The resource room has become "multicategorical" or "noncategorical" in recent years--- a "center" for children of varying disabilities. Students in the resource room are served in a variety of ways without any particular attention to their labels. This approach is used for a variety of reasons, including the opportunity for students to get support from different teachers and the opportunity for special teachers to work with one another in a team-teaching atmosphere. The resource room approach is also economical because materials, equipment, and other support can be located in one area. This exchange of responsibility for students is convenient and respects traditional lines of authority in the traditional school. A good example is the resource room is Joy Elementary in Fairbanks, Alaska. The routines of the day are clear, and when the student leaves to go to the resource teacher, the teacher can continue with the classroom activities without disruption or much concern. Under the concept of mainstreaming, this has been an expedient solution for all concerned.
For the most part, inclusion dispenses with these service models, leaving classroom teachers with uncertain roles and responsibilities, and a quandary for both classroom teachers and special education teachers. The classroom teacher has initial problems considering how to adjust the local curriculum guide. The curriculum is likely to have goals for each subject and grade level in the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains. The curriculum may be further developed into specific objectives for semesters or smaller units of time. The objectives may also be affective, cognitive, and psychomotor, but will ordinarily emphasize knowledge that students are to acquire as a result of instruction. Classroom activities, lessons, homework, and materials are selected to achieve desired group outcomes. Planning the types of instructional activities, including making proper arrangements for them can require considerable energy and follow through, and this is complicated by inclusion.
Actual classroom management or conduct of daily activities is based on a separate set of strategies, classroom rules and classroom management routines, such as general rules, procedures during seatwork, and teacher-led activities. The teacher may organize students into large and small group activities, each requiring management of student work. For each student, and sometimes for each group, the teacher must monitor progress and maintain records of student work, requiring a management process for paperwork or computerization, and preparation of feedback to students and ultimately to their parents. The teacher also has additional obligations to function for the good of the school, ranging from supervision of groups of students at play or in the cafeteria, to service on various committees, and conducting parent conferences.
Most of the teacher's day is spent in the presence of students, having little contact with other adults. The teacher's evenings are likely to be filled with grading papers and preparing future lessons, in the event there are no meetings to attend. Classroom teachers are busy, unaccustomed to working closely with other adults, and have accountability for covering content in a subject-matter field.
It is not surprising that teachers have many concerns about inclusion, but foremost among them is succeeding in their primary duties and worry about handling behavior problems. Guzman and Shofield (1995) surveyed 244 teachers, the principals, support staff, and parents in 11 elementary schools. The needs identified were skill training, beginning with behavioral challenges. Training that clearly addresses concerns of regular classroom teachers may reduce resistance to inclusion (Dickens-Smith, 1995). McEvoy and Reichle (1995) emphasize the importance of organizing environments to prevent behavior problems in the first place, which is also a training problem that can be addressed in preservice and inservice programs.
Kunc (1995) suggests that when inclusive education is fully embraced, we will abandon the idea that children have to become "normal" in order to contribute to the world. However, many teachers fear inclusion will interfere with their ability to teach and some parents and professional organizations believe it will limit the educational experiences of the majority of students. It is difficult for many educators to accept the notion that social skills and peer relationships are equal to or more important than achievement. To advocates of inclusion, these barriers to acceptance are attitudinal. To classroom teachers, these represent technical and logistical problems. To principals, they may represent a degradation of overall classroom performance and diminishing class averages on state mandated examinations.
Redditt (1991) indicates the collaborative consultation is a form of collaborative co-teaching. The problems in this model are "who is in charge" and what can be gained from the relationship. Co-teaching implies there is sharing and give and take, not a hierarchical relationship. Voltz, Elliott, and Cobb (1994) found in a survey that general educators want an nformation-exchange or problem-solving relationship, but were uninterested in actually teaching in the same classroom with a special educator. To overcome such barriers, examination of successful programs suggest several important ingredients. Salisbury and Smith (1991) identified the characteristics of successful programs as (a) planned social interactions between children, (b) intensive parent involvement, (c) a well-defined curriculum, (d) commitment to integrated services and practices, support, (e) an emphasis on collaborative teaming; and (e) periodic overall program evaluations.
Irmsher (1995) reported that
inclusion is most successful when it is coupled with a broader school restructuring
that includes multi-age classrooms. Arceneaux (1994) reports that inclusion
is likely to be more successful if it is seen as part of overall school
reform, and seeing inclusion linked to overall reform efforts keeps the
focus on total change rather than one modification. Focusing on inclusion
makes it strictly a special education issue, but a total reform approach
puts inclusion into perspective as one part of the process. By changing
the entire system through site-based management, adoption of a collaborative
role of teaching, and implementation of a multicultural curriculum, an
inclusive school can be developed. There are examples of successful inclusion
within broader school reform (Schnepf & Collins, 1994).
