EDSP 514 AFP Final Report:
Improving Communication and Collaboration Between General and Special Educators in a Public School Setting
Terri Greenwood
December 4, 2009
Fall 2009
Summary of Proposal
The purpose of this applied field project was to create and maintain an effective and efficient method of communication and collaboration between the researcher, an RSP teacher and special education case manager, with the 22 general educators who serve the students on this researcher’s caseload in the general education environment. The students on this teacher’s caseload function at a variety of academic levels and struggle with diverse disabilities, such as specific learning disabilities related to auditory processing, visual memory, Asperger syndrome, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and anxiety disorders. As a special educator, this teacher employs a variety of instructional strategies in order to accommodate the students in her classes. Some of these strategies include differentiated instruction, modified assignments, and alternating between whole-class, small group and individual instruction. This teacher is constantly assessing students’ areas of need and progress monitoring. Part of accommodating different learning styles is presenting information and instructional materials in a variety of ways. Still, these students receive at least half of their instruction in the general education environment, where teachers do not always have the time or the resources necessary in order to implement the accommodations that these students need in order to access the core curriculum in the general education environment.
This researcher found it extremely difficult trying to maintain current knowledge of the assignments in each of the 22 other teachers’ classes, as well as keeping track of her students’ current grades and missing assignments in their general education classes. Even more of a challenge was communicating students’ IEP goals, area of disability, greatest areas of need, and accommodations to their general education teachers. The questions at the heart of this project were: What is the most efficient way to manage paraprofessionals’ time in terms of assisting in communication and collaboration with general educators? How does a case manager determine which teachers she should meet with on a regular basis to maximize student success? And how and when should paraprofessionals meet to exchange information to prevent duplicating collaborative work? In order to complete this applied field project, this researcher followed a variety of steps beginning with which general education teachers have which students in their classes to using a mass-progress report to use to check students’ progression in general education classes.
Summary of Literature Review
After completing an extensive literature review, this researcher gleaned a greater knowledge base and understanding of general educators’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes. However, the literature review also substantiated many of the initial questions and concerns driving this applied field project. Some of these concerns include the misconceptions some general educators have of resource classrooms and the professional educators who facilitate learning opportunities within them, also at issue is the apathy some general educators have toward special education students and the accommodations that they are entitled to through their IEPs. The literature review illuminated a major lack of exposure and understanding of special education law, procedures, safeguards, and philosophy among many communities of general educators. While a lack of expose and knowledge among general education teachers may exist, this researcher learned from many colleagues that attempts have been made by resource specialists, special day class teachers, and administrators at this particular site to facilitate trainings and professional development opportunities for general educators to learn more about special education. Unfortunately, according to the colleagues, the results were not optimal; in fact there were reports of some mocking of these attempts.
“Effective Mainstreaming Strategies for Mildly Handicapped Students,” by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1992) focuses on techniques to be used by teachers in order to foster success. These techniques include ensuring that material is equally relevant to all learners, providing additional time to learn, attending to developmental requirements of presented content, measuring achievement at later stages of acquisition, using constructivist approaches, or “discovery learning,” allowing sufficient response time, teaching listening skills, integrating language activities into daily learning, and so on. These techniques are no doubt effective, but the challenge lies in creating buy-in from general educators in employing them in their classrooms. This researcher was still left facing the question of how to convey the importance of differentiated instruction and universal design for education to other professionals. Furthermore, Carter, et al. (2009) stated that early release days are not an effective means of fostering and facilitating collaboration between special and general educators. Although this researcher sees a value in face to face collaboration, the research was not supporting the means that this school uses to create face to face opportunities-early release on Wednesday.
Conversely, Prater (2003) discussed the need for all educators serving a particular student to have a clear understanding of his/her strengths, areas of need, and learning preferences. Prater stressed the importance of involvement in the inclusion process and steps that educators can take to encourage specific student success in the general education environment, rather than general techniques of differentiating instruction. This type of support requires that the general educators serving the included student have a vested interest in his/her academic success. It appears in this researcher’s practice that this type of interest in students with disabilities is the exception not the rule among general educators (however unfortunate that may be). deBettencourt (1999) reinforced this observation by creating a study that surveyed general educators and their attitudes toward the inclusion of special education students in their classrooms. 34% of the respondents reported that they moderately disagree with the mainstreaming of students with disabilities in their classes, and 3% stated that they strongly disagree! The study concluded that general educators need more awareness training about teaching students with disabilities. However, general educators can often be resistant to this type of awareness training.
