Danielle Saltrick

1/22/18
SERP 597e
Collaboration Fundamentals
I was part of a school team that was to take the lead in implementing Social and Emotional
Behavior Intervention (SEBI) at my student teaching site. The members of the team included me
(student teacher), Special Education teacher, parent, school psychologist, speech therapist,
student’s general education teacher, and the principal. The team leader was school psychologist.
The members of the team were encouraged to share their findings and observations with one
another to see if there were any similarities. I have been included in a TAT meeting to discuss
potential students and a background of them in their general education class. If we brought the
student in, I could implement the tests, such as CWS, RCBM, or a Writing Prompt. (All tests
done through AimsWeb) and keep notes of the student and any detail that might be beneficial to
include in the TAT meeting.

Parity: “This is a relationship status in which equal person’s contribution to an interaction is

equally valued, and each person has equal power in decision making” (Friend). I saw an example
of this during an IEP meeting where the special education teacher, general education teacher,
school psychologist, speech therapist, and principal attended. While sharing with the parent
about the observations on her child, the speech therapist and school psychologist, as well as the
general education teacher were able to agree on similar observations of the student. The speech
therapist suggested that the student did not need any speech throughout the day. The school
psychologist as well as the special education and general education, agreed with her statement. I
felt that this was successful in the meeting because it showed the parent/s that each opinion of
the team members is taken into account and valued. The only time I did not see this happen was
when after the IEP meeting, the general education teacher did not agree with the speech therapist
about the services that she thought should be provided to the student. This was done outside of
the meeting.

Shared Accountability: “Each member of the team is accountable for a part of a meeting”
(Friend). I saw this happen when the special education teacher had discussed with the teacher,
parent/s, and principal to figure out when a good time to meet for an IEP was for everyone. As
for the general education teacher, they had agreed to bring the students academic work done in
the classroom so the special education teacher, school psychologist, and parent could see how the
student is doing and what his work means. This can be not demonstrated by everyone in the team
not knowing what is going to take place during the meeting. An area that the general education
teacher could be focusing on is the student’s social skills, but if they don’t collaborate with the
school psychologist or speech therapist (who may be focusing on his speech instead). This would
be an example of this characteristic not being demonstrated.

Shared Resources: “Each team member should have resources to contribute that are valuable
for reaching the shared goal” (Friend). Referring back to the IEP meeting, each team member
provided resources that could contribute to the planning of the goals for the student. For
example, the school psychologist shared her test results of the student and explained the results
to the parent. Similar to those tests was the speech therapist’s test results. In conclusion to these
results, the general education teacher and the special education teacher both shared their
observations of the student’s behavior as well as his academic ability in the classroom. An
example of resources not being shared would be the parents withholding information of the
student that might be critical to work towards his/her goal.

Shared Responsibility: “Each team member is aware of their responsibility and what tasks they
needed to complete” (Friend). I saw this happen when the special education teacher talked to the
general education teacher about what lesson is to be taught for that week or day. Each teacher
assumed responsibility over the group when teaching them. The special education teacher would
outline the areas where the student needed improvement, and the general education would create
a lesson outlined for that need. Both held responsibility for lessons. I saw an interesting example
of this characteristic not demonstrated when a 5th grade teacher was withholding lesson plans
from the special education teacher. Making the special education teacher rely on the district
outline for where the students should be.

Voluntary: When setting up an TAT meeting, the general education teacher asked the special
education teacher, as well as the speech therapist and school psychologist to join and discuss this
potential student who might need services. This was demonstrated successfully as everyone was
willing to come in during lunch and discuss about this student. In order for it to not be
demonstrated, a member of the team would have to decline meeting and not voluntarily join the
meeting to discuss the needs for the potential student. This could also be presented if a general
education teacher will not willingly hear out the special education teacher or speech therapist or
school psychologist.

Mutual Goals: I recently saw a great example of this characteristic demonstrated, it was during
an IEP meeting and the special education provided some goals for the student. One goal in
particular was to place the student in the intensive resource classroom on Friday’s to improve his
social interaction with peers. As of right now, he struggles to interact with his peers during the
classroom and outside of the class. The special education teacher as well as the school
psychologist created this goal then presented it to the team which everyone agreed was an
adequate goal. If the special education teacher has created goals for the student and the speech
therapist created complete different goals for the student, then this characteristic would not be
successfully demonstrated. Each professional has different goals for the student and it is up to
them to figure out a way to narrow it down and work effectively to determine appropriate goals
for the student that everyone agrees on.
 Characteristics Table
Characteristics Example 1
Characteristic Demonstrated
Parity I saw an example of this
during an IEP meeting where
the special education teacher,
general education teacher,
school psychologist, speech
therapist, and principal
attended. While sharing with
the parent about the
observations on her child, the
speech therapist and school
psychologist, as well as the
general education teacher were
able to agree on similar
observations of the student.
The speech therapist suggested
that the student did not need
any speech throughout the day.
The school psychologist as
well as the special education
and general education, agreed
with her statement.
Shared Accountability I saw this happen when the
special education teacher had
discussed with the teacher,
parent/s, and principal to figure
out when a good time to meet
for an IEP was for everyone.
As for the general education
teacher, they had agreed to
bring the student’s academic
work done in the classroom so
the special education teacher,
school psychologist, and
parent could see how the
student is doing and what his
work means.
Shared Resources For example, the school
psychologist shared her test
results of the student and
explained the results to the
parent. Similar to those tests
Example 2
Characteristic Not Demonstrated
The only time I did not see this
happen was when after the IEP
meeting, the general education
teacher did not agree with the
speech therapist about the services
that she thought should be provided
to the student. This was done
outside of the meeting.
This can be not demonstrated by
everyone in the team not knowing
what is going to take place during
the meeting. An area that the
general education teacher could be
focusing on is the student’s social
skills, but if they don’t collaborate
with the school psychologist or
speech therapist (who may be
focusing on his speech instead).
This would be an example of this
characteristic not being
demonstrated.
An example of resources not being
shared would be the parents
withholding information of the
student that might be critical to
work towards his/her goal.
 was the speech therapist’s test
results. In conclusion to these
results, the general education
teacher and the special
education teacher both shared
their observations of the
student’s behavior as well as
his academic ability in the
classroom.
Shared Responsibility I saw this happen when the
special education teacher
talked to the general education
teacher about what lesson is to
be taught for that week or day.
Each teacher assumed
responsibility over the group
when teaching them. The
special education teacher
would outline the areas where
the student needed
improvement, and the general
education would create a
lesson outlined for that need.
Both held responsibility for
lessons.
Voluntary When setting up an TAT
meeting, the general education
teacher asked the special
education teacher, as well as
the speech therapist and school
psychologist to join and
discuss this potential student
who might need services. This
was demonstrated successfully
as everyone was willing to
come in during lunch and
discuss about this student.
Mutual Goals I recently saw a great example
of this characteristic
demonstrated, it was during an
IEP meeting and the special
education provided some goals
for the student. One goal in
particular was to place the
student in the intensive
resource classroom on Friday’s
I saw an interesting example of this
characteristic not demonstrated
when a 5th grade teacher was
withholding lesson plans from the
special education teacher. Making
the special education teacher rely
on the district outline for where the
students should be.
In order for it to not be
demonstrated, a member of the
team would have to decline
meeting and not voluntarily join the
meeting to discuss the needs for the
potential student. This could also be
presented if a general education
teacher will not willingly hear out
the special education teacher or
speech therapist or school
psychologist.
If the special education teacher has
created goals for the student and the
speech therapist created complete
different goals for the student, then
this characteristic would not be
successfully demonstrated. Each
professional has different goals for
the student and it is up to them to
figure out a way to narrow it down
 to improve his social and work effectively to determine
interaction with peers. As of appropriate goals for the student
right now, he struggles to that everyone agrees on.
interact with his peers during
the classroom and outside of
the class. The special
education teacher as well as
the school psychologist created
this goal then presented it to
the team which everyone
agreed was an adequate goal.

Friend, M. P., & Cook, L. (2017). Interactions: collaboration skills for school professionals.
Boston: Pearson Education.