Co-teaching in urban secondary school districts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: implications for teacher education reform.

Co-teaching in urban secondary school districts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: implications for teacher education reform. Introduction United States legislative changes, such as those described byfederal laws such as Individuals with Disabilities Education ImprovementAct (IDEIA) reauthorized in 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-466) and the No ChildLeft Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110), require thatstudents with increasingly diverse learning characteristics have accessto and achieve high academic performance in the general educationcurriculum. The changing demographics of the United States have alsoplayed a role in diverse learning characteristics of the Americanlearners in classrooms today. With an educational system that servesapproximately 76,355,000 students, 30,982,000 or 40.58% are of anethnically diverse background and 5% of school age children have adisability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). These changing legal requirements and student demographics inUnited States educational systems combine pointing to the need forincreased collaborative planning and teaching among school personnelattempting to comply with these legal mandates to serve all studentsfairly and equitably in general education classrooms. Co-teaching is anapproach that helps educators meet both IDEIA and NCLB mandates, and isdefined as "two or more people sharing responsibility for teachingsome or all of the students assigned to a classroom" (Villa,Thousand, & Nevin, 2008, p. 5). In schools within the United States,co-teaching often involves general education and special educationteachers working together in one classroom and used as a supplementaryaid and service that can be brought to general education to serve theneeds of students with (and without) disabilities through IDEIA.Co-teaching requires a re-conceptualization and revision for traditionalteacher preparation. Recent studies show the benefits of co-teaching arrangements forstudents, teachers, and school organizations (Nevin, Cramer, Salazar,& Voigt, 2008; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008; Schwab Learning,2003). At the secondary level, co-teaching has been found to beeffective for students with a variety of instructional needs includinglearning disabilities (Rice & Zigmond, 1999; Trent, 1998); high-riskstudents in a social studies class (Dieker, 1998) and in a languageremediation class (Miller, Valasky, & Molloy, 1998). This researchindicates that co-teachers can structure their classes to use moreeffectively the research-proven strategies required of the NCLB Act of2001. For example, Miller et al. (1998) described how a co-teacher team(a special educator, a general educator, and two paraprofessionals)blended whole-class and small-group instruction, peer teaching, andsmall cooperative learning groups to provide language remediationstrategies and activities within the general education curriculumresulting in increased literacy achievement for their students. Positivestudent learning outcomes such as these encourage administrators,advocates, and state departments of education to adopt cooperativemodels such as co-teaching for the effective education of students withdisabilities as well as students with differentiated learning needsbased on ethnicity, culture, and language barriers (e.g., Arguelles,Hughes, & Schumm, 2000). Other researchers are cautious about the claims for effectivenessof co-teaching methods. For example, Zigmond (2004), reporting onpreliminary results of co-teaching in inclusive science classrooms atsix high schools, found little difference in the amount of time studentsspent working on task, interacting in small groups, or interacting withthe teachers. Rarely have researchers or practitioners analyzed theimpact of co-teaching on other variables. Because the primary focus ofthis paper is on meeting teaching standards in the United States,international literature is not addressed. Interested readers arereferred to UNICEF which has funded several international projects oninclusive schools and the Teaching and Learning Research Programme inthe United Kingdom with its inclusive education component. Purpose In this paper, the authors discuss the necessary skills, knowledge,and professional dispositions that urban secondary teachers in theUnited States must demonstrate for effectively teaching the increasinglydiverse student populations in their classrooms today. Based on theresults of two studies that focused on urban secondary co-teacher teamsin Florida (Cramer & Nevin, 2006) and California (Villa, Thousand,Nevin, & Liston, 2005), the authors extrapolate information forteacher education programs regarding the preparation of urbanco-teachers in the United States to be effective collaborativeprofessionals who can meet the instructional needs of their collectiveand diverse student body. In the following sections, we provide anoverview of the original studies, a summary of the findings, adiscussion of the collective findings with respect to the nationalstandards for teachers in the United States and their respective teachereducation programs, and implications for future consideration forteacher education research and practice. Overview of the Studies In this time of dramatic increases in new technologies, informationavailability, and student diversity, in-depth studies of educationalpractices in urban school districts in the United States can offerinsight into the working fundamental principles and currentinstructional methodologies typically used in the United Statesclassroom. With an emphasis on high achievement standards in secondaryeducation, the need for new strategies and capacities, student-centeredaccountability, and data to stimulate change is paramount (Lachat,2001.) Keeping in mind both the process and the structure of secondaryschool reform, data-driven results can serve as a tool to guide teachereducators at the district and university levels in providing teachersopportunities for scholarly and professional growth. These learningoutcomes may provide new strategies to foster relationships withcolleagues, students, and families as well as increased capacities tocreate meaningful learning experiences for their students. High school reform efforts have been reported in several leadingjournals (e.g., Educational Leadership, American Secondary SchoolJournal, and Educational Researcher). Reformers have recommended changesin policy at all levels (national, state, and local school district) inaddition to calls for better research especially on innovative teachingpractices. For example, Klekotka (2004) summarized the results of anexpert panelist forum convened by the U.S Department of Education'sInstitute of Education Sciences to develop its High School Reforminitiative, which was launched in June 2005. The panelists emphasizedthat high school reform should focus on changing instructional practiceat the classroom level because many high school teachers rely on thelecture as their sole pedagogical technique. In 2005, the AmericanSecondary Education Journal published a special issue on reforms beingundertaken at the level of classroom instruction. Successful inclusiveeducation practices in middle and secondary schools were described byVilla, Thousand, Nevin, and Liston (2005). Cramer and Nevin (2006) conducted a mixed method study utilizingtwo evaluation instruments that examined practices of and relationshipsbetween co-teachers. Given expected increases in co-teaching teams,principals and other supervisory personnel will be required to usedifferent evaluation procedures as will university clinical supervisorswhen their teacher candidates co-teach. The Co-Teacher RelationshipScale (CRS) was developed and field tested by Noonan, McCormick, andBeck (2003) with 20 co-teachers in early childhood and special educationin Hawaii. Part I consists of 10 items that focus on beliefs andapproaches to teaching whereas Part II consists of 9 items that focus onthe extent to which co-teachers believe they are the same or differentin their personal characteristics. Noonan et al. (2003) reported aninternal consistency coefficient (alpha) of .90. An example of an itemfrom Part I is, "Indicate the extent to which you believe that youand your co-teacher are the same or different in your beliefs andapproaches to teaching re the physical arrangement of theclassroom." The Are We Really Co-Teachers Scale was developed by Villa,Thousand, and Nevin (2004) from a review of the literature onco-teaching. It consists of 34 items that describe actions co-teachersmight take to implement various co-teaching approaches (e.g.,supportive, complementary, parallel, or team teaching). An example of anitem is, "We decide which co-teaching model we are going to use ina lesson based upon the benefits to the students and theco-teachers." Cramer and Nevin (2005) validated these two instruments with aconvenience sample of elementary and secondary co-teachers in Miami-DadeCounty Public Schools (the fourth largest district in the UnitedStates). These schools were chosen based upon recommendation from theFlorida Inclusion Network as model schools where co-teaching was beingimplemented across the school day. The sums of ratings from specialeducators and general elementary and secondary educators in Miami weresimilar to those obtained from a sample of early childhood specialistsand early childhood educators co-teaching in Hawaii. The highest rateditems on the two assessment instruments were similar in content.Interviews and observations with a subset of survey respondentscorroborated the survey items. Overall, the follow-up interviews andobservations corroborated and instantiated the co-teacher ratings on thesurvey items. For this paper, the data for secondary teachers wereanalyzed separately and showed that high school (grades 9-12)co-teachers ratings of the top five items on both scales showedsimilarities as illustrated in Table 1. Specifically, two of the topfive items reflected strong disposition-based similarities: flexibilityin dealing with unforeseen events and sharing responsibility throughcollaborating with others. Liston and Thousand (2004) reported the preliminary analysis of alongitudinal study of co-teaching in The San Diego Unified SchoolDistrict (SDUSD), the second largest district in California and theseventh largest in the United States. Like Miami-Dade, this districtincludes a diverse population of students with 29% of the studentpopulation identified as English language learners and approximately 12%of the student population identified as students having disabilities(California Report Card, 2004). Educators at President High School [apseudonym] within SDUSD were interviewed because they had participatedin Project Co-Teach (Thousand, Glynn, & Liston, 2004), a programthat facilitated their collaboration in co-teaching students withdisabilities in the general education classrooms. At President HighSchool, English learners comprised 38.3 % of this high schoolpopulation. Sixty-six percent came from homes where a language otherthan English was spoken. In addition, 200 students with disabilitiesreceived special education supports by their general education classroomteachers with special educators as co- teachers. The high school serveda multicultural, multi-lingual population accounting for 96.9 percent oftheir population (SDUSD, 2004) with a high percentage of youth whosefamilies qualified for free and reduced lunch. Project Co-Teach was a comprehensive personnel development projectwhich included a needs assessment from general and special educators,the subsequent design and implementation of instructional modules, andsystematic follow-up support for practicing co-teachers that resulted ineffective partnerships between district and higher educationstakeholders Educators acquired new knowledge and skills and honed theirprofessional dispositions, e.g., collaboration, respect, and fairness.They learned to implement many exemplary practices, such as how todifferentiate curriculum and instruction, how to develop agreed-upongoals when co-teaching, how to use heterogeneous cooperative learninggroups, how to include students in peer-mediated instruction, and so on.To provide an ongoing forum for systematic support, and to betterunderstand how secondary educators facilitated inclusive education,Liston (2004) conducted individual interviews over a three-week periodwith 10 general educators and 10 special educators working inco-teaching relationships at President High School. Interviewees wereasked to respond to a series of structured interview questions developedby Liston and Thousand and validated by the project's task forceteam. Questions probed their inclusive teaching practices, theirobservations about student and teacher outcomes, and recommendations forimprovement. Findings of the Florida and California Co-Teaching Studies Data from both the Florida and California studies, brieflydescribed here, show the basis for recommendations regarding thepreparation of secondary co-teachers in urban schools in the UnitedStates. The Florida group interview questions grew out of a slightlydifferent context in which the Florida statewide network to prepareco-teachers emerged. The district was responding to a state mandate fromfederal monitors to address the disproportionate representation ofstudents with disabilities who were spending less than 80% of their dayin classrooms with their nonhandicapped peers. Thus, the questionsneeded to reflect that context. In contrast, the California studyemerged from a city mandate to evaluate the co-teacher professionaldevelopment efforts. The interview questions reflected the keystakeholders as well as questions that reflected what was known in theliterature. Although different instruments were used, they offered atriangulation of the data when combined. Florida Findings Interviews and observations with a subset of co-teachers from onehigh school provided confirmation that the survey items accuratelyreflected their actions and beliefs. The special educator and thecontent teacher were interviewed separately for one co-teaching team andfor the other, the co-teachers were simultaneously interviewed. CesarChavez High School [a pseudonym] included a multicultural and ethnicallydiverse population of over 4,000 students in grades 9-12 in southwesternMiami-Dade County School district. About 80% of the students were ofHispanic origin, 12% white, 5% black, and 2% from Asian or PacificIslander heritage; 45% of the students were from families that qualifiedfor free and reduced lunch; 8% classified as English Language Learners.At Cesar Chavez, several models of support for students withdisabilities were offered: consultation and collaboration with specialeducators, in-class support through support facilitators and specialeducators who co-teach with regular educators, and specializedinstructional support in resource or self-contained special classes.Faculty and administration systematically increased the percentages ofstudents with disabilities included in general education settings from32.7% in March 2004 to 40% in November 2004. The four co-teachers who were observed and interviewed taughtvarious levels of science classes. A brief summary of theircharacteristics is shown in Table 2. Co-teachers were asked to describe the students in theirclassrooms. Primarily, the teachers did so by describing their studentsby disability category (e.g., students with learning disabilities,students with other health impairments (such as Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder), and students with emotional handicaps).Overall, a wide range of abilities were represented in the co-taughtclasses. The interview and observation scripts were analyzed in accordancewith grounded theory methodology. The researchers engaged in a constantcomparative process (Strauss & Corbin, 2008) where data collectedfrom the teachers through surveys, interviews, and observations werecontinuously analyzed using a recursive process. The transcripts of theinterviews were turned back to the interviewees so as to verify theircomments. The process of constant comparison of data led to the gradualemergence of tentative hypotheses that explained the data. Theresearchers attempted to show connections between survey responses,interview responses, and classroom actions. The researchers then derivedcommon themes and differences in order to surface any discrepanciesbetween survey responses and actual practice. The researchers searchedfor teacher responses related to flexibility and collaboration, the twomost highly rated items on both surveys. Evidence of flexibility One special education co-teacher said, "What co-teaching meansto me is the ability to be flexible when the lesson needs to beadjusted. I have learned so much, in fact, the students often see metaking notes." Furthermore, when asked to describe the teachingstrategies that co-teachers use, responses across all secondaryinterviewees included "ESL strategies," hands-on activities,guided notes, graphic organizers, cooperative learning groups, real lifeexperience, and web based learning. Another example of flexibility shows up in the way teachersaccommodated each other's schedules in deciding what to teach. Thisis an important accommodation for special educators who also hadresponsibilities for teaching students in resource rooms for part of theday, or general educators who were away for a workshop. As anotherspecial educator stated: We jump into one another's lessons. Weshare the planning of the lessons. If I'm having a busy weekbecause of testing (like this week has been IEP testing), my partner isaware of it and knows I have no other choice. And I'll do the same.The majority of the time we do it together. A third example of flexibility is the way that co-teachers oftenmade room for teachers' preferences and strengths regardingteaching specific content. One high school teacher noted: [When we firstmeet with our co-teachers at this high school] we explained that he orshe is a curriculum or content specialist and that the special educatoris the strategy specialist. It's a matter of organizing, a matterof knowing the needs according to their disabilities, and individualizedapproach. Another high school special educator explained how she usedher versatility, "I call myself the 'rubber-band' becauseI really have to go into classrooms and formulate my teaching style toanother's teaching style." Evidence of collaboration One of the science co-teacher teams described how they used aprocess to come to an agreement about how to teach a lesson thatrequired the students to discuss ethical issues in genetic engineering.They listed their ideas, brainstormed the advantages and disadvantagesof each, and arrived at an activity that could be implemented in theamount of time they had for the class session. As the general educatorpartner explained, "I don't know that we disagree a lot! Wemight have two different ideas. We don't get much choice about whatcontent to teach because of the scope and sequence." Collaboration was also evident in the level of understanding foreach other that the co-teachers developed over time. One generaleducation co-teacher explained: "Sometimes it's justnon-verbal language. You get to know each other so well, you can prettymuch read each other's mind after a while." A specialeducation co-teacher commented: We DO learn from each other and when Inotice that my partner is teaching something in a certain way, and Ithink I can do it too, then I've benefited. At different times,I'm leading the lesson and at other times my partner is leading theactivity at that moment. We do plan together; we meet with the otherbiology teachers; so I think all of that is part of being a co-teacher. A general education co-teacher illustrated how this collaborationcarried over to the students: Yes! I guess we've really set it upfor our students to be co-teachers with us. Now they are preparing toteach about their special projects so that everyone in the class willknow what they've discovered. They are actually doing what theyhave seen us co-teachers do...for example, making sure to have somehands-on activity, some visuals like a power point slide, and so on. Impact on students with disabilities A general education co-teacher captured the impact that co-teachinghad on her students when she shared: I'm co-teaching with a[special education] teacher who wants her students with autism toexperience social integration. What I see is that both sets of studentsare benefiting. For example, the students with autism are actuallylearning some science that they wouldn't ordinarily learn! Andtheir peers are having their original beliefs about autism changeddramatically. They no longer expect what they thought would be'retarded' behavior and are often surprised at what thestudents with autism contribute to class. A conversation between a general and special educator revealed bothof their perspectives about the impact on students: [Co-Teacher #1] We've seen such growth for the students. Forexample, one of the ESE [exceptional student education] students wasreally shy about coming in to the inclusion class. He would standoutside the door looking in during the first few days of class. Now hejust comes in and starts working. [Co-Teacher #2] I want to add that what I've seen is how theinclusion and co-teaching has benefited all the students. We have somany low-level learners. They seem to enjoy and acquire so much morewith the hands-on activities, the attention they can get from each ofus, and what I think of as 'double teaching.' If I'mteaching something a certain way, my co-teacher can explain it and showit in a different way and connect with the kids that I didn'treach. [Co-Teacher #1] We've asked the students how they feel abouthaving 2 teachers. They report they like it. When the parents were givenan option, no parents refused to have their student attend the co-taughtclass! To summarize the Florida study, the interviews seemed tocorroborate the most highly rated items on flexibility and collaborationin the survey ratings. Similar to Keefe and Moore (2004), teachers inthis study reported positive student outcomes from co-teaching as wellas diverse responses about the outcomes for teachers. The teachers weremost concerned about the student outcomes. California Findings Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify patterns andregularities, with emerging words used to create categorical themes(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Listen to the voices of the high schoolco-teachers as captured in these representative responses to theinterviews, summarized in three categories: Evidence of instructionalresponsiveness and differentiated instructional processes anddifferentiated assessment products. Evidence of instructional responsiveness Instructional responsiveness to the individual learning needs ofall students occurred, as one general educator reported, throughhands-on experiences where students are engaged in helping one another,teaching one another, and sharing their talents. She further commented:this far surpasses the outcomes when a student is assigned a one-on-onaide. Another general educator remarked that, as an inclusive educatormeeting the needs of all the students in the classroom, he needed tothink more deeply about how to engage all students, and give studentsample opportunities to receive multi-modality instruction. Allinterviewees spoke about professional dispositions, emphasizing thatthey experienced an increased sensitivity to the emotional, academic,and physical needs of the students" and that this led to"increased opportunities for students to succeed. Evidence of differentiated instructional processes Co-teachers utilized principles of differentiated instruction, byadjusting the presentation of curricular content to enhance studentlearning. Participants considered co-teaching to be an approachsupportive of all students, including the gifted, English languagelearners, and well as those with learning disabilities. Describing herclass, one general educator stated: We have so many students. Thegrouping in the middle has many English language learners that havebenefited from special education strategies such as using graphicorganizers and lecture guides. I'm talking about all students. Allstudents can benefit from co-teaching. A special educator emphasizedthat co-teaching was a way to assist the learning process of allchildren, stating: the teacher I co-teach with is very different than Iam, so I think that's a benefit to the students...Some things thatmy co-teacher does, students might not get, and vice versa. I think thatco-teaching is a positive thing for all the students. The differinginstructional presentations gave students a second change at learning. Moreover, the differing instructional presentation styles used byco-teachers gave students a second change at learning. One specialeducator emphasized that students seemed to enjoy multiple educators inthe classroom: It breaks up the presentation style, and the monotonythat can happen when just one educator presents for the entire period.Another referred to the stigmatization that can occur because studentswith disabilities must leave their classmates in regular classroom toattend sessions in the special education classroom which can beameliorated in co-taught classes. She said: When all students areincluded, the stigma of being in special education is removed. Quiteoften, peers do not know who is in special education, and who is not. Evidence of differentiated assessment products Differentiating assessment products led to new insights on studentlearning and academic achievement. By allowing for a variety of studentassessment products, evaluations became more authentic: The generaleducators are looking at the whole child rather than one set of testresults. They seem to see the big picture. One special educatordescribed a project-based assessment where students had the choice ofpresenting to the entire class, a small group, or (because of shyness)to the teacher alone. Reporting on the academic success of co-taughtstudents, a general educator shared: With alternative assessments,students with disabilities are showing that they can keep up with theacademic expectations. No, they may not be getting A's, but theyare passing, and they are doing their own work. As they do better andbetter, they become more confident, and empowered to keep upacademically. Discussion In the study conducted by Cramer and Nevin (2006), only onesecondary special educator reported having received training inco-teaching in their university teacher preparation programs while allco-teachers reported they had received in-service training and planningtime to implement co-teaching. Liston's high school co-teachers hadparticipated in a systematic inservice training co-taught by schooldistrict and university personnel; however, only two had received formaltraining in their professional teacher preparation programs. Thousand,Villa, and Nevin (2007) conducted a review of the extant research oncollaborative teaching which confirmed that there is less power inco-teaching without training in selecting and planning for implementingthe various approaches to co-teaching. Magiera, Smith, Zigond, andGabauer (2005) conducted an observational study of 10 high schoolco-teachers so as to describe the instructional roles of the teachers.Although other forms of co-teaching were observed (e .g., stationteaching), team teaching was observed in most of the co-taught classeswhere both teachers were active instructors. Moreover, follow-upinterview results indicated that none of the co-teachers had receivedprior training in co-teaching. The studies reported in this paper did not specifically trackstudent achievement in the secondary co-teaching classrooms. Somestudies are emerging to document that student progress in co-taughtclassrooms can be improved. Student achievement in co-taught secondaryclassrooms shows similar patterns for literacy gains (Miller et al.,1998). Dieker and Murawski (2009) include case studies which documentthe impact on student achievement within co-teaching approaches. Analysis of National Professional Standards for Teachers in theUnited States Teacher education standards are not silent about this set ofknowledge, and skills, and professional dispositions. Standards fromNational Board for Professional Teacher Standards (2005), the Councilfor Exceptional Children (2005), Interstate New Teacher Assessment andSupport Consortium (2005) and the National Council of Accreditation forTeacher Education (2009) were analyzed for content with respect toinclusive education and collaboration or co-teaching. As shown in Table3, there seems to be substantial agreement among these diverseprofessional education organizations with respect to knowledge, skills,and professional dispositions for differentiating instruction, workingcollaboratively with others, and supporting the education of diverselearners. For example, INTASC Standard 3 requires teachers to understandhow learners differ; Standard 4 requires teachers to use a variety ofinstructional strategies; and Standard 10 asks teachers to collaborateand communicate with parents, families, colleagues to support studentlearning. In comparison, CEC standards for entry into the profession includecompetencies related to knowledge and skills in understandingcharacteristics of learners with different cognitive, physical,cultural, social and emotional needs; competencies related to knowledgeand skills for instructional content and practice; and professionaldisposition competencies related to communication and collaborativepartnerships. These are strongly correlated with NBPTS standards 1(teachers adjust their practice according to individual differences intheir students), 3 (teachers show multiple methods to engage studentlearning and to enable students to reach goals), and 5 (teacherscollaboratively work with others and coordinate services) as well asNCATE standard 1 (candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions). In the results of the Florida study, co-teacher attitudes, beliefs,and actions appear to be correlated with the standards shown in Table 3.As shown in Table 1 previously, co-teacher attitudes and beliefs aboutlearning new things was a highly rated survey item. Learning about newthings seems to correspond to INTASC Standard 4 and NCATE Standard 1b(in Table 4). In addition, the highest rated attitude was"flexibility in dealing with unforeseen events" which isreflected in NCATE standard 1c and NBPST standard for teachers to adjusttheir practices. Similarly, as shown in Table 1, shared responsibility,flexibility, and sharing ideas and materials were survey items thatco-teachers rated highly. These actions appear to correspond with theINTASC Standard 10 and NCATE standard 1g (shown in Table 3), CECstandard related to communication and collaborative partnerships, and the NBPST standard related toteachers collaboratively working with others. The results of theCalifornia study show that high school co-teacher actions related toinstructional responsiveness to individual differences as well asdifferentiated instruction and assessment can be correlated with INTASC,CEC, NBPST, and NCATE standards. Analysis of Teacher Education Programs Overall, teacher educators have not been silent about the need formore specific preparation in these areas. Historically teacherpreparation programs are separated into regular and special educationprograms and thus have not provided pre-service teachers with theintensive training and experience they need to be effectivecollaborators in planning, teaching, and evaluating instruction.Although many universities have collaborative experiences for generaleducators and special educators, there are few empirical studies(Blanton, Blanton, & Cross, 1994; Patriarcha & Lamb, 1990; Yopp& Guillarme, 1999). Villa, Thousand and Chapple (2000) delineatedhow faculty at five U.S. universities "retooled their professionalpreparation programs to better ready graduates for meeting thechallenges of inclusive 21st century education ... to create new andinnovative training initiatives that model faculty and communitycollaboration and depart from traditional ways of inducting educatorsinto their profession" (p. 536). Some teacher education researchers in the United States havestudied various aspects of this challenge. Carey (1997) reported thedevelopment of a partnership between Northern Arizona University and alocal school district that enabled pre-service teachers to practiceinnovative strategies for facilitating inclusion of students withdisabilities into general classrooms. Strategies such as cooperativelearning, collaborative teaming, peer tutoring, student empowerment, andcreative problem solving were helpful in facilitating this initiative.Keefe, Rossi, de Valenzuela, and Howarth (2000) described the DualLicense Teacher Preparation Program at the University of New Mexico andthe national and state context within which it was developed andcontinues to evolve. Graduates of this program are eligible forlicensure in general education (K-8) and special education (K-12). Theunfortunate reality is that, for the co-teachers who participated in theCalifornia and Florida studies, the majority reported no pre-servicepreparation for the work demands of their current teaching positions,particularly with any focus on secondary level training. Moreover, thisreality is echoed by other researchers in secondary education (e.g.,Hamill & Dever, 1998; Magiera et al., 2005). Implications While the studies reported in this article provide implications forteacher education research and practice related to co-teaching, itshould be noted that there are limitations, such as only examiningco-teaching in two isolated districts and using two separately plannedstudies to compare data. Several implications are derived from theanalysis of the two studies, the analysis of the standards fromprofessional organizations, and the analysis of preservice teacherpreparation programs. First, all general and special educators should bealerted to the fact that when they engage in collaborative planning andteaching, they are demonstrating knