Special

Topics in School-Based Consultation:

The Role of Co-Teaching in Implementing Inclusive Education

Camille McRae

University of British Columbia

EPSE 551 A

December 6th 2016

Introduction to Inclusion

In British Columbia, the practice of inclusive education has been written into law to

ensure equal rights for all individuals, as mandated by the federal laws in Section 15 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). The BC Ministry of Education policy manual

(2016) states that: Inclusion describes the principle that all students are entitled to equitable

access to learning, achievement and the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of their education.

The practice of inclusion is not necessarily synonymous with integration and goes beyond

placement to include meaningful participation and the promotion of interaction with others.

(p.7); however, this suggests that inclusion can be achieved despite segregation. It is my

personal belief that the need for inclusive education goes beyond policy and law. I have had

many personal conversations with adults who can attest to the lasting stigma from receiving

segregated support, and the feeling that they were different and unintelligent for needing

special help. As such, I feel deeply that it is important for us, as educators, to discern an

effective model for inclusive education, as well as a model for implementation that will ensure

it reaches as many students as possible, with long-lasting effects. The phrase not necessarily

synonymous with integration is problematic and may explain why, in my personal experience

as a resource teacher, I have rarely seen classrooms that are truly inclusive and suggest that the

pull-out model is the most common form of resource support in the Vancouver School

District. Because policies are moving towards the delivery of services to be within the general

education classroom, the alternative model becomes in-class support. This often takes the form
of co-teaching, which has been identified as a vehicle for implementing inclusive practices

(Murawski & Swanson, 2001). This paper will discuss the strengths and limitations of the

research on co-teaching, discuss dynamic consultation skills to support co-teaching, strategies

for effective implementation, and propose universal design for learning as a solution to the

great challenge of promoting inclusive education.

Co-Teaching for Inclusion

Co-teaching is a practice that can take many forms; which can make it difficult to

research, and even more difficult to implement effectively. Scruggs et al. (2007) describe five

primary forms of co-teaching: one teach, one assist, where typically the classroom teacher

(CT) is primarily teaching a lesson, and the resource teacher (or special education teacher)

provides support to individual students with or without special needs; station teaching, where

there are learning stations with different content, and the co-teachers each provide instruction

and support at their stations; parallel teaching, where co-teachers teach the same content at

the same time, so that each teacher has a smaller group of students; alternative teaching,

where one teacher takes a smaller group of particular students for specialized instruction, for

example, review or enrichment; team teaching, where both co-teachers share the responsibility

of planning, teaching, and assessing.

An overview of co-teaching research tells us that despite the fact that most teachers

and administrators agree that it is beneficial, oftentimes, co-teaching is not being implemented
as intended (Scruggs et al., 2007). The notion of co-teaching for inclusion is not a new one,

Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend (1989) described the practice over 25 years ago as

cooperative teaching, primarily meaning the team teaching approach, where both the

general education teacher and special educator worked together to plan for instruction and

incorporate best practice teaching strategies (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Instead the one

teach, one assist model has been found to be the most common form of co-teaching, and

research-based best practices are infrequently observed during co-teaching (Scruggs et al.,

2007). This, perhaps is why the one teach, one assist model, when ineffectively utilized, has

been described as the the glorified EA model (Katz, July 7, 2016), and why Cook suggests that

both teachers need to be actively involved in instruction for co-teaching to take place (1995).

However, if we expand the notion of co-teaching as consultation, I would argue that sometimes

the goal of co-teaching is to build the capacity in a colleague so that they can teach a topic, use

an intervention, or use a new method independently. For example, a co-teaching relationship

may begin as one teach, one assist where the lead teacher is modelling a particular skill, then

shift to team teaching where both teachers are collaborating to make improvements, and then

shift again to one teach, one assist, with the expert teacher taking the role of assistant, to

allow their colleague to practice the skills under observation and with support. This model is

called The Three Cs (Lipton & Wellman, 2003).

Co-Teaching as Consultation

 One traditional model of consultation involves an expert being called in to a school to

support a classroom teacher, usually for a concern about a specific student; however, as a

resource teacher (RT), I have been striving to apply the knowledge and skills Ive acquired about

school-based consultation to my own practice. In the context of inclusion, I believe that as a

resource teacher I will utilize consultation skills to develop capacity for co-teaching among my

colleagues. Based on the research that suggests that the one teach, one assist model is

ineffective, team teaching may be considered the best place to focus consultation efforts;

however, all models of co-teaching can, in fact, play an effective role in building capacity for

inclusive practices, from a consultation standpoint (Katz, September 28, 2016). To appreciate

the role of consultant as a co-teacher, it is helpful to consider the work of Lipton and Wellman

(2003). They suggest a model called The Three Cs wherein a consultant, (to avoid confusion I

will use the term mentor) shifts between the roles of coach, collaborator, and

consultant in order to support their colleagues as necessary (2003).

Lipton and Wellman (2003) suggest that a mentors role is always to support, to

challenge, and to facilitate vision, which can take many forms. As a coach, the mentors job is

primarily to offer support for thinking, problem-solving, and goal clarification through

techniques such as inquiring, paraphrasing, pausing and probing for details (Lipton &

Wellman, 2003, p.25). Katz (September 28, 2016) suggests that the role of the coach is similar

to a cheerleader: the colleague has the capacity, but perhaps they need encouragement. It is

crucial that the mentor maintains a non-judgemental stance when engaging in a coaching

relationship, as it is the colleague that ought to be self-reflecting on areas for improvement and
strength (Lipton & Wellman, 2003). Thus, the one teach, one assist is not necessarily lesser

than team teaching, if the goal of the mentoring is actually to build capacity in a colleague:

perhaps the assisting teacher is there to observe the lead teacher as they attempt a new

strategy.

As a collaborator, the mentor is working side by side with the colleague, and the primary

goal is to work together to brainstorm ideas and interventions, co-plan, co-teach, and become

study buddies (Lipton & Wellman, 2003). Remaining non-judgemental is still an important

strategy while working as a collaborator, because there will be times when the mentor will still

have to shift back and forth between coach and consultant. This form of mentoring could be

enacted as team teaching, parallel teaching, station teaching, or alternative teaching. In fact,

you may collaborate on an intervention and utilize the one teach, one assist model to try it out

with one teacher taking data to track if it is effective.

As a consultant, the mentors primary goal is to share vital information about policies

and procedures, learning and learners, curriculum and content and standards and effective

practices (Lipton & Wellman, 2003, p.22), making this stance the closest to the traditional

model of school-based expert delivering knowledge consultation. In the context of inclusion,

this may look like a resource teacher who has expertise in inclusive practices, sharing

knowledge about how to plan, teach, and assess using project based learning. In this stance,

the colleague is often seeking expert opinions, and wants someone to show them how to do it.

Still, the mentor must know when their colleague is seeking consultative support, because if a
mentor misinterprets their colleague, it could lead to a poor working relationship, which is a

crucial component to successful co-teaching (Conderman et al., 2009). For example, Katz

(September 28, 2016) suggests that sometimes a resource teacher will be informally presented

with a problem from a colleague, such as: Rachel is so ELL, she cant do any of the work in

class. Using the Three Cs model, it becomes the resource teachers job to figure out what kind

of mentoring support that colleague is seeking. If the classroom teacher is venting because they

are feeling frustrated with Rachel that particular day, it would be a mistake to approach the

situation from a consulting standpoint, because the CT may feel judged, or like the RT is trying

to tell them how to do their job. Conversely, if the CT is seeking consultative support and the

mentor provides a coaching stance, the CT may think that they are being unhelpful by brushing

off their concerns and suggesting that are fine to deal with the problem themselves. As such, as

a co-teacher, it is crucial that the mentor has skills in using all three kinds of consulting skills,

and the tact to know when to use which stance. Teacher compatibility is an important

component to successful co-teaching (Sundqvist et al., 2014), and because as a resource

teacher it is not always possible to choose which colleagues we work with, the Three Cs is an

excellent communication tool to assist with effective collaboration for inclusion.

Implementation of Co-Teaching


In investigating the body of research on co-teaching, it becomes clear that there are

several limitations to the effective implementation of the practice. It requires preparation

before implementation to ensure: voluntary participation (M. Friend et al., 2010),

administrative support (Sundqvist et al., 2014), teacher compatibility (M. Friend et al., 2010),
effective communication (Conderman et al., 2009), and that teachers have a shared vision and

clearly defined roles (Sundqvist et al., 2014). When implemented successfully, research shows

that there is reduced stigma for students with disabilities (M. Friend et al., 2010), but research

about student outcomes is inconclusive (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). As such, we can conclude

that there is value in providing in class special education support, but we have not yet

determined a clear way of providing the services and interventions necessary for consistent

student success. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a research-based best practice for

inclusive education (Katz, 2013), and by virtue of the fact that students are not pulled out for

special education services in this model, I will investigate the notion of using UDL as a vehicle

for implementing co-teaching more systematically, using Dr. Jennifer Katzs Three-Block model

for UDL.

The Three-Block Model of UDL for Meaningful Student Outcomes


The Three-Block model for UDL targets social inclusion, academic inclusion, self-worth,

and belonging and promotes engagement, self-regulation, collaborative learning,

independence, respecting diversity, and prosocial behaviours (Katz, 2013). It also improves

literacy, numeracy, critical thinking (Katz & Porath, 2011), and teachers self-efficacy and

collegial relationships (Katz, 2014). Dr. Jennifer Katz (2012), creator of the Three-Block Model

of UDL, argues that a student cannot be included socially and academically if they are not

physically present in the classroom, thus resource teacher support must be provided through

the use of co-planning, co-teaching, and co-assessing. In order for students to be genuinely

included in all aspects of class, teachers must take a no exceptions approach to including all
students in all class activities (Katz, 2014); therefore, unless a student is learning receiving a

short-term intensive intervention that cannot be learned in the general classroom (such as

learning Braille), the RT and CT should be working collaboratively to plan for all of the needs of

their students to be met inside the classroom. The Three-Block Model is an instructional

approach that makes inclusion possible for any class, any grade, with any class composition

(Katz, 2014). Not only does it allow for meaningful participation for all students, it also improves

literacy, numeracy, students social-emotional outcomes, and student engagement (Katz, 2013).

Research has demonstrated that implementing a UDL approach to instruction not only

improves academic outcomes, but it also reduces social and academic exclusion and aggressive

behaviour (Katz & Porath, 2011), as well as challenging behaviour (Katz, 2014) (Borders, Bock, &

Michalak, 2012) (Johnson-Harris & Mundschenk, 2014). This is achieved through a backwards

design approach to planning, a multiple intelligences approach to demonstrating knowledge of

concepts, and a Blooms taxonomy approach to assessment of thinking and understanding

(Katz, 2012.) See Figure 1 for a graphic representation of the primary components of the Three-

Block Model. Looking at the research, it is clear that The Three-Block Model provides a solution

to the challenges and limitations of current co-teaching practices, as well an effective way of

including all students and improving student outcomes, while furthermore decreasing teacher

stress and improving job satisfaction (Katz, 2014). One may wonder: If inclusion has been

mandated by law, and this model is so effective, why dont teachers choose to use it? Of

course, as Scruggs et al. (2007) remind us, volunteerism alone is not enough for full-scale policy

implementation, thus the question becomes: How can we encourage teachers to use the Three-

Block Model of UDL, or other research-based best practices to enact inclusive education?

Implementation Science

Fixen et al. (2005) reviewed the body of literature on implementation, and found that

there are certain aspects that help with its sustained success; however, even with ample

research that guides implementation models, enacting coordinated change at system,

organization, program, and practice levels (p.vi) is never a simple task, because it requires that

individuals overcome their innate resistance to change. In the preface of Fixen et al.s (2005)

research review, they identify that implementation appears most successful when: carefully

selected practitioners receive coordinated training, coaching, and frequent performance

assessments; organizations provide the infrastructure necessary for timely training, skillful

supervision and coaching, and regular process and outcome evaluations; communities and

consumers are fully involved in the selection and evaluation of programs and practices; and

state and federal funding avenues, policies, and regulations create a hospitable environment

for implementation and program operations (p.vi). In the context of inclusion, and more

specifically, The Three-Block Model of UDL, these components of implementation science may

sometimes be difficult to access, but I will attempt to envision wide-scale implementation using

this model.

Envisioning Effective Implementation of Co-Teaching Practices Through UDL

Fixen et al. (2005) suggest a model to address the most fundamental and crucial aspects

of successful implementation in Figure 2, and Figure 3 suggests the stages of implementation. I

will use these two models of implementation to propose a plan for adopting The Three-Block

Model at a whole school level, which would later be conceived at a district level.