The organization of the integration of students with disabilities into regular classrooms is critical. Many people will be involved with the process, something most classroom teachers have not had to experience before. It is likely that team teaching will be implemented, that one or more paraprofessionals will be involved, as well as more frequent contact with parents. These interactions can be overwhelming to a classroom teacher who has always been alone with his or her students. Interpersonal conflicts can be common. Conflicts arise from personality differences and from a lack of clarity about appropriate role functions. Fortunately, there is evidence that experienced teachers, those with more than a decade of service, are much more likely to accept collaboration. Areas to consider in role definition are these:
It is not unusual for specialists, who have no teaching responsibility, to meet when the classroom teacher is working with students. Decisions may be made that will cause conflict, especially if non-teaching personnel appear to assume the role of experts. In a comprehensive discourse on inclusion, supported with research and personal views, Stephanie Ritter describes her experiences as a special teacher and complains that time is a critical shortage.
West and Idol (1990) have described collaborative consultation as a professional problem-solving process. They identify several types of teams, including team teaching:
Due to the assorted approaches to inclusion, there are many kinds of teams and examples of teamwork. The team may be organized for specific purposes. For example, there may be an assessment or evaluation team, a referral team, an IEP team, transition teams, and so forth. For the most part, however, teams refer to the persons immediately responsible for daily supervision and instruction of students. This would include, at a minimum, classroom teachers and special educators, and may include paraprofessionals, volunteers, peer coaches, and any number of specialists, such as vision and hearing specialists, occupational and physical therapists, psychologists, counselors, employment specialists, and curriculum specialists.
- More complex problem-solving and extensive sharing of craft knowledge
- Stronger professional networks to share information
- Greater risk-taking and experimentation (because colleagues offer support and feedback)
- A richer technical language shared by educators in the school that can transmit professional knowledge quickly
- Increased job satisfaction and identification with the school
- More continuous and comprehensive attempts to improve the school, when combined with school-level improvement efforts
While collaboration can be difficult to achieve, it can be expected that there will emerge ways to identify and solve problems over differences of professional opinion. The focus for all involved should be the student and the curriculum. Translating the IEP into inclusive objectives is a good way to establish agreement, if not rapport. Teachers can assess the facilities, curriculum materials, and other factors that will be involved in effective teaching. In planning specific educational programming, the team should focus on outcomes and alternative assessments to be associated with educational processes.
Who should work together? This is difficult. Team teaching, like marriage, can be unpredictable and it may be difficult to tell who can work together comfortably over a long period of time. Training will be critical but this does not necessarily provide assurances that people will be able to cooperate.
Avoiding and resolving conflict. Clear policies, guidelines, and supervision may help reduce conflict among team teachers. The problem is getting a balance between enough specificity in prescribing roles so that a bureaucratic rule book is not created. Conflict is certain to happen, and the school administration must be prepared to deal with it and find ways to decide on long-range curriculum plans. The administration should clearly define grading procedures, expectations for conduct of the classroom, and handling of student problems and misbehavior. It should also provide assistance in planning the first unit plans, how to work with visitors, parents, aides, conferences, and so forth. Building time into the day for teachers to have an opportunity to plan together is of greatest importance. Administrators need to follow through by providing guidance and support for classroom modifications that support inclusion, consultation, in-service programs, paraprofessionals, additional planning time, and support services.
One innovation administrators can support is a school-within-a-school model, such as grouping classrooms into "families," "houses," or "wings." Students are grouped and re- grouped in different ways for instruction. For example, a fifth grade "family" would include a number of students with disabilities. Part of the time, some students would receive individualized instruction and remediation, at others times they would be fully integrated with peers, and at other times would be in large groups for specific kinds of tasks or paired at a computer or a work station with a peer.
In such instructional arrangements, the special educator is working in the same classroom with the regular educator; the so- called "pull-in" model. Pull-in approaches foster collaboration focused on instructional planning. Pull-in approaches concentrate on specific instructional needs, but pullout approaches tend to be unfocused and related to general issues (Meyers, Gelzheiser, & Yelich, 1991).
To illustrate, a variation depicted by McLeod (1996) can be instructive. A school might be organized into eight families--two at each grade level in grades 6, 7, and 8. There might be one or two additional families for new students spanning all three grades. Each family could have 130 students. The newcomer family could consist of 50 to 60 students. Each family might have three or four "core" teachers assigned to it. Within the family, students would be assigned in groups of 20 to 25, the group with whom they take basic subjects. Whether called houses, families, or wings, students are organized in such a way that certain teachers will have daily and frequent contact with them. They will have most of their experiences with the core group of students in the family, but they will also occasionally encounter other students within the larger group for certain kinds of activities. In some cases, the same group of students would remain in tact as a family for 2 or more years, and would have the same core teachers. This arrangement enables team teaching, fosters companionship, communicates and a sense of family among students, and enriches the classroom as a caring community.
