1
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Study Elementary School Cooperative Teaching Program for Inclusive Practices
Program Evaluation
Melissa Ainsworth
Lauran McMichael
Peg Weimer
George Mason University
November 27, 2013
Submitted to Dr. Lori Bland
2
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Study Elementary School Cooperative Teaching Program for Inclusive Practices
Program Description
Introduction
The subject of this evaluation is Study Elementary School’s implementation of a
modified version of the Stetson co-teaching model. With the support of the local school district,
the administration at Study Elementary School has modified and implemented the Stetson coteaching model in an effort to create a more inclusive learning environment, improve the
utilization of staff, maximize instructional time, and improve the overall quality of instruction.
To investigate the effectiveness of the implementation of the model, and inform improvement
and further development of the program the principal has requested a formative evaluation.
Study Elementary School is a small suburban community school located in Loudoun
County, Virginia. It was built in 1966, on the heels of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great
Society” program, which emphasized education as a priority, and included the establishment of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (Guilford, 2013; Faltis, 2001;
Ferguson, 2007). The community has evolved from its origins as a middle class, all white
suburb of Washington, DC, to become a diverse, low income, transient community.
Study Elementary, a Title I school, currently serves approximately 519 children in
kindergarten through fifth grade. The vast majority of students are non-white, with 70% of the
student body being Hispanic. Additionally, 63% of the student population at Study School is
economically disadvantaged, 54% are English language learners and 8% receive special
education services (Guilford, 2013). Study Elementary School has been identified as
underperforming by the Virginia Department of Education, because it failed to meet Federal
Annual Measurable Objective (FAMO) goals in the 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013 school-years,
3
PROGRAM EVALUATION
and is labeled a Focus School. As a Focus School, Study School is subject to a school
improvement plan that is closely monitored by the Virginia Department of Education and
Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS).
Historically, push-in and pull-out models have been used at Study School to address the
educational needs of special education students, English language learners, and struggling
readers. In recent years every classroom had the support of a reading specialist, special
education teacher, or ELL teacher for a minimum of a one hour reading block daily. The
specialists worked with struggling readers in small groups to tailor reading instruction to each
student’s specific needs. In cases where it was appropriate, some students were pulled out of the
classroom during the reading block for more specific remediation. Additionally, special
education and ELL teachers implemented both push-in and pull-out models to support students
in content and math. All students reading below grade level had access to, and support from the
appropriate specialist.
In an effort to create a more inclusive learning environment, improve the utilization of
staff, maximize instructional time, and improve the overall quality of instruction, Study School
has moved to a full inclusion co-teaching model.
Description of the Program
The Study School co-teaching program is a modified version the Stetson co-teaching
model. Stetson & Associates, Inc. is a Texas-based educational consulting firm that was created
in 1987. Their mission is “to support administrators, teachers, and parents in their efforts to
enable every student to be engaged, included, high-achieving, and prepared for adulthood.”
(Stetson, 2013). The Stetson co-teaching model was originally developed to promote inclusive
teaching practices for special education classrooms, with the intent of providing instruction to
4
PROGRAM EVALUATION
special education students in the least restrictive environment possible. Stetson framework is
intended to help schools develop a change in the way students with special education needs are
educated and viewed by all employees, and how students with disabilities are treated. The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) supports inclusive practices through its
requirement that “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including
children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who
are nondisabled; and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of
the disability of a child such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids
and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (IDEA, 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1412, ).
The true Stetson model is based on collaboration between a special education teacher and
a general education teacher to teach all students in the general education setting, where possible.
Both are equally responsible for all students and all phases of instruction, including planning and
implementing lessons and assessing students’ learning (Stetson, 2013). The Stetson model
addresses three aspects of the collaborative teaching relationship; personal commitment to the
role, interpersonal relationships, including role clarity and teaching style issues, and procedural
considerations, such as time for planning and how to build a schedule that results in support
instead of stress. The model is implemented through three phases that include an administrative
overview, team training, and technical assistance (Stetson Online Learning, 2013). Team
training provides:
●
A definition of inclusive education
●
Instructional strategies for diverse learners in the general education classroom
●
Three staffing models to assure that students and teachers receive the support they need
5
PROGRAM EVALUATION
●
A process for scheduling that makes the best use of resources
●
Five strategies to improve paraeducator services
●
A peer assistance and peer tutoring program.
Like the Stetson model, the Study School model includes collaboration between the co-
teachers in every phase of instruction. The primary difference between the modified co-teaching
model being implemented at Study Elementary and the Stetson model is the use of ELL teachers,
reading specialists and teaching assistants as co-teachers. Every classroom has a licensed
general education teacher, but the co-teacher could be any of the above. The rationale for this
modification is the specific student population, and staffing constraints. The majority of students
at Study School are second language learners, and many struggle with reading. Relatively few
are special education students. Historically, many ELL students, struggling readers and special
education students were pulled out of the classroom to work with the appropriate specialist. The
Stetson model is applied in this case to provide more inclusive instruction for all students. The
use of teaching assistants in lieu of licensed teachers is driven by staffing constraints. It would
be prohibitively expensive to have two licensed teachers in every classroom (Study School
Professional Development, 2013). Study School has participated in the first two phases of
implementation; administrative overview and team training, and has started the technical
assistance phase.
Key components of both the Stetson model and the Study School program include:
●
Inclusive practice
●
Training
●
Scheduling
●
Co-teacher staffing model (general education teacher and co-teacher)
6
PROGRAM EVALUATION
●
Collaboration
●
Co-planning
●
Co-teaching
●
Shared responsibility for student outcomes (Stetson, 2013; Study School Professional
Development, 2013).
Stakeholders. There are numerous stakeholders who are impacted by the co-teaching
program at Study School. The client is the school administration. As the leaders of a focus
school, they have a vested interest in ensuring that the educational needs of all students are met.
The school is heavily scrutinized, and in danger of facing further sanctions, including an
instructional audit by the state, if performance does not improve. This program is listed as part
of the school improvement plan. The administration wants to carefully monitor the
implementation of the program to ensure the greatest possibility of success.
The list of other stakeholders includes:
● Students and their families, who want the best possible educational opportunities;
● Teachers and teaching assistants, who are currently subject to school improvement
sanctions, and are responsible for implementing the program, while ensuring positive
student outcomes;
● Loudoun County Public Schools district administrators, who evaluate school programs
and are ultimately responsible to the state; and
● The district special education department, who touted the Stetson model, and are
advocates of inclusion (Loudoun County School Board, 2011).
In addition, the wider audience includes other schools in the district that may be considering,
or are required to implement the Stetson model. In its 2011-2012 annual report to the school
7
PROGRAM EVALUATION
board, the Loudoun County Public Schools Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC)
recommended that LCPS “continue to demonstrate their commitment to inclusive practices,