Exploration

Selection

Much like staff compatibility is a deciding factor in the success of a co-teaching

partnership, selection of staff is a crucial component to successful implementation. In the

context of The Three-Block Model, I would propose voluntary participation rather than a staff

selection process. However, I would also spend significant time during the initial exploration

stage of implementation, trying to encourage participation from staff, and ensure that there

are enough participants to warrant moving forward with implementation. For example, the

Three-Block Model requires a minimum of thirty hours of training for effective implementation

(Katz, September 25, 2016). Staff buy-in is an important component to effective

implementation, but I would argue that is it better to envision change as a long term process,

build capacity among a small group of early adopters and allow others to participate when they

see the positive effects of change themselves among their colleagues. I also believe that the

establishing the need for change must be done with the entire staff as part of the exploration

stage, to ensure that everyone feels included with the proposal to move forward with inclusive

practices and motivated to participate with training, without any immediate obligation to

implement the program in their class (Figure 3).

Installation
Preservice training

Salas et al. (2012) emphasize the notion that there is a science to training, and that a

single training session will not be sufficient to ensure that individuals actually adopt new

practices. Some challenges identified by Fixen et al. include securing time for training (2012),

which is why I would propose the training for The Three-Block Model to be done at school-

based professional development days and promote the training by offering an incentive, such

as a training completion certificate to encourage attendance. The train and hope model

(Fixen et al., 2005) is also not sufficient to guarantee that people will adopt new practices, thus

I would also propose scheduled follow-up coaching/collaboration time to help ensure that staff

feel encouraged to try out new practices. At this installation stage of the process, it is crucial

that key staff members, such as administrators and trainers, anticipate challenges and ensure

they have the resources necessary to move forward with initial implementation (Figure 3).

Initial Implementation

Consultation and Coaching

Much like the description of the Three Cs, the role of the coach is to support the newly

trained staff members in becoming confident practitioners (Fixen et al. 2005). In the context of

inclusion this stage could be enacted through co-teaching with a teacher who is already trained

in the Three-Block Model, for example an RT and a CT. Initial implementation is an important

stage in the implementation of a new program, because people are trying things out for the

first time, and it is important to maintain momentum so that staff do not return back to their

former practices. For the Three-Block Model, this would be done through continued training,
both formally as scheduled professional development, and through consultation and coaching

among teachers, and expert trained staff.

Staff evaluation

Fixen et al. (2005) describe the importance of measuring fidelity and performance, after

all, if a program is not being implemented, then it cannot be successful. In the context of a

school introducing the Three-Block Model, I would ensure that the teachers did not feel as

though they were being personally judged on their performance, as a non-judgemental stance

is crucial in any consultation relationship (Lipton & Wellman, 2003). As such, in order to ensure

implementation fidelity, I would focus on gathering anonymous data from staff about topics

that are geared in a supportive context. For example, surveys about what has been working

well and where the challenges lie, and then share the feedback at staff meetings or follow-up

training sessions. This would allow the staff to self-assess and promote the notion that the

school is working towards the goal of inclusion collectively.

Full Implementation

Program evaluation

Once the staff moves past the initial implementation stage, they can move forward into

full implementation. At this stage, staff would be using the Three-Block Model as their common

form of teaching, and continuing with professional development. Much like they identified a

need for change and chose interventions at the beginning of the process, they will continue to
collaborate for areas where they would like to focus their continued growth, as a form of

program evaluation.

Facilitative administrative supports

Administrative supports will continue to be an important component to effective

implementation. As the school feels confident that they have developed capacity in teaching

with the Three-Block Model, they will continue to train new staff, and share expertise with

other administrators at different schools, to promote widespread adoption of the model. As

such, the initial administrators will begin to facilitate training for other schools, and provide

coaching support to their colleagues as they begin the process in their own schools.

Systems interventions

At the systems intervention level, the Three-Block Model would continue to grow

because the initial school that saw implementation fidelity and positive student outcomes

would become an example to other schools, and to district personnel, of how to effectively

implement change. This is a crucial component to widespread systems change, because in order

to secure the support and resources, district staff will need evidence that it is possible to

implement the model within a case study or model school.

It is my hope that this approach would allow an inclusive model for education, such as

the Three-Block Model, to be widely implemented among schools districts to ensure that the

greatest number of students possible would have access to best-practice inclusive education.

Conclusion

Thomson (2013) suggests that ultimately, the success of inclusion will stand or fall on

the willingness and ability of teachers to implement the practices and strategies necessary for

its success in their classrooms (p.891). While it is true that individuals are the key to change, I

believe that with strategic vision, effective training, thoughtful support, patience, and

persistence, inclusion can be implemented in such a way that we will not have to rely on

volunteerism alone to ensure that students have equal and inclusive access to education

(Scruggs et al, 2007).

Questions for Further Research and Consideration

What are some other effective models of UDL that promote inclusion through co-

teaching?

What can be done at the Preservice Teacher Education level to assist in promoting

inclusive education?

What are the long-term outcomes for students taught using the Three-Block Model?


Figure 2. A graphic representation of the Core Implementation Components to successfully implement
evidence-based practices or practices within evidence-based programs. From Implementation
Research: A review of the LIterature, by Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. 2005,
http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/PDF/nirnmonograph.pdf. Copyright 2005 by Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S.
F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M.


Figure 3. A graphic representation of the stages of implementation. From Implementation Science,
Adult Learning, and Consultation Lecture Slides EPSE 551a, by Fixsen, D. L., & Blase, K. A., 2001,
https://connect.ubc.ca/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd=view&content_id=_3778894_1
&course_id=_83504_1 Copyright 2001 by Fixsen, D. L. & Blase, K. A.

Figure 1. A graphic representation of the philosophical vision connecting all of the elements of the Three Block
Model of UDL. From Three Block Model of UDL, by Dr. Jennifer Katz, 2013,
http://www.threeblockmodel.com/the-three-block-model-of-udl.html. Copyright 2013 by Dr. Jennifer Katz.
Works Cited

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and
special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 17-22.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2016). Special Education Services: A Manual of Policies,
Procedures and Guidelines. Retrieved from the BC Education Government website:
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/special_ed_policy_manual.pdf

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 15, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c11.
Conderman, G., Johnston-Rodriguez, S., & Hartman, P. (2009). Communicating and
collaborating in co-taught classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus.5(5), 17.

Cook, L. (1995). Co-teaching: guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 28(3), 1.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: a
synthesis of the literature.

Friend, M., Cook, L, Hurley-Chamberlain, D, & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An

Illustration of the Complexity of Collaboration. Special Education, Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20:1, 9-27.

Johnson-Harris, K. M., & Mundschenk, N. A. (2014). Working effectively with students with BD
in a general education classroom: The case for universal design for learning. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,87(4), 168-174.

Katz, J. (Creator of Model). (2013). A graphic representation of the philosophical vision
connecting all of the elements of the Three Block Model of UDL. [digital image]. Retrieved
from http://www.threeblockmodel.com/the-three-block-model-of-udl.html.

Katz, J. (2016, July 7). Conceptual Foundations in Inclusive Education. Lecture presented at EPSE
565 I in UBC, Vancouver.

Katz, J. (2014). Implementing the Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL):
Effects on teachers self-efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction in inclusive classrooms K-12.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(1), 1-20.

Katz, J. (2016, September 28). Organization of Special Education Services. Lecture presented at
EPSE 509 in UBC, Vancouver.

Katz, J. (2012). Teaching to diversity: The three-block model of universal design for learning.
Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Portage & Main Press.

Katz, J. (2013). The Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging
students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De
L'ducation, 36(1), 153-194.

Katz, J., and M. Porath. 2011. Teaching to Diversity: Creating Compassionate Learning
Communities for Diverse Elementary School Communities. International Journal of
Special Education 26 (2): 113. Katz, J., and R. Sugden. 2013.

Lipton, L., Wellman, B. M., & Humbard, C. (2003). Mentoring matters: a practical guide to
learning-focused relationships. Sherman, CT: MiraVia, LCC.

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

Peters, L. C., M.A. (2010, January 8). Universal Design for Learning helps reduce challenging
behavior. Retrieved July 20, 2016, from
http://www.ttacnews.vcu.edu/2010/01/universal-design-for-learning-helps-reduce-
challenging-behavior

Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training
and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 13, 74-101.

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K.A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A
meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children 73, 92-416.

Sundqvist, C., Von Ahlefeld Nisser, D., & Strom, K. (2014). Consultation in special needs
education in Sweden and Finland: A comparative approach. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 29:3. 297-312.

Thomson, C. (2013). Collaborative consultation to promote inclusion: voices from the
classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17:8, 882-894.