The Challenge of Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms at the High School Level: What

the Teachers Told Us

Author(s): Elizabeth B. Keefe and Veronica Moore
Source: American Secondary Education , Summer 2004, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Summer 2004), pp.
77-88
Published by: Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland University

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41064524

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41064524?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Secondary Education

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Challenge of Co-Teaching
in Inclusive Classrooms
at the High School Level:
What the Teachers Told Us

Authors

Elizabet
Univers

Veronic
Albuqu

Abstract

Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in general education class-

rooms requires collaboration between general and special education
teachers. In this article, the challenges of co-teaching at the secondary level
are explored through the voices of general and special education teachers
who co-taught in inclusive classrooms at a large suburban high school in
the southwestern United States. Semi-structured interviews were conducted
and analyzed for common themes and these themes were then checked
with the teachers. Critical issues for teachers clustered around three major
areas: the nature of collaboration, roles and responsibilities, and outcomes.
These themes are discussed and examined for the implications they hold for
other schools implementing co-teaching.

Introduction
The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) (1997) requires that students
with disabilities be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
According to IDEA this means:

77

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms Keefe & Moore

To the maximum extent appropriate, child

including children in public or private inst
ties, are educated with children who are n
classes, separate schooling, or other remov
ties from the regular educational environm
nature or severity of the disability of a ch
regular classes with the use of supplement
cannot be achieved satisfactorily. [IDEA

What does this mean for high school teacher

experiences of teachers in a large suburban h
western United States as they work to inclu
the general education classroom.
In order to meet the challenge of educatin
successfully in the general education classro
general and special education is essential (R
One of the ways in which teachers collabora
which is "the collaboration between gener
teachers for all of the teaching responsibilit
classroom'' (Gately & Gately, 2001, p. 41). T
co-teaching at the elementary level have bee
(Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000; Man
teaching at the secondary level brings a diff
taken longer to be embraced by educators
& Mastropieri, 1996). This article will explor
general and special education teachers who
large suburban high school.

What Do We Know?
There is a critical shortage of research into the inclusion of students with
disabilities at the secondary level (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001). The
majority of the research to date has focused on teacher perspectives.
Secondary teachers have been found to have more negative attitudes
toward inclusive education than elementary education teachers (Scruggs
& Mastropieri, 1996). This literature has been criticized because it
involves teachers who are not actually teaching in inclusive settings
(McLeskey, Waldron, & Tak-Shing, 2001). In contrast, when McLesky et al.
(2001) compared the attitudes of teachers in inclusive versus non-inclu-

78

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Keefe & Moore Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

sive settings in grades K-6, they found the teac

to be far more favorable toward the inclusion o
in general education. Smith (1997) examined te
inclusive ninth grade team of four teachers an
urban high school. She found that teachers in
pretation of diversity, belonging and the status
within the class. The teachers in that study use
adapt curriculum but reported that the deman
curriculum for students with disabilities was s
outcomes, including social outcomes, were repo
disabilities. Smith concluded that inclusive edu
phenomenon in need of further study.
The nature of high schools may present grea
teachers. Mastropieri and Scruggs (2001) sugges
settings presented greater obstacles for co-teac
emphasis on content area knowledge, the need
skills, the faster pacing of instruction, high sta
competency exams, less positive attitudes of te
success of strategies that were effective at the
(1997) reported that teachers were challenged b
students with and without disabilities at the h
suggested high school teachers might be less w
dations for students with learning disabilities
Moore and Keefe (2001) conducted focus gr
special education teachers co-teaching in eleme
and found that concerns about adequate planni
support, resources, professional development,
were similar across both levels. However, high
menting inclusive education felt additional bar
larger class sizes, seeing many more students e
and unclear roles of general and special educati

Overview of the Study

This article reports the results of a qualitative study of general and special
education teachers in a suburban high school in the southwestern United
States. The purpose of the study was to help other teachers with the
inclusion of students with disabilities into general education as it becomes
more common practice in high schools.

79

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms Keefe & Moore

Method
Participants
Cactus Ridge High School is a suburban high school in the southwestern
United States that at the time of the study served 2,700 students in grades
9-12. Approximately 600 of the students were eligible for special educa-
tion services, which included gifted education. The teachers initiated co-
teaching at this school in the late 1980s. Initially teams were self-selected
but formalized 9th and 10th grade teams were implemented in 1993. The
majority of special education students placed in inclusive classrooms
were characterized as having mild disabilities with a diagnosis of specific
learning disabilities. Co-teaching has never been implemented school-
wide. Students with moderate to severe disabilities continue to be

educated in predominately self-contained environments. Eight general and

special education teachers who were co-teaching or had co-taught in the
past were invited to participate. Every teacher agreed to participate in the
study. Three of these teachers were general education teachers, four were
special education teachers, and one was a head special education
teacher. Years of experience ranged from two to twenty.