The characteristics of this type of arrangement are quite different than a traditional class in several ways. First, there is a wider range of skills and abilities in the larger group, so differences are expected. As in the one-room schoolhouse, older and younger children together is the norm, so variations in size, shape, age, and abilities are commonplace. In a traditional class there is a much more constrained range of skills, causing those who deviate at either extreme to standout in stark comparison. In a large group that is shuffled frequently for different learning activities, there are many kinds of skills and abilities, and differences are expected and accepted. This has the added advantage of permitting advanced and lower achieving students to work at appropriate levels.
Another difference is that such classes and arrangements do not operate on a common schedule but multiple schedules of small groups. This arrangement supports many kinds of activities in various arrangements for varying periods of time to meet needs of students, providing flexibility that cannot be found in a standardized "bell" schedule.
Going beyond this requires implementation of a site-based management school, in which school governance would be in the hands of teachers and parents. In such schools, empowerment is carried to the extent that teachers have a voice in budgetary allocations, employment decisions, and use of space and facilities. Carried to its fullest extent, teachers in such schools have the luxury of being treated as true professionals, able to have some control in the organization and operation of their school, design of the curriculum, and in their own professional development.
Parent or Guardian. For as many students as possible, it is important to secure the participation of parents. The parents or guardian can provide a family history, important information about the child, and emphasize family values. For long-term planning, family values and priorities are extremely important, especially as students begin to prepare for postsecondary adjustment. Parents can also provide important information about the child's functioning in the family, the neighborhood, and other groups. The information can be useful for evaluations and assessments.
Classroom teacher. The teacher will bear significant responsibility for implementing the IEP and for educational planning, instruction, evaluation, and reporting. The teacher should be provided the necessary assistance and support to develop the appropriate learning environment, prepare the peer group to accept the child, adapt the curriculum, and supervise or coordinate the activities of teacher aides, volunteers, peer tutors, and others.
Special education teacher. The special educator can serve many role functions, depending on the circumstances and the arrangement of the inclusion program. In a full-inclusion model, the special education teacher will co-teach with the regular classroom teacher. As such, the special education teacher will share the responsibilities of IEP implementation, planning, instruction, evaluation, reporting, and daily instructional activities. In many states, special education teachers are being prepared with broad skills in all areas of the traditional disability conditions in order to perform such a role. In other models, such as a facilitator, the special educator may provide significant direct instruction to the students with disabilities, as well as support for the classroom teacher. It is critical that the special education teacher not be perceived as a consultant with no obligations to the teacher and the students. The special teacher must be involved in as many aspects as possible, including accountability, involvement in planning and support. If the role is restricted to that of an expert who gives advice, makes criticisms, provide information, and so forth, the relationship is likely to be strained.
If the special education teacher only enters the classroom for brief periods to work with students, it is important that the special education teacher take direction from the classroom teacher about when to enter and there must be a solid understanding about the details of classroom organization, discipline, peer support programs, and the adaptation of the curriculum for specific students. In a co-teaching environment, the special education teacher may assume major responsibility for aspects of curriculum adaptation, supplementary services, and selection and use of materials and equipment.
Teachers must be prepared at the preservice and inservice levels to deal effectively with the challenges of inclusion. Training that clearly addresses concerns of regular classroom teachers will reduce resistance to inclusion. The major barrier may be attitudinal, which can only be altered by successful practice. Skills of teachers, alone, are not sufficient. All aspects of school organization must be carefully planned for inclusion to succeed, including the curriculum, facilities, support services, collaboration, and parental involvement.
Educators must be able to work collegially in settings that have traditionally held teachers in professional isolation (Lortie, 1975; Conoley, 1989). A consistent characteristic of effective schools is that teachers in these schools are not isolated; they work cooperatively with other teachers, counselors, school psychologists, library/media specialists and administrators to provide meaningful instructional and support services for students and, thus, further the academic performance of the school. What schools need are teachers who make reflective decisions regarding curricula, instruction, and matters of governance that are appropriate to the context at hand, rather than mechanically implement programs and curricula—teachers who will keep the purpose of education in mind rather than merely carrying out the processes of a prescribed curriculum (Duckworth & Carnine, 1987).
Teachers who share the same classrooms or work closely in some other collaborative relationship must have training and agree about several issues in order for inclusion to be effective: student assessment, classroom resource management, curriculum design and implementation, integration opportunities, social problem solving curriculum, behavior management, working with parents, and managing education support staff.