Kilngner and Vaughn (2002) explored the changing role of the education specialist in education today. They found the role of the education specialist to be highly complex, containing a vast array of duties. This article reinforced the purpose of this applied field project and the challenges that the education specialist faces today in trying to teach academic classes such as RSP English and RSP math, as well as providing direct instruction related to specific IEP goals and/or supporting general education classes or other more functional skills in study skills classes. Education specialists must plan curriculum for all of these courses taught, then assess students, and complete the massive amounts of paperwork related to IEPs and communication/collaboration with general educators and administrators, as well as speech and language pathologists and school psychologists. These challenges that this researcher faces everyday are what gave birth to this applied field project in the first place.
Results
In order to create and maintain an effective system of communication and collaboration with general educators, this researcher followed a number of steps. Evidence of some of these steps will be included as appendices to this final report. However, not all of the steps described can be included due to confidentiality. The first step in this process was to have each student fill out an information sheet that includes their class schedule, phone number, address, school counselor and email address. These papers were then used to put together a list of teachers for 7th and 8th grades. These lists were then divided by class period and lists of students in each class each period were added. This was created so that when the paraprofessional schedule was revised the researcher and administrator could clearly se which teachers’ classes were more densely populated with special education students during which academic periods. During the researcher’s prep periods the paraprofessional would be assigned to a classroom where many of the students on the researcher’s caseload were scheduled that period. This technique was used in order to maximize the number of RSP students the paraprofessional could serve while on campus.
Many general educators had commented to the researcher that they did not care for (and in some cases did not even look at) the IEP accommodations sheets that the school district had been using to communicate accommodations to general education teachers. Shortly after the start of the school year, the school district developed a new form that is much easier to read and clearly states where the relevant information is on the form. The form includes student name, areas of disability, areas of need, IEP goals, student strengths, and student learning preferences. The new forms were filled out for each student and distributed to each of their teachers. Many of the general educators who serve these students reported that they prefer the new form to the old one because it provides space for the case manager to explain accommodations, or other details and the previous form just had boxes to check for accommodations.
The “teacher binders” are the heart of this project and have proven to be very useful in the classroom. The researcher worked with the paraprofessional to collect any and all handouts from all of the teachers who serve the students on the researcher’s caseload. Also, the three resource paraprofessionals share information and class notes from the classes to which they are assigned during the resource specialists’ prep periods. Photocopies of worksheets, answer keys, and notes are photocopied and shared with the other resource classrooms. What began as a stack of papers on a clipboard is now three separate binders- a science binder, a math binder, and a miscellaneous binder, which contains history, elective, and PE notes and assignments. When a student comes to study skills without the appropriate materials (i.e. their science homework packet) the teacher and paraprofessional are able to go directly to the science binder and make a photocopy of the needed papers. Also, the teacher and paraprofessional usually obtain an example from another paraprofessional who is assigned to work in this science class for one academic period. This is extremely useful for keeping students on the right track in their answers, but also saves a great deal of time for the researcher who would otherwise be creating her own examples/answer keys.
This researcher also used progress-reporting sheets. There are two types of progress reports used besides the general education teacher input form, which is used when a student has an upcoming IEP meeting. There are progress reports provided by the school, that study skills teachers, counselors, and/or parents can request students have completed. With this type of report, the student asks each teacher to report his/her current grade in the class and make any necessary comments. These reports are on carbon paper, so one copy goes home to the parents, while the other goes to the case manager or the student’s school counselor. The other progress reports are distributed by the case manager to each general education teacher who serves the students on her caseload. These reports are kept confidential, as they list each student by name and include a column for current grade, missing assignments, and other comments. One of these reports lists all of the students that the general educator and the special educator “share.” These reports have been extremely valuable, serving as a quick reference for student progress in the general curriculum.
Finally, another resource developed as a result of this project is a spreadsheet of all the seventh grade teachers’ homework assignments. This has been developed through collaboration with other RSP case managers and general educators. This spreadsheet is an excellent tool for staying abreast in current events in the general education classes as well as checking student work. This has been very successful in preventing students from falling through the cracks, so to speak, as students would often say, “I don’t have any homework,” when that was in fact not the case at all. Moreover, many students with special needs have difficulty writing assignments in their planners. This tool has helped the case manager ensure that students do have the correct assignments written in their planners.
Data collection for this project was quite difficult. This being the researcher’s first year in a new position, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of the steps followed to complete this AFP. Needless to say, this project was not detrimental in any way to student progress; this researcher feels quite the opposite. Due to the fact that the transition from 6th to 7th grade is very difficult for many students, as well as the fact that classes tend to become more challenging and demanding after the first grading period, the data collected during this AFP is basically inconclusive. Qualitative analysis, however, shows that students have begun to generalize positive accountability, self-advocacy, and study skills.
The overall average grade point average for this researcher’s 7th grade caseload was 1.90 at the end of the first six-week grading period. At the end of the second six-week grading period, the average grade point average for the same group of students was 2.0. There was a slight increase in the average 7th grade grade-point average. However, some teachers have cumulative grades, while others assign grades for each six weeks individually, so it is difficult to determine exactly what type of numerical effect the implementation of these tools has had on the students involved. The eighth grade average grade point average also increased slightly from the first to second grading periods, going from a 1.67 to a 1.83. The qualitative observations that this researcher made were that more students independently came in for help before/after school and at lunch. Students also seemed more at-ease and comfortable advocating for themselves in their general education courses. General educators also seemed more supportive of the special education department due to the tremendous effort put forth by the staff to be involved in the general education curriculum.
Discussion/Reflection
From completing this applied field project, I have learned that it can be very challenging to collaborate with a large number (22) of general educators when most either have not had positive experiences doing so, or have not had any experience doing so. Also, some general educators express “philosophical differences” with special education. Due to the large numbers of students these teachers serve and the extreme pressures of standardized testing, especially with the removal of the data firewall, many teachers do not feel that they should make accommodations for students. There is also, in many cases, a lack of understating of special education and disabilities in general. In this researcher’s experience, many teachers have a perspective that leads them to believe that certain students just are not trying hard enough. It is quite a task to educate people who already see themselves as highly educated on these matters related to students with special needs.
The literature reviewed for this project both reaffirmed the initial concerns driving this project and informed the process for the project. In particular deBettencourt (1999) reaffirmed the idea that many general educators do not support the inclusion of students with disabilities in their classes. Carter et al. (2009) raised an important factor for developing collaboration strategies in the public school setting because the authors found that educators did not see early release days as an appropriate measure for fostering collaboration. Instead, these extra hours were spent holding obligatory faculty meetings, rather than allowing staff to meet and discuss issues related to their personal practices. The information in this article led the researcher to seek methods of communication and collaboration that least impacted the already hectic schedules of public school teachers. Prater (2003) refuted the notion that it is imperative for all educators serving a student with a disability to have an understanding of the implications of the disability as well as the student’s levels of academic and social functioning and areas of need.
This researcher is quite satisfied with the results of this applied field project. Overall, the general educators serving the students involved are more aware of the students’ needs and issues resulting from their disabilities, and they communicate more openly with the case manager regarding classroom happenings. Moreover, the teachers are increasingly willing to accommodate these students in the classroom, as well as on assignments and tests. For example, many teachers allow students to retake tests in an RSP setting, with test questions read aloud. This is important since many students struggle to read the questions themselves due to deficits in reading skills.
Clearly, there is no perfect form of communication or collaboration that works for all educators. It will no doubt become easier as time goes on to learn the preferences of the different teachers who this researcher collaborates with. For example, some teachers prefer to exchange notes in mailboxes while others prefer phone calls. Some teachers prefer emails, while others request face-to-face meetings. It appears that building relationships with colleagues is key to positive communication. This researcher believes that students benefit from positive professional relationships between their teachers, and from open lines of communication. Special educators have to make a distinct effort to get to know these colleagues who also serve their students. Relating on a personal and professional level can affect the extent to which these teachers understand and respect the world of special education. Gestures such as stopping by a classroom on Monday morning or Friday afternoon just to check in, or drop off a cup of coffee or a treat can go a long way! This researcher recommends putting a piece of chocolate in a teacher’s box with an invitation to an IEP meeting as a small token of appreciation for that teacher’s time. Methods of communication and collaboration are definitely an ongoing work in progress, but the effort to make these experiences should not waver, or it is truly the students who may suffer.
References
Carter, N., Prater, M.A., Jackson, A., Marchant, M. (2009). Educators’ Perceptions of Collaborative Planning Processes for Students with Disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 54, 60-70.
deBettencourt, L.U. (1999). General Educators' Attitudes Toward Students with Mild Disabilities and Their Use if Instructional Strategies: Implications for Training. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 27-35.
Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S. (2002). The Changing Roles and Responsibilities of the LD Specialist. Learning Disability Quarterly 25 (1), 19-32.
Prater, M.A. (2003). She Will Succeed! Strategies for Success in Inclusive Classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 35, Issue 5, 58-64.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. (1992). Effective Mainstreaming Strategies for Mildly Handicapped Students. Elementary School Journal, Vol. 92, Issue 3, Special Issue p.389-410.