inclusive messages, and other practices in order to continue the promotion of a positive cultural
change in the way students with special education needs are viewed by all employees and how
students with disabilities are treated. LCPS has invested in the Stetson Inclusive Practices
approach and SEAC is supportive of continued expansion of this framework” (Loudoun County
School Board, 2011, p. 9).
Theory of Action. If Study School is to use a co-teaching model to provide more
inclusive instruction for all students, then teachers’ roles have to change. Teachers will need
team training that provides instructional strategies for diverse learners in the general education
classroom, staffing models to assure that students and teachers receive the support they need, a
process for scheduling that makes the best use of resources, strategies to improve teaching
assistant services, peer assistance, and peer tutoring program. Once teachers receive sufficient
training, they will be reallocated into co-teaching teams by the administration. The
administration will assign the co-teaching teams to classes based on the dynamics of the students
in each class. Collaborative planning time will be built into teachers’ schedules allowing team
members time to design lessons that will reflect the expertise of each co-teacher. Lessons
reflecting the expertise of each co-teacher will be implemented together, so students will have
access to a greater variety of teaching strategies without leaving the classroom for instruction.
Increased instructional time and exposure to a greater variety of teaching strategies will meet the
learning needs of more individual students in an inclusive classroom. When students’ individual
learning needs are met, student learning will improve. An increase in student learning will be
8
PROGRAM EVALUATION
reflected in improved student outcomes on state tests. The Theory of Action is summarized in
Figure 1.
Figure 1
Theory of Action
If
Then
If we use a co-teaching model
Teachers roles will to change
If teachers’ roles are changing
Teachers will need training
If teachers have training
If teachers are in co-teaching pairs
Teachers can be reallocated into co-teaching
pairs
Teachers need co-planning time
If teachers need co-planning time
Co-planning time will have to be scheduled
If co-planning time is scheduled
Teachers will plan together
If teachers plan together
Teachers will collaboratively design lessons
If teachers collaboratively design lessons
Teachers will know their responsibilities in
implementation and implement lessons together
that reflect the expertise of each co- teacher
Students will have access to a greater variety of
teaching strategies without leaving the classroom
for instruction
Students’ individual learning needs are more
likely to be met, and transition times between
classrooms will be reduced or eliminated
Instructional time will increase
If lessons reflect the expertise of each coteacher, and teachers are implementing
lessons together
If students have greater opportunity to
accesses a variety of teaching strategies
without leaving the classroom for instruction
If transition times are reduced or eliminated
If students’ individual learning needs are
met, and instructional time increases
If student learning improves
Student learning will improve
Student outcomes on state tests will improve
Theory of Change. In order to ultimately improve student scores on state tests, a coteaching model will be adopted. Once teachers are trained in how to plan and teach as a team
and are provided with models of a variety of co-teaching arrangements, they will be able to
implement co-teaching in their classroom. Teachers will also need to be supported by the school
administration in the form of adequate co-planning time. Once teachers are implementing a co-
9
PROGRAM EVALUATION
teaching model in their classroom, students will benefit from increased individualized instruction
since each of the teachers will be utilizing their own strengths and expertise. Since students are
receiving increased individualized instruction, their learning needs are being better addressed
which should result in increased student scores on state tests. The Theory of Change is
summarized in figure 2.
Figure 2
Theory of Change: How will student scores on state tests improve?
Co-Teaching Implementation
Teachers will be trained to work and plan
together
Teachers will be trained in co-teaching
models
Co-teachers
Utilize their individual strengths and
expertise when planning lessons
Provide more individualized instruciton
for students in their classroom
Students
Have their indivdiualized learning needs
met
Improve their scores on state tests
A logic model for the program was developed from the Theory of Action and the Theory
of Change (see Appendix A).
Literature Review
For many schools and school districts, rising numbers of students who are English
language learners and students who require special education delivered in the general education
classrooms combined with increasing pressure from state standards as proscribed by the No
10
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Child Left Behind Act (2000) have led administrators to look for creative solutions to making
sure that all students make progress in the general education curriculum. The number of English
language learners in schools has risen by 57 % in the past ten years (McGraner & Saenz, 2009)
and there has been approximately a 30 % increase in students with disabilities spending 80
percent of their time in general education classes over the past 20 years (U. S. Department of
Education, NCES, 2012). According to Cook and Friend (1995), putting two professionals in
one classroom in order to deliver qualitatively and substantively different instruction to a diverse
group of students was in large part due to an increase in mainstreaming students with special
needs into general education settings.
Co-teaching is one of those solutions that educators and administrators turn to in helping
to ameliorate the challenges such diverse classrooms pose (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz,
Norland, Gardizi & McDuffie, 2005; Murawski & Swanson, 2001). The salient element of coteaching is that it involves two licensed professionals, traditionally a general education teacher
and a special education teacher although other variations might involve a general education
teacher and a related service provider such as a speech/language therapist (Cook & Friend,
1995). Whatever the configuration, the intent of a co-teaching model is to combine the specific
expertise of two professionals to make the instruction substantively different so that a diverse
group of students, originally and traditionally special education students, can all make progress
in the general education classroom (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010).
Hepner and Newman (2010) and Austin (2001) report pervasive teacher satisfaction with
the co-teaching model, despite a reported lack of training in specific co-teaching strategies. The
keys to attaining satisfaction with a co-teaching model involve open communication between coteaching partners and a shared educational philosophy (Keefe, Moore & Duff, 2004; Walther-
11
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Thomas, 1996; Cook and Friend, 1995). Likewise, schools that embark on co-teaching must
demonstrate a commitment to it by providing adequate direction to co-teaching pairs in what is
expected as well as listening to teachers and students about their experiences in co-taught
classroom (Keefe & Moore, 2004). According to Stetson and associates, co-teaching is defined
as two certified teachers (one special education and one general education teacher) equitably and
appropriately sharing classroom roles and responsibilities “on behalf of all the students they
share in an inclusive classroom” (Stetson & Ass., 2009).
Beyond that, there is little consensus on what constitutes effective co-teaching. In a
review of literature conducted by Weiss and Ainsworth (2013), the authors discovered that there
was much literature published on the different models of co-teaching, such as one-teach-one
assist or station-teaching, but very little on how, or if the learning experience for students is
substantively different in a co-taught classroom from that of a traditional classroom model with
only one teacher. Murawski & Swanson (2001) reported that although co-teaching is touted as
an effective instructional delivery model, there is very little empirical data to back it up. Out of
89 articles the authors found for their meta-analysis, only six met their inclusion criteria and only
three of the studies included effect sizes.
Across the co-teaching literature there are common themes in the benefits found in coteaching situations as well as common themes in the challenges faced by co-teaching teams.
Some benefits found in the literature include increased individualized attention for students,
diversity in teaching strategies, professional satisfaction, professional growth and personal
support. Some of the challenges that co-teachers face as reported in the literature include
scheduling co-planning time, scheduling students, case load concerns especially for special
education teachers adequate administrative support (Walther-Thomas, 1997) and equal academic
12
PROGRAM EVALUATION
content knowledge between co-teachers (Mastropieri et al., 2005). Co-teacher compatibility was
also identified in the literature as a major factor in either a successful co-teaching situation or a
stressful one (Mastropieri et al.; NEA Today, 2008).
Need for Evaluation
Study School has been identified as underperforming by the Virginia Department of
Education, and is labeled a Focus School. Focus schools are subject to school improvement
plans that are closely monitored by the Virginia Department of Education and the local school
district. Should Study School continue to fail, further sanctions will be forthcoming, including
instructional audits and possible loss of Title I funding. As the leaders of a focus school, the
administrators have a vested interest in ensuring that the educational needs of all students are
met, and the students in those sub-groups that did not meet the FAMOs have every possible
opportunity to achieve.
The Co-teaching model was recently implemented at Study School with the long-term
goal of improving overall school performance, and moving the school out of school
improvement status. As a newly implemented program, it is important to the stakeholders that a
formative evaluation guides the progression of the program and provides suggestions for
improvement. The administration wants to carefully monitor the implementation of the program
to ensure the greatest possibility of success.
Evaluation Questions
Because this evaluation is formative in nature, and focuses on the implementation of the
program, the evaluation questions seek to determine whether the program is being implemented
with the spirit intended and to the letter of the design. Two questions are the central focus of the
evaluation:
13
PROGRAM EVALUATION
1. Are the cooperative teaching teams implementing the program as intended by
planning together, teaching together and assessing together? If not, why not? What
are the barriers, and how can they be reduced or eliminated? This question is
important because the rationale for the program is founded on better utilization of
human resources to provide an inclusive learning environment. Before the
effectiveness of the program can be evaluated, it should be determined whether
effective implementation is occurring, and the situation should be remediated if it is
not.
2. Are teaching assistants qualified to assume the responsibilities of a co-teacher? This
is important because the ultimate goal is to provide the best possible educational
opportunities for all students. If teaching assistants are not qualified to perform the
responsibilities required of a co-teacher, it is unlikely that this goal will be attained.
Methods
This section will describe the documents and instruments used in data collection and
will describe the procedures used in analyzing the documents themselves and the results of the
instrument.
Data Collection
Documents. Two documents were analyzed for usability to inform the evaluators,
school-based administrators, teachers, and teaching assistants about the intended practices in
implementing the Stetson co-teaching model. The first document, The Assessment of
Collaborative Teaching Practices in an Inclusive Classroom, written by Stetson and Associates,
Inc., in 2006 was retrieved from the Stetson & Associates website at
http://stetsonassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Assessment-of-Collaborative-
14
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Teaching.pdf. This is an assessment tool outlining the best practices in rubric format that should
be implemented in using the Stetson co-teaching model to promote inclusive teaching practices
for special education classrooms, with the intent of providing instruction to special education
students in the least restrictive environment possible.
The best practices are divided into six categories that include: setting/support,
partnership, instruction, communication, planning, and ancillary issues. The best practices in the
setting and support include: a collaborative practice providing seamless or invisible support to
special needs children in an inclusive classroom; partners who acknowledge dual ownership of
all students; and arrangement of classroom space, materials, and supplemental resources that
support both adults and all students in the inclusive classroom. The best practices in partnership
include team members who: introduce an equitable partnership to the students; discuss roles and
responsibilities of the collaborative teaching partnership; both assist any student who needs
academic or behavioral assistance in the class; and acquire new collaborative teaching skills by
working closely with his/her partner. The best practices in instruction include: team members
who use a variety of highly effective instructional strategies; team members who discuss
instructional delivery styles relative to individual strengths; instructional activities and strategies
that are reflective of their students’ skills, interests, motivation, and learning styles; instructional
accommodations and curricular modifications that are appropriately applied to all students
requiring accommodations and modifications; conversations to discuss instructional routines,
procedures, and requirements relative to student success and effective collaborative teaching; and
multiple assessments and grading strategies reflecting student needs for differentiated
assessment. The best practices in communication include: open communication that is
encouraged by each team member; discussion and development of classroom routines,
15
PROGRAM EVALUATION
procedures, and processes; discussion and development of a mutually agreed upon classroom
management system isolating rules, expectations, and consequences; scheduled periodic
reflection of the collaborative teaching experience to review and modify support for both
students and teachers; open sharing of professional rules, beliefs, concepts, or procedures that are
non-negotiable; and open discussion of possible and predictable issues that may arise in a
classroom that is collaboratively taught. The best practices in planning include: regularly
scheduled collaborative planning time between special education and general education team
members for the following: instructional and partnership needs; outlines of individual roles and
responsibilities; accommodations and curricular modifications to meet the needs of students with
disabilities; and academic and behavioral needs of the whole class and individuals requiring
attention. The best practices in ancillary issues include team members who mutually agree in
how to communicate with parents of students, campus administrators, or supervisors. The
document does not identify the professional qualifications of the co-teachers or assumptions
about the qualifications of the co-teachers.
The second document, The Roles and Responsibilities of Collaborative Teachers: a
Decision-Making Exercise written by Stetson & Associates, Inc., 2009 was retrieved from the
Stetson website at http://stetsonassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/RolesResponsibilities-of-CoTeachers.pdf. This document is intended to help co-teachers determine
how they will divide up and/or share the various responsibilities and roles involved in running a
shared classroom. The document consists of an introductory paragraph and a table. In the
introductory paragraph, the goal of the document is defined as a tool to help co-teachers divide
up the work of running a classroom equitably and appropriately. In this paragraph, a co-teaching
16
PROGRAM EVALUATION
situation is defined as two certified teachers who share one classroom and are equally
responsible for all students in the class.
The table provides a list of roles and responsibilities teachers might commonly encounter
in the process of running a classroom. The table has three options of “other” for co-teachers to
individualize the document to their own needs. Next to each role/responsibility are the following
options which can be checked off to indicate who will be in charge of that particular role or
responsibility: general education teacher; special education teacher; shared; other (para-educator,
volunteer, other). The roles and responsibilities specified in the table cover aspects of lesson
planning, attending to accommodations for individual students, gathering materials, delivery of
instruction, assessment, upkeep of various forms of paperwork, communication with parents,
behavior interventions and general classroom management issues.
Pre-existing Data. Data were collected from three documents provided by the Study
School administrators in order to determine scheduled planning time, scheduled co-teacher
instructional time, and any possible scheduling conflicts. The documents include a staff
schedule that delineates the times that co-teachers and classroom teachers share instructional
time, a schedule of planning times for co-teaching teams, and a staff calendar that includes
weekly grade-level team meetings. All three documents were created by the school
administrators.
Co-Teacher Questionnaire. The best practices outlined in the Assessment of
Collaborative Teaching Practices in an Inclusive Classroom document was used to design a
questionnaire in Google forms to collect data from the teachers and teaching assistants on their
perceptions of the implementation of the modified Stetson program (see Appendix B). The
questionnaire designed by the evaluation team was composed of a multiple choice demographics
17
PROGRAM EVALUATION
section, three likert-scale sections and one open-ended question section. Section one contained
four multiple choice demographics questions pertaining to job title, education, licensure, and
structure of co-teacher partnerships. Sections two, three, and four use a likert scale in which a 1
indicates the behavior never occurs, a 2 indicates the behavior occurs infrequently, a 3 indicates
the behavior occurs often, a 4 indicates the behavior always occurs. Section two includes seven
questions focused on the co-teaching classroom setting and climate. Section three consists of
twelve questions pertaining to planning, instruction, and assessment. Section four contains nine
questions focused on communication and partnership. In section five there are three open-ended
questions that invite respondents to share their thoughts and opinions in a narrative format.
Question one is focused on positive outcomes or benefits of the co-teaching model. Question
two pertains to perceived challenges or barriers of the co-teaching model. Question three
addresses respondents’ perceptions of the professional development provided prior to
implementing the co-teaching model.
Participants. The questionnaire was delivered electronically to all instructional staff in
the co-teaching program, as a link embedded in an email detailing the nature and purpose of the
survey. A follow-up email was sent two weeks later. Instructional staff is defined as those
individuals tasked with the role of co-teacher in study school. This includes twenty-six
classroom teachers, three special education teachers, six English Language Learner teachers,
three reading teachers, and thirteen teaching assistants. Responses were submitted electronically
and collected in a Google spreadsheet that generated a summary of responses in numeric and
graphic formats. Participants were assured of their anonymity.
Data Analysis Procedures
18
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Analysis of Documents. Two documents were analyzed for usability to inform the
evaluators, school-based administrators, teachers, and teaching assistants about the intended
practices in implementing the Stetson co-teaching model. In order to analyze the documents the
following aspects of the documents were considered: evaluation usability; audience usability;
trustworthiness of the information; logic model; evaluation criteria; trends, patterns and
consistency.
Analysis of Pre-existing Data. The staff schedule, planning time schedule and team
meeting calendar were compiled and analyzed to determine the number of hours that were
scheduled for each co-teaching classroom for shared instructional time and co-planning, as well
as to determine any conflicts that impact planning and instructional time. First a spreadsheet was
created to compile the data from the planning and instructional schedules. The total number of
scheduled hours per week for planning, and the total number of scheduled hours per week for
shared instructional time were calculated for each co-teaching classroom. Next, the planning
schedule, instructional schedule and the team meeting schedule were cross-compared to
determine any conflicts in scheduling. A brief informal meeting with the principal was
conducted as a follow-up to determine the protocol for addressing scheduling conflicts and
which meetings co-teachers are required to attend. Then, the total hours of co-planning and coinstructional time for each classroom were adjusted to reflect scheduling conflicts. The data in
the table was then sorted by number of co-teachers in each classroom (see Appendix C). Finally,
a second informal meeting with the principal was conducted to clarify questions about the
scheduling rational. The most significant of those questions are closely related: 1) Why do some
classrooms have one classroom teacher and one co-teacher that work together for the entire day,
while many others have one classroom teacher and two or three co-teachers that come and go
19
PROGRAM EVALUATION
during the course of the day. 2) Why do some non-classroom teachers work in multiple
classrooms?
Analysis of the Co-teaching Questionnaire. The questionnaire contained both
quantitative and qualitative data which were collected through Google forms into a Google
spreadsheet. The Google spreadsheet generated frequency statistics, pie charts and bar graphs
for the responses to each of the questions (see Appendix D). Additional frequency statistics were
generated by the evaluators in Excel spreadsheets. The first Excel spreadsheet sorted the data by
the type of co-teaching relationship. Three types of co-teaching relationships were identified:
one general education teacher and one specials teacher; one general education teacher, one
specials teacher, and one teaching assistant; and one general education teacher and one teaching
assistant. Frequency subtotals for each question were calculated for each of the three types of
co-teacher partnerships. The subtotals for the responses to each question were entered into a
second Excel spreadsheet and each question was aligned to the corresponding best practice
outlined in the Assessment of Collaborative Teaching Practices in an Inclusive Classroom rubric
(see Appendix E). Responses skewed towards a positive response (often and always) were
highlighted in yellow. Responses skewed towards a negative response (never or infrequent)
were highlighted in pink.
Open coding was used to analyze the qualitative data collected from the questionnaire.
All of the qualitative data was put into a spreadsheet and divided up by participant. Two of the
evaluators did the first pass through all the qualitative data pulling out key words, phrases and
ideas. Then the third evaluator did another pass through of the data and first pass coding.
Further key words, phrases, ideas and questions generated by the coding in the first pass were
added.
20
PROGRAM EVALUATION
After key words, phrases and ideas were identified, these words were put into another
spreadsheet where patterns of responses were identified. Then the evaluators compared the
responses from the questionnaire to responses found in the literature on co-teaching. Those
responses that are typically found throughout the co-teaching literature were marked as standard
responses. Those responses that were unique to the co-teaching model at Study School were
identified as unique and were then further analyzed.
Results
Document Analysis for Assessment of Collaborative Teaching Practices. The
trustworthiness of the Assessment of Collaborative Teaching Practices in an Inclusive
Classroom can be considered reliable. The document was prepared by Stetson Inc., a Texasbased educational consulting firm that was created in 1987. Their mission is “to support
administrators, teachers, and parents in their efforts to enable every student to be engaged,
included, high-achieving, and prepared for adulthood.” (Stetson, 2013). The best practices
outlined in this document are readable and clearly present the activities to be implemented in the
Stetson co-teaching model. The administrators at the study school did not identify any criteria to
guide the analysis of this document. However, comparison of the assessment document to the
Collaborative Teaching Rubric (The Access Center, 2006 format and edits by @2008, Stetson &
Associated, Inc) used by collaborative partners to self-asses and improve their practice indicates
the practices outlined in the assessment are aligned to self-assessed practices. The Collaborative
Teaching Rubric provides measurement of successful implementation of the program from the
beginning and transition stages to the collaborative stages. Measurement occurs in all aspects:
the physical arrangement; classroom management; curriculum goals, accommodations, and
modifications; curriculum knowledge; assessment; and instructional delivery.
21
PROGRAM EVALUATION
External standards are not available for co-teaching, but Cook and Friend (1995) discuss
many of the issues and concerns guiding the thinking and planning of professionals as they
design and implement co-teaching programs. In this discussion, co-teaching is defined as” two
or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a group of students with diverse
learning needs” (para. 6). The definition includes four key components: both professionals are
educators, not paraprofessionals, parent volunteers, or older student volunteers in assisting the
teachers; the educators deliver substantive instruction; the educators teach a diverse group of
students, including students with disabilities; and the instruction is delivered primarily in a single
classroom or physical space. The Assessment of Collaborative Teaching Practices document
indicates the educators are to deliver substantive instruction, teach a diverse group of students,
including students with disabilities, and deliver instruction in a single classroom or physical
space. Cook and Friend also report that “Ideally, co-teaching includes collaboration in all facets
of the educational process” (para. 11), which includes collaboratively assessing student strengths
and weaknesses, determining appropriate educational goals and outcome indicators, designing
intervention strategies and planning for their implementation, evaluating student progress toward
the established goals, and evaluating the effectiveness of the co-teaching process. The
Assessment of Collaborative Teaching Practices in an Inclusive Classroom document outlines
best practices for each of these forms of collaboration.
The National Education Association (NEA) Policy Statement on Appropriate Inclusion
found at http://www.nea.org/home/18673.htm supports and encourages appropriate inclusion.
Appropriate inclusion is characterized by the following practices and programs:

A full continuum of placement options and services within each option.
Placement and services must be determined for each student by a team that
22
PROGRAM EVALUATION
includes all stakeholders and must be specified in the Individualized Education
Program (IEP).

Appropriate professional development, as part of normal work activity, of all
educators and support staff associated with such programs. Appropriate training
must also be provided for administrators, parents, and other stakeholders.

Adequate time, as part of the normal school day, to engage in coordinated and
collaborative planning on behalf of all students.

Class sizes that are responsive to student needs.

Staff and technical assistance that is specifically appropriate to student and
teacher needs. (from website, Adopted by the NEA Representative Assembly,
July 1994).
The Assessment of Collaborative Teaching Practices in Inclusive Classrooms document indicates
the Stetson co-teaching best practices include characteristics of appropriate professional
development as part of normal work activity and adequate time as part of the normal school day
to engage in coordinated and collaborative planning on behalf of all students.
Therefore, this document can be used to inform the logic model by defining the activities
that need to occur for successful implementation of the modified Stetson co-teaching model.
These activities include planning together, teaching together, and assessing together. This
document can also be used to inform the theory of change to ultimately improve student learning
by adopting a co-teaching model. An underlying assumption of this document is that both
partners are licensed teachers.
Document Analysis for Assessment of Roles and Responsibilities: A Decision
Making Exercise. While this document does not answer either evaluation question, it does
23
PROGRAM EVALUATION
provides information about the nature of co-teaching according to the Stetson Model and
provides a basis for answering the first evaluation question which addresses whether or not Study
School is implementing co-teaching as defined by the Stetson Model. The evaluation audience,
defined as administration at Study School, needs to know what the Stetson Model of co-teaching
is supposed to look like so that proper determination about the implementation of the model at
Study School can be made. This document clearly answers two questions for the audience. First
it defines that, according to the Stetson Model, a co-teaching situation should consist of two
certified teachers. Secondly, the document provides for the audience a list of roles and
responsibilities and when completed by co-teaching pairs, a snapshot of how each pair is
dividing up the roles and responsibilities of running their shared classroom. The types of roles
and responsibilities listed in the table are consistent with the literature on co-teaching models and
the types of roles and responsibilities encountered in running a classroom.
One assumption made by the authors of this document is that each teacher within a coteaching pair are equally qualified to carry out any and all of the listed roles and responsibilities
and are therefore able to divide the work equitably. Additionally there is an assumption that they
should and should want to divide the work equitably. However several of the co-teaching pairs
at Study school consist of one certified teacher and one teacher’s assistant who is expected to act
as a fully functional co-teacher. This is not a model supported by the Stetson Document which
calls for equity in the division of all roles and responsibilities in the classroom.
When these two documents are compared there are clear patterns about what co-teaching
should entail as well as how it should be implemented. The two analyzed documents support
each other in defining how a co-teaching pair should look.
24
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Results from Pre-existing Data. The results from analysis of the pre-existing data are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Average Scheduled and Actual Co-planning and Co-instructional Hours per Week
No. of coteachers
1
2
3
Average
scheduled
planning
time
3.64
1.33
1.67
Average
lost
planning
time
0.73
0
0
Average
planning
time
2.91
1.33
1.67
Average
scheduled
co-instr.
time
23.86
19.79
18.33
Average co- Average coinstructional instructional
time lost
time
0.09
0.92
2.5
23.66
18.88
15.83
Analysis of the planning schedule indicates that the average scheduled planning time for
classrooms with one co-teacher relationship is more than double that of classrooms with multiple
co-teaching relationships. Although classrooms with one co-teacher relationship lose nearly one
hour per week of planning time due to scheduling conflicts, they still have significantly more
actual planning time than those with multiple co-teaching relationships. Classrooms with only
one co-teaching partnership have an average of 1.58 hours, or 118% more planning time each
week than those with two co-teaching partnership, and an average of 1.24 hours, or 74% more
planning time each week than those with three co-teaching partnerships.
Analysis of the staff instructional schedule and team meeting calendar indicates that
classrooms with only one co-teaching partnership have an average of 4.78 hours, or 21% more
co-instructional time per week than those with two co-teaching partnership, and an average of
7.83 hours, or 33% more co-instructional time per week than those with three co-teaching
partnerships. Further, classrooms with only one co-teaching partnership lose an average of 0.09
hours of co-instructional time each week due to scheduling conflicts, classrooms with two coteaching partnerships lose an average of 0.92 hours of co-instructional time each week, and
25
PROGRAM EVALUATION
classrooms with three co-teaching relationships lose an average of 2.5 hours of co-instructional
time each week.
Co-Teacher Questionnaire.
Quantitative data. The results of the co-teacher questionnaire were summarized in the
spreadsheets. Tables provided in this discussion reflect the respondents’ perceptions of how the
best practices of co-teaching as defined in the Assessment of Collaborative Teaching Practices in
an Inclusive Classroom rubric are being implemented. The results in Appendix E reflect the
respondents’ perceptions on the roles and responsibilities in the partnerships.
Summaries of each category of best practices indicate that all respondents believe the coteaching best practices are being implemented often or always. Table 2 summarizes these
findings.
Table 2
Average Percentage for Respondents in All Types of Partnerships
Best Practice
Setting
Partnership
Instruction
Communication
Collaborative Planning
ALL
never infrequent
often always
1.5
13.8 42.3
42.3
1.5
13.8 42.3
42.3
2.4
20.6 44.2
32.2
3.5
18.0 37.8
40.5
3.0
42.8 22.5
31.3
Summaries of each category of best practices for co-teaching partnerships consisting of
one general education teacher and one specials teacher also indicate the respondents believe all
co-teaching best practices are being implemented often or always. Table 3 summarizes the
findings.
26
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Table 3
Average Percentage for Respondents in 1 Gen Education and 1 Special Education Co-teaching
Partnership
Best Practice
Setting
Partnership
Instruction
Communication
Collaborative Planning
never
0.0
0.0
1.4
3.5
0.0
1 Gen Ed / 1 Special
infrequent
often always
10.5 50.0
37.5
10.5 50.0
37.5
15.8 48.4
34.4
16.0 44.8
35.8
34.0 15.8
50.0
Summaries of each category of best practices for co-teaching partnerships consisting of
multiple partnerships indicate the members of the partnership believe the best practices in
setting, partnership, instruction, and communication are implemented often or always, but the
best practice of collaborative planning is implemented infrequently. Table 4 summarizes the
findings.
Table 4
Average Percentage for Respondents in Multiple Partnerships.
Best Practice
Setting
Partnership
Instruction
Communication
Collaborative Planning
never
2.8
2.8
2.2
2.8
0.0
1 Gen / 1 Special / 1 TA
infrequent
often always
24.8 53.0
19.3
24.8 53.0
19.3
29.0 53.4
15.4
33.3 44.5
25.7
53.0 41.3
5.5
Summaries of each category of best practices for co-teaching partnerships consisting of
one general education teacher and one teaching assistant also indicate the members of the
partnership believe the best practices in setting, partnership, instruction, and communication are
27
PROGRAM EVALUATION
implemented often or always, but the best practice of collaborative planning is implemented
infrequently. Table 5 summarizes the findings.
Table 5
Average Percentage for Respondents in 1 General Education and 1 Teaching Assistant Coteaching Partnerships.
Best Practice
Setting
Partnership
Instruction
Communication
Collaborative Planning
never
4.3
4.3
6.8
4.3
17.0
1 Gen Ed / 1 TA
infrequent
often always
4.3
8.5
83.0
4.3
8.5
83.0
20.2 20.0
53.2
4.3 12.5
79.3
50.0
8.5
25.0
Detailed analysis of the data representing the best practices in setting and support of coteaching indicates the majority of respondents among all types of co-teaching partnerships
believe the support provided to special needs students is often or always invisible and that
classroom space, materials, and supplemental resources are arranged to support both the coteachers and the students. Dual ownership of all students is only perceived to be acknowledged
often or always by respondents in a co-teaching partnership consisting of one general education
teacher and one special education teacher. Table 6 summarizes the findings.
28
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Table 6
Percentages of Best Practices in Setting and Support
Detailed analysis of the data representing best practices in partnership indicates the
majority of respondents among all types of co-teaching partnerships believe both co-teaching
partners discuss the roles and responsibilities of the collaborative partnership and are
comfortable in assisting any student who needs academic assistance in class often or always.
The majority of the respondents in a co-teaching partnership consisting of one general education
teacher and one special education teacher also believe partners discuss roles and responsibilities,
assist any student who needs behavioral assistance, and that each partner has acquired new
professional skills in the collaborative teaching process often or always. Respondents in a coteaching partnership consisting of multiple partnerships believe both partners infrequently or
never introduce partnership to students with an emphasis on equity. The majority also believe
29
PROGRAM EVALUATION
acquiring new professional skills. Respondents of co-teaching partnerships made up of one
general education teacher and one teaching assistant also believe both partners infrequently or
never present lessons. Table 7 summarizes the findings.
Table 7
Percentages of Best Practices in Partnership
Detailed analysis of the data concerning best practices in instruction indicate the majority
of respondents in all types of co-teaching partnerships believe co-teachers often or always
discuss instructional routines, procedures, and requirements relative to student success. They
also believe the partners use a variety of highly effective instructional strategies often or always,
apply instructional accommodations and curricular modifications appropriately to all students
often or always, and use multiple assessment and grading strategies often or always. The data
also indicates the majority of respondents from all types of co-teaching partnerships believe the
instructional routines, procedures, and requirements are never or infrequently discussed. In
addition respondents in a co-teaching partnership consisting of multiple partnerships believe the
30
PROGRAM EVALUATION
partners infrequently or never discuss instructional delivery styles relative to individual
strengths. Table 8 summarizes the findings.
Table 8
Percentages of Best Practices in Instruction
Detailed analysis of the best practices in communication data indicate the majority of the
respondents in all types of co-teaching partnerships believe communication is open, welcomed,
and encouraged by each partner often or always. They discuss possible issues that may arise.
They also believe partners discuss and develop mutually agreed upon classroom management
rules, expectations, and consequences often or always. The majority of the respondents in
partnerships consisting of multiple partnerships believe time is often or always scheduled for
periodic reflection of the collaborative teaching experience. Table 9 summarizes the findings.
31
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Table 9
Percentages of Best Practices in Communication
In analyzing the data representing the best practices in collaborative planning the
majority of the respondents in a co-teaching partnership consisting of one general education
teacher and one teaching assistant believe collaborative planning, not just scheduled
collaborative planning occurs often or always to collaboratively design lessons to meet
instructional partnership needs, accommodations, curricular modifications, academic, or
behavioral needs. The majority of respondents in all types of partnerships believe collaborative
planning occurs infrequently or not at all to design lessons that meet the accommodations and
curricular modifications as well as the behavioral needs of the whole class and individuals.
Table 10 summarizes the findings.
32
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Table 10
Percentages of Best Practices in Collaborative Planning
Analysis of the quantitative data representing the perceptions of the roles and
responsibilities in the co-teaching partnerships finds all respondents believe the roles and
responsibilities outlined in the Roles and Responsibilities of Collaborative Teachers: A Decision
Making Exercise occur often or always with the exception of collaborative planning. Detailed
analysis of the results by the type of co-teaching partnership indicates the respondents in multiple
co-teaching partnerships believe introducing the partnership to the class and grading of student
work never occur or occur infrequently. Table 11 summarizes the findings.
Table 11
Percentages of Roles and Responsibilities in Multiple Partnerships
Roles and Responsibilities
Introducing the Partnership to the class
Planning the lesson
Grading student work - for all students
Grading student work - for students receiving
special education services
1 Gen / 1 Special / 1 TA
never Infrequent often always
11
56
33
0
0
56
44
0
11
78
11
0
11
78
11
0
33
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Design and implementation of assessments are not included in the list of co-teaching
roles and responsibilities but the results of the data analysis indicate the collaborative design of
assessments is perceived by the majority of respondents to never occur or occur infrequently.
Collaborative implementation of assessment is perceived by the majority of the respondents to
occur often or always. Collaboration of design and implementation of assessments is perceived
to never occur or occur infrequently by the majority of respondents in a co-teaching partnerships
consisting of multiple partnerships. Table 12 summarizes the results.
Table 12
Percentages of Design and Implementation of Assessments
Qualitative Data Analysis. The qualitative data collected by the co-teaching questionnaire
was produced in answer to questions about the benefits of a co-teaching situation, the barriers or
challenges faced in a co-teaching situation and about the type and amount of professional
development co-teachers received prior to implementation of the co-teaching model. In the
analysis of the benefits found in the co-teaching model, most of the responses mirrored those
aspects generally identified as the benefits of any co-teaching situation. Co-teachers cited
increased individual attention to students’ needs, increased student accountability and quicker
responses as direct benefits to the students in a co-taught classroom. Additionally, co-teachers
reported that they saw benefits to the sharing of ideas, goals, visions, concerns and classroom
management responsibilities. Teamwork, respectful partnerships, varied perspectives and having
someone else to help with behavior concerns and daily struggles were also cited as benefits to a
34
PROGRAM EVALUATION
co-teaching situation. One teacher said, “I feel as though all the students are truly getting the
curriculum, due to having two teachers in the classroom. We are able to do a lot of small group
instruction to ensure learning is taking place at the pace of each individual student.”
Some of the benefits expressed in the qualitative data reflect the unique co-teaching
model of Study school. For example, reflective of the use of specials teachers such as reading
specialists and English language learner teachers in co-teaching situations, there were several
comments about appreciation of being equals in the classroom and enjoying having the
opportunity to work with more than just a small group. Additionally half of the general
education teachers who responded to the questionnaire and whose co-teaching partner is a
teaching assistant felt the need to mention that arrangement specifically. While 2 of the three
direct statements were positive in nature, they did identify a division of roles more indicative of a
teacher/assistant relationship than that of co-teachers. For example, one general education
teacher said, “Because my co-teacher is an assistant, I am able to focus more on planning and
teaching rather than the day-to-day tasks.” Another praised her assistant for being “amazing” but
went on to specify that “our day is different than most co-teaching models because I do more of
the teaching, while she handles the housekeeping aspect of our classroom.” The third general
education teacher who specifically mentioned having a teaching assistant in the co-teaching role
questioned the validity of the model saying “I can’t see how having a teaching assistant as the
co-teacher fits the model. They are not paid enough.”
In the analysis of the qualitative data collected in response the a question regarding the
barriers and challenges teachers faced in implementing the co-teaching model at Study school,
the responses were both at the general level of co-teaching challenges as well as those challenges
that appear to be unique to the co-teaching model at Study school. Barriers and challenges
35
PROGRAM EVALUATION
participants identified that are reflective of the co-teaching literate at large were the need for
more planning time, relationship difficulties, and clashes in teaching styles. One teacher said of
her co-teaching challenges, “communication and expectations! I have had my own classroom for
years and years….having to share is a change.”
However, many of the challenges raised by the respondents are related to the unique coteaching model in place at Study school. As with the responses to benefits, those teachers
working with a teaching assistant in the co-teaching role voiced frustration with the arrangement.
For example, one teacher stated, “My situation is not co-teaching. …I think asking my assistant
to do things that she has not been trained in or getting paid for is not equitable.” Another teacher
in this situation said, “My assistant does not necessarily have the knowledge required to help the
students with the content they are learning, so I find myself having to teach her as well.”
Another unique challenged raised by the respondents comes from the general education teachers
whose co-teachers are specialists (special education, English language learners and reading
specialists) as well as from the specialists themselves. Most of these responses involve the issue
of the specialists having to fill the role of co-teacher while still juggling and maintaining their
role as a specialist for their entire caseload. One general education teacher said of the situation,
“Hard to actually have the co-teaching experience when I feel like my co-teacher is so busy with
ELL stuff….wish she could be focused solely on being a co-teacher.” One reading specialist
said of her co-teaching experience, “I am in 3 different grade level classrooms with the
expectation that I am to have equal responsibility for all the students in each room yet I am
frequently out attending meetings. I do everything 3 times. I need to be very knowledgeable in
3 different grade level SOL’s.”
36
PROGRAM EVALUATION
The number of co-teaching partnerships was also brought up repeatedly as a barrier to coteaching. One general education teacher who works with two co-teachers said, “Because each
teacher is only in my classroom for half the day and I am with the students all day, I feel as
though it is still a ‘my class’ mentality and not quite yet an ‘our class’ one. I still do report cards,
conferences, and grading the majority of the time.”
The responses about the amount and type of professional development training (PD) were
fairly equally divided between those people who thought the training received was good but that
more was needed and those people who felt that the training was not helpful and those who
thought some aspects were good while others were lacking. Overall 38% of respondents felt that
the PD was adequate. Another 31% of respondents felt that the PD was not helpful while
another 31% of respondents felt that some aspects of the training was good but that it was
inadequate or poorly timed. Those respondents who felt that the professional development was
inadequate cited experience as the best method of preparation or they cited that the professional
development did not address the unique co-teaching model being implemented at Study school.
One teacher said, “I feel that the PD gave what administration wanted it to look like; however it
is not actually run like that. If this was a perfect world and we all had co-teachers, then I think
there may be a chance o fit working.”
Summary. The results of the analysis indicate Study school is not implementing the best
practices in the co-teaching program as intended by having co-teaching teams plan together,
teach together, and assess together. The results also indicate teaching assistants are not perceived
to be qualified to assume the role of a co-teacher. The average response of all respondents
suggest the best practices of the Stetson co-teaching model are being implemented, but detailed
analysis of the data by the type of co-teaching partnership and triangulation from the analysis of
37
PROGRAM EVALUATION
the quantitative data on the roles and responsibilities of collaborative teachers, analysis of the
pre-existing schedules, and qualitative responses indicate inequity occurs in all types of coteaching partnerships, particularly in collaborative planning and assessment .
In co-teaching partnerships consisting of one general education teacher and one specials
teacher, specials teachers are serving dual roles as a fully functioning co-teacher and a specials
teacher. Special teachers are either pulled from classrooms resulting in inequity in planning and
instruction time or being stretched to fulfill the responsibilities of being both a specials teacher
and a co-teacher.
In co-teaching partnerships consisting of multiple partnerships inequity occurs in the
amount of planning time, instructional time, and development and administration of
assessments. Although co-planning time is currently built into the weekly schedules of all
teachers, those who work with more than one co-teacher have less time with each, and coplanning times are inconsistent. The existing data from the schedules indicates classrooms with
two co-teaching partnerships lose an average of 0.92 hours of co-instructional time each week
and classrooms with three co-teaching relationships lose an average of 2.5 hours of coinstructional time each week as opposed to classrooms with one co-teaching partnerships which
only lose an average of 0.09 hours of instructional time each week due to scheduling conflicts.
There are not enough teaching assistants, special education teachers, ELL teachers and reading
specialists to provide every general education teacher with a full-time co-teacher.
In co-teaching partnerships consisting of one general education teacher and one teaching
assistant inequity occurs in the practice of collaborative planning, instruction, assessment
implementation, and in the roles and responsibilities of the partners. The quantitative data
indicates collaborative planning between the partners occurs infrequently or not at all. From the
38
PROGRAM EVALUATION
general education teachers’ perspective, the amount of support and expertise in the classrooms
may not be equitable, and the teaching assistants may feel that they are being asked to work
outside of their job descriptions. This is evidenced by general education teachers’ responses in
feeling teaching assistants do not have the knowledge or experience in assuming the role of a
classroom teacher. The lack of responses to the questionnaire by teaching assistants indicates
teaching assistants might not consider themselves an equal partner as well. One teaching
assistant reported he/she didn’t think the mass mailing asking members of co-teaching teams to
complete the questionnaire concerned teaching assistants so the request was ignored. The Roles
and Responsibilities of Collaborative Teachers: A Decision Making Exercise document clearly
states the partnership consists of two certified teachers.
Student outcomes may be impacted by the allocation of resources. There is no evidence
to suggest the needs of all students are being met. Some students have no contact with the
experts who have historically provided support and remediation services. One general
education teacher indicated, “Our class got filled with challenging students and it is
overwhelming for both teachers. It is too much for even 2 teachers. The co-teacher does not
know the curriculum, grading system or resources used.”
Limitations. More in-depth interviews, another iteration of the questionnaire, and better
communication with teachers and teaching assistants at the Study school would add validity to
the results of this evaluation. More in-depth interviews with administrators would have provided
a better understanding of the scheduling and staffing decisions made in implementing the coteaching program. There was no evidence to support whether the needs of all students were
being met by placement of the specials teachers in the role of a co-teacher.
39
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Another iteration of the questionnaire would have addressed more of the roles and
responsibilities of the co-teachers in the partnership including the following: questions
concerning the preparation of materials; development of individual behavior plans; tracking and
updating of IEPs; communication with parents; and duties performed outside of school hour.
Questions addressing the best practices in ancillary outlined in the Assessment of Collaborative
Teaching Practices in an Inclusive Classroom document were overlooked in preparing the
questionnaire.
Better communication with teaching assistants would have provided a more
representative sample of the teaching assistants’ perceptions of how the best practices of coteaching are being implemented and how the roles and responsibilities of a co-teacher are being
filled. However this lack of communication provided insight into how teaching assistants view
their role in the co-teaching partnership. One teaching assistant indicated she felt the request to
fill out the questionnaire did not apply to her because she received it as a mass email and
assumed it only applied to teachers which is the usual intent.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are suggested as a result of this study. The scheduling
of multiple partnerships should be re-evaluated to ensure equity in collaborative planning and
instructional time and ensure the needs to all students are being met. Teaching assistants should
not be expected to assume the role of a co-teacher. They do not have the qualifications or the
experience to assume the responsibilities. Additional professional development will not provide
this expertise. If the general education teachers and teaching assistants are more comfortable in
their traditional roles it is suggested they continue with this form of partnership until funds are
provided to staff each classroom with two certified teachers.
40
PROGRAM EVALUATION
References
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 22,
245-256.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children. 28 (3), 1 – 16.
Faltis, C. J. (2001). Joinfostering: Teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Grant, C. A., (1999). Multicultural Hall.
Ferguson, R. F. (2007). Toward excellence with equity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9-27.
Guilford. (2013). Guilford Elementary School Website. Retrieved from
http://www.lcps.org/guilford
Hepner, S., & Newman, S. (2010). Teaching is teamwork: Preparing for, planning, and
implementing effective co-teaching practice. International Schools Journal. 29, 67-81.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 612 (a) (5) et seq. Retrieved
from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,statute,I,B,612,a,5
Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004) The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the
high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 32 (3), 7788.
Keefe, E. B., Moore, V., & Duff, F., (2004). The four “knows” of collaborative teaching.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 36 (5), 36-42.
41
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Loudoun County School Board. (2011). Annual Report of the Special Education Committee to
the Loudoun County School Board (October 11, 2011). Retrieved from
http://www.lcps.org/cms/lib4/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/103/presentations/SEAC_
ANNUAL_REPORT_2010-20111013.pdf
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005).
Case studies in co-teaching in content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260-270.
McGraner, K. L., Saenz, L. (2013) Preparing teachers of English language learners. TQ
Connection Issue Paper. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality,
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.mutex.gmu.edu/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED5
43816
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where
are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267.
NEA Today (2008). Challenges. 27 (1), 39.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392-416.
Stetson (2013a). Stetson and Associates, Inc. website – www.stetsonassociates.com. This
website provides background information, resources, training materials and evaluation
tools.
Stetson (2013b). Collaborative teaching: From separate to sensational. Stetson & Associates, Inc.
https://secure.lcisd.org/lamarnet/SpecialEducation/images/Stetson%20Collaborative%20
42
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Teaching%20Handouts-%20Staff%20Development.pdf. This document describes the
Stetson model.
Stetson Online Learning (2013). Stetson Online Learning Website. Retrieved from
www.stetsonoline.net. This website provides information on Stetson’s training program
and online leaning.
Stetson Training (2013). Stetson Cooperative Teaching Training Tools and Forms.
http://goo.gl/aiCxc. This is a collection of training tools and evaluation forms that are
used in training sessions.
Study School (2013). Professional Development PowerPoint Presentation. Study School Staff
Drive. This was a presentation to the Study School staff that provides information on
what co-teaching is and how Study School plans to implement it.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Table 47. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59.
Walther-Thomas, C. S., (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that
teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395-407.
Walther-Thomas, C., (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful
instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255 – 264. Friend,
Weiss, M. P., & Ainsworth, M. K. (2013). Co-teaching: Addressing fidelity of implementation.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
43
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Appendix A
Logic Model
Study Elementary School Co-Teaching Program
Situation: Study School is a Title I school in Loudoun County Virginia, currently designated a Focus School, because it failed to meet Annual
Measureable Objectives (AMOs).
Priority: To maximize instructional time and the use of human resources to improve student scores on state tests and overall school
performance.
Inputs
Activities
 teachers

professional
development
 teaching
assistants

reallocate staff,
 administrators

develop
schedules
 time

plan together
 training

 additional
county money

implement
together
assess together
Assumptions:
Co-teaching improves learning.
Outputs
Participation

teachers

teaching assistants

students

administrators

parents
Short

Increased
instructional
time
 Student access
to a wider
range of
instructional
strategies and
expertise.
External Factors:
Student demographics.
Outcomes
Medium
Long
Increased student
learning.
Higher student
scores on state
tests.
Improved school
performance so
that school is no
longer a focus
school.
44
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Appendix B
Co-Teaching Questionnaire
45
PROGRAM EVALUATION
46
PROGRAM EVALUATION
47
PROGRAM EVALUATION
48
PROGRAM EVALUATION
49
PROGRAM EVALUATION
50
PROGRAM EVALUATION
51
PROGRAM EVALUATION
52
PROGRAM EVALUATION
53
PROGRAM EVALUATION
54
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Appendix C
Scheduled and Actual Co-planning and Co-Instructional Hours per Week
Classroom
K1
K2
K3
K4
2A
2B
3B
5A
5B
5C
5D
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
2C
2D
3A
3C
3D
4B
4D
2E
4A
4C
Average
No. of
coteachers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Scheduled
planning
hours
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2.35
Planning
hours
lost
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.31
Total
planning
hours
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2.08
Scheduled
CoTotal coinstructional instructional. instructional
hours
hours lost
hours
27.5
0
27.5
27.5
0
27.5
27.5
0
27.5
27.5
0
27.5
22.5
0
22.5
23.75
0
22.5
23.75
0
23.75
20
0
20
21.25
0
21.25
21.25
0
21.25
20
1
19
22.5
1
21.5
20
1
19
20
0.5
19.5
22.5
0
22.5
22.5
0
22.5
15
0.5
14.5
20
3.5
16.5
22.5
1
21.5
21.25
0.5
20.75
22.5
1
21.5
13.75
1
12.75
15
1
14
17.5
2
15.5
21.25
2.5
18.75
16.25
3
13.25
21.35
0.75
20.55
55
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Appendix D
Frequency Data and Graphs from Google Survey Instrument
29 Responses
56
PROGRAM EVALUATION
57
PROGRAM EVALUATION
58
PROGRAM EVALUATION
59
PROGRAM EVALUATION
60
PROGRAM EVALUATION
61
PROGRAM EVALUATION
62
PROGRAM EVALUATION
63
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Appendix E
Frequency Data by Roles and Responsibilities
64
PROGRAM EVALUATION