Procedure

Based on the reviews of related literature, semi -structured interview que

tions were developed. These questions were as follows:

1 . What is your teaching background?

2. Describe an inclusive classroom.
3. Tell me about a typical day in your classroom?
4. What are the roles and responsibilities of special and general
education teachers in this classroom?

5. How did you decide on these roles and responsibilities?

6. Do you feel you were well prepared for these roles and responsi-
bilities?

7. What advice would you give to a teacher who wants to teach in

an inclusive setting?
8. Do you have any other comments?

Clarifying questions were asked depending on the responses.

Each interview lasted between 40-60 minutes and occurred during
the spring semester of the 2000-2001 school year. Interviews were audio
taped and then transcribed. Teachers were given an honorarium for
participation.

80

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Keefe & Moore Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

A thematic analysis was carried out on the

were read multiple times by the authors. Re
analysis was carried in order to discover pat
from the interviews (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
their analyses and identified a set of emerge
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) further addressed tru
were shared with a small group of the respo
overall credibility of the themes and any co
analysis, including factual or interpretive err

Findings
Three major themes emerged from the analysis of the teacher interviews;
the nature of collaboration, roles of the teachers, and outcomes for
students and teachers. Each of these themes included a number of sub
themes and will be described using the teacher's words to illustrate each
theme. These themes provide insight into the reality of teaching in an
inclusive setting and contribute to the literature on co-teaching.

Collaboration
The compatibility of co-teachers and logistics of co-teaching were two s
themes that came out of the interviews. With regard to compatibility, tw
issues were particularly important to the teachers - choosing a partner
and ability and opportunity to communicate with a co-teacher.
Choosing Co-TEACHERS.There was no consistent method for partner
co-teachers at Cactus Ridge. One general education teacher shared that,
"...she came in new and they paired her with me. I had never met her
before/' Another general education teacher stated, "...and now when th
bring new people in it's just here, you're working with so-and-so, and t
don't have a clue what their job is." Other times teachers worked
together because they knew each other. Teachers were aware of the cha
lenges awaiting them when co-teaching, as noted by a special education
teacher, "You know what? Teachers are funny critters, they're very terri
rial. I couldn't imagine me going in and, you know, playing by someone
else's rules. And that's the thing I really had a problem with." Many of
teachers recommended that teachers interested in co-teaching should
have input into selecting their co-teaching partner.
Communication and Compatibility. The complexity of the co-teachin
relationship was noted by a special education head teacher who
concluded, "In my opinion, the most important thing for an inclusion

81

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms Keefe & Moore

program to work is how well the teachers g

thing and the most difficult thing is to pred
along/' Teachers highlighted the importanc
formation of positive relationships between
A general education teacher explained, "It's
what you teach, it's how you get along. And
in front of the classroom. You're modeling t
colleagues work."
Teachers had a lot of advice about how to
throughout the course of the partnership. T
tion in the early stages of the co-teaching r
many teachers. Teachers recommended fran
ning. One teacher identified the need for m
communication." Problems did occur in the
communication was essential as noted by
you're having some type of conflict, but so
able or you didn't agree, you have to discus
like a marriage."
Numbers and Time. Logistical consideratio
with regard to collaboration. First, large nu
as a challenge. The special education head tea
can keep your numbers to 35, around in the
room is not cumbersome. But we used to pu
teachers, it becomes a nightmare."
The second major logistical challenge was
cation and planning and was noted by most
teacher lamented, "...we were planning on t
talked after school. A lot of times we talked at lunch." Frustration was
evident in the comment by a special education teacher, "But all this is so
hard, trying to get it in the time because even with us, with our team
meetings, we did not really have much time to work on curriculum." The
challenges of numbers and time acted as a disincentive to teachers to
co-teach.

Roles
Overall these teachers struggled with their roles within the context of co-
teaching and we found there was great variability across the teams.
Teachers were left to figure out how to work together, a common theme
as voiced by a special education teacher, "but no, there was never any
discussion about who's, or what my role or their role would be" and sirni-

82

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Keefe & Moore Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

larly by a general education teacher, "...it's just

so-and-so, and they don't have a clue what their
really/' Some teachers settled into a division of
general education teacher taking responsibility
special education teachers taking responsibility
curriculum for students with special needs. Oth
ized, as described by a general education teacher
have to say, well I want to do this, we just went
based on the material. We were both engaged in
from there. I know it worked."
Limited Role of the Special Education Teacher. Most teams did settle

into a division of roles that involved the general education teacher taking
responsibility for the curriculum, planning, and large group instruction
with the special education teachers helping individual students and
designing modifications. This division of labor led to a major challenge for
co-teachers at this school, the limited role of the special education
teacher. A general education teacher commented that, "I don't even know
why she's here, quite frankly. She's a nice person, the kids like her, but I
don't understand the point of having her in my classroom." One of the
special education teachers noted that, "I focus a lot on my kids, but no
one in the classroom knows who I am really... every once in a while I
might teach a lesson but for the most part I just help the teacher with
whatever is going on." Perhaps it is not surprising that the teachers
reported that students seem to view the special education teacher as an
educational assistant. Some special education teachers felt the general
education teacher treated them as an educational assistant, one teacher
was frustrated that the general education teacher would have them do
"minor duties" and that, "...it can be as insulting as, 'I need some
coffee'."

Importance of Content Knowledge. The limited role of the special

education teacher is not something that co-teachers planned for but it
seemed to be related to the lack of content knowledge on the part of
special education teachers. Content area knowledge is more challenging
at the high school level than at the elementary level. As a result, a general
education teacher observed, "...well, if they do not know the curriculum,
I think it does lower them to just a supervisor and discipline you know."
Another general education teacher recollected that her co-teacher, "...was
more of a hindrance than a help in the room because it was another
person who didn't know her material." Special education teachers also
recognized the importance of content knowledge, as one noted, "You

83

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms Keefe & Moore

have to know the curriculum. You have to k

if you don't, they don't trust you, you can't
doesn't work out." Both general and special e
that special education teachers specialize in
that they can become more comfortable wit
classes.
Modifications. Modifications for students with disabilities were seen
to be the responsibility of the special education teacher. A special educa-
tion teacher believed it was important to, "...explain totally what a
learning disability is and what kind of modifications are reasonable/'
General education teachers appreciated this support, one noted, "...it's
just real practical stuff like what do we do for a kid, for example, is
dyslexic and we're reading huge novels and we're reading Shakespeare.
What can I do to help this kid understand rather than get frustrated. And
usually they're simple solutions." Sometimes the special education teacher
helped make modifications for any students who were struggling and this
was seen as a benefit of co-teaching.
Grading. The most challenging area to modify in this high schools
was grading. Grading occurred many different ways . Sometimes the
general education teacher did all the grading with one teacher grading
everyone, "...getting graded the same" versus another teacher stating that,
"...everyone gets an individualized grade." Sometimes the special educa-
tion teacher did all the grading or the grading just for the students with
disabilities. Other times the teachers collaborated on making decisions
about modified grading. Negotiation was part of this process as exempli-
fied by one special education teacher, "So yesterday I felt like it was a real
kind of success for me when she was grading a test and I said 'well can I
grade it' and she said 'okay' and I said 'well, I'd like to give partial credit
if they do part of a problem right' and she said, 'well if a problem's not
right, it's not right'. And I said, 'well you know I feel like we should moti-
vate them if they're at least heading in the right direction'. So she gave in
and let me give partial credit and she let me grade it."
Preparation for Roles. Overall special and general education
teachers did not feel prepared for the demands that co-teaching placed
upon them with regard to collaboration skills, content knowledge, and
knowledge of special education. Special education teachers wished they
had more preparation in general education curriculum. Many general
education teachers did not have preparation regarding students with
disabilities, one that did have a class noted that, "I did not find that
particular course useful."

84

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Keefe & Moore Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

Outcomes
Positive Student Outcomes. Co-teaching was seen as having positive
outcomes for students by both general and special education teachers.
Benefits for students with disabilities included elimination of the stigma of
being in special education. Benefits for students without disabilities
included receiving individualized help and modifications through the
collaboration between the special and general education teachers.
Teachers noticed that many students with disabilities had positive
outcomes. A general education teacher concluded that she was, "...a firm
believer in inclusion classes. I think that for the kids, this is an incredible
opportunity for them to realize, especially at the junior/senior level, when
they can take on responsibilities, get things completed, and for their work,
to not have asterisks after ¡t." A special education teacher shared her
experiences in different settings, "I had two classes of 1 1th graders and I
did one class on my own and took one class in hers, inclusion, and I
really saw a big difference in the way those kids in the inclusion class
functioned. They learned a lot more. What they produced was a lot higher
level/'
Negative Student Outcomes. Interestingly general education teachers
did not report negative outcomes for students. Special education teachers
were more ambivalent about co-teaching and expressed concern that
students with disabilities be looked at as individuals. One expressed the
concern, "...for some kids inclusion is appropriate, for some kids it's not."
Special education teachers believed that some students needed too much
help for a general education classroom, "they really, most of them,
wanted to learn the stuff, but the classes, they were too big/'
Outcomes for Teachers. It comes as no surprise that outcomes for
teachers varied depending on their own experiences with co-teaching.
The two extremes can be exemplified by a general education teacher who
reported that, "...it was just very pleasant, happy and a great experience.
For me as a teacher and for those students'' and a special education
teacher who recommended that, "This sounds terrible, but don't do it (co-
teach) unless you're absolutely sure what you're getting into." The
outcomes for teachers depended on the relationship which they had with
their co-teaching partner independent of their philosophy toward inclusive
education or even the outcomes for students.

Discussion and Implications

These teachers' experiences indicate some of the needs that should be
addressed in order for co-teaching to be successful at the high school

85

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms Keefe & Moore

level. First, teachers need to be better prep

teaching through their teacher preparation
colleges of education should model co-teach
programs (Keefe, Rossi, de Valenzuela, &
special education teachers who intend to te
need to have a deeper knowledge of the hig
General education teachers need to have
ties and the need for modifications. Both g
how to collaborate with one another, espec
clearly about roles and responsibilities in c
of teacher shortage and alternative licensu
occur in the near future. The gap in teache
teaching could be addressed by school distr
continued professional development.
The importance of the relationship betw
to be the most important determinant in h
viewed co-teaching and how likely they wo
teaching. Schools need to be thoughtful abo
or teams of teachers to work with one ano
support these teams over time. The teacher
that having input to selecting their co-teach
Allowing teacher choice increases the cha
and successful relationship.
It may not always be possible to choose p
sion of students into general education sho
need rather than teacher willingness! The t
mended that prospective co-teachers interv
they would be compatible. They also recom
issues such as roles, grading, modification,
those areas could become areas of conflict . The teachers also noted the
importance of scheduling time for co-teachers to communicate and plan
together.
The importance of establishing appropriate roles cannot be over-
stated. In this study, many of the special education teachers reported that
they felt they had a secondary role in the classroom due to their lack of
content knowledge, general education teachers confirmed this perception.
Allowing special education teachers to co-teach in one or two content
areas rather than all areas was a recommendation to address this issue.
There are many ways that teachers can divide the responsibilities of the
classroom but there must be a perception of equality and mutual respect

86

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Keefe & Moore Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

for each teacher in the co-teaching relation

explicit about this issue and address it direct
each new partnership to "muddle through"
In this school, co-teaching occured on a li
school-wide commitment to inclusive educat
to include students through co-teaching, th
not to overload the classroom, to provide ad
develop a process to help all teachers unders
tion is and why it is important. Schools also
that do require collaboration between gen
not necessarily full-time co-teaching. In add
to the fact that some students (with or with
greater need for support in some areas than
education classroom. In this case, either mor
brought into the general education classroom
access to help through an advisory or study
Finally, schools need to listen to the teach
their voices into account their voices when
(Moore & Keefe, 2002; Scruggs & Mastropi
to be completed to understand the experien
inclusive classrooms over time. There is no
and it must be remembered that schools and
systems. However, there are lessons to be le
teachers that may help this, and other high
their students through collaboration betwee
educators.

References
Ellett, L. (1993). Instructional practices in mainstreamed secondary classrooms. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 26(1), 57-64.
Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33{4), 40-47.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law No. 105-17. (1997). 20 U.S.
Code Section 1400 et. Seq.
Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L, & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive educa-
tion: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are
saying, journal for the Association of Persons with Severe Disabilities, 25(3), 129-
141.

Keefe, E. B., Rossi, P. J., de Valenzuela, J. S., & Howarth, S. (2000). Reconceptualizing
teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms: A description of the Dual License
Program at the University of New Mexico. The Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(2), 72-82.

87

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms Keefe & Moore

Lincoln, Y. S. & Cuba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inq

Manset, C, & Semmel, M. I. (1997). Are inclusive pr
disabilities successful? Journal of Special Educatio
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promot
rooms. Learning Disability Quarterly 24(4), 265-
McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L, & So, Tak-Shing H. (2
inclusive school programs. Teacher Education an
108-115.

Moore, V., & Keefe, E. B. (2001, April). Encouraging educators to continue team-
teaching in inclusive classrooms. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional
Children Conference, Kansas City, MO.
Moore, V., & Keefe, E. B. (2002). "Don't Cet Your Briefs in a Bunch": What High Schoo
Students with Disabilities Have to Say About Where They Receive Their Services.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Rainforth, B., & England, J. (1997). Collaborations for inclusion. Education and
Treatment of Children, 20(' ) 85-1 04.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M, A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstream ing/inclu-

sion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74.
Smith, R. M. (1997). Varied meanings and practice: Teacher's perspectives regarding
high school inclusion. Journal for the Association of Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 22(4) 235-244.

88

This content downloaded from

94.21.23.103 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:48:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms