specific Teaching Adaptations

• Both teams planned for individual student
  performance within the unit and how to handle
  individual differences
• Reduced language and literacy requirements
• Special educator worked with students who
  required adaptations.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
115
Disability-Specific Teaching Adaptations (cont.)

• Seventh-grade team used PowerPoint presentations
  for supplemental review.
• Special educator adapted tests by reducing amount
  of written language in questions.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
116
Expertise in the Content Area

• In fourth grade, both teachers deferred to each
  other during instruction so all students would
  benefit
• Teachers frequently exchanged roles as presenters.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
117
Expertise in the Content Area (cont.)

• In seventh grade, the division between the
  content and the adaptation experts was more
  pronounced
• General educator appeared to have an advantage
  over the special educator with respect to content
  knowledge.
• Special educator viewed this as an advantage
  (i.e., giving him/her an opportunity to learn the
  curriculum).
• During lessons, special educator more frequently
  assumed the role of assisting individuals and
  small groups than the general educator.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
118
Middle School Social Studies
119
Co-Planning

• Both teachers had allocated planning time
  however, this was also their individual planning
  time.
• One period per week was allocated for
  co-planning. Planned for
• Curriculum issues (in general), scheduling for
  curriculum sequence, and types of assignments and
  activities
• Ways to divide the teaching responsibilities

Mastropieri et al., 2005
120
Co-Planning (cont.)

• Lack of planning was an obstacle toco-teaching
• Resulted in lessons that were too advanced for
  all students
• Left one of the team members feeling trapped in
  an unworkable situation
• As tensions mounted, teachers began to split the
  class into two small groups and moved them into
  separate rooms for many of the activities.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
121
Teaching Styles

• Each teacher had a distinct style of instruction
• One teacher was very relaxed and casual the
  other was more structured and formal.
• In the beginning, these styles seemed to
  complement each other.
• Students appeared to adapt to the differences in
  styles and expectations.
• As the year progressed, the extreme styles
  contributed to the deterioration of the team.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
122
Behavior and Classroom Management

• Little structure was in place in the beginning.
• No specific class behavior rules were posted.
• Teachers implied that schoolwide behavior
  policies were the expectations for the class.
• The loosely structured classroom behavior
  structure suited one teacher but not the other.
• This was a contributing factor to the eroding of
  the teamthe final straw.

Mastropieri et al., 2005
123
References

• Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers beliefs about
  co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22,
  245255.
• Cook, L. H., Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching
  guidelines for creating effective practices.
  Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(2), 112.
• Cook, L. H., Friend, M. (2003). Interactions
  Collaboration skills for school professionals
  (4th ed.). Boston Allyn and Bacon.
• Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics
  of effective middle and high school co-taught
  teams? Preventing School Failure, 46, 1425.
• Dieker, L. (2002). Co-planner (semester).
  Whitefish Bay, WI Knowledge by Design.
• Fennick, E. (2001). Co-teaching An inclusive
  curriculum for transition. Teaching Exceptional
  Children, 33(6), 6066.
• Friend, M., Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions
  Collaboration skills for school professionals
  (4th ed.). Boston Allyn and Bacon.
• Gately, S. E. (2005). Two are better than one.
  Principal Leadership, 5(9), 3641.
• Gately, S. E., Gately, F. J. (2001).
  Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching
  Exceptional Children, 33(4), 4047.
• Geen, A. G. (1985). Team teaching in the
  secondary schools of England and Wales.
  Educational Review, 37, 2938.
• Hourcade, J. J., Bauwens, J. (2001).
  Cooperative teaching The renewal of teachers.
  Clearinghouse, 74, 242247.

124
References (cont.)

• Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J.
  E., Nordland, J., Gardizi, W., McDuffie, K.
  (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the
  content areas Successes, failures, and
  challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic,
  40, 260270.
• Murawski, W. W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs
  through co-teaching Take baby steps! Kappa Delta
  Pi Record, 41(2), 7782.
• Murawski, W. W., Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and
  strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
  level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5),
  5258.
• Salend, S., Gordon, I., Lopez-Vona, K. (2002).
  Evaluating cooperative teams. Intervention in
  School and Clinic, 37(4), 195200.
• Steele, N., Bell, D., George, N. (2005, April).
  Risky business The art and science of true
  collaboration. Paper presented at the Council for
  Exceptional Childrens Annual Conference,
  Baltimore, MD.
• Trump, J. L. (1966). Secondary education
  tomorrow Four imperatives for improvement. NASSP
  Bulletin, 50(309), 8795.
• Walsh, J. M., Jones, B. (2004). New models of
  cooperative teaching. Teaching Exceptional
  Children, 36(5), 1420.
• Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., Land, S.
  (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching The
  key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special
  Education, 17, 255265.

125
Visit our Web site for more information or to
contact us

• http//www.K8accesscenter.org

126
The Access Center Improving Outcomes for All
Students K8American Institutes for
Research1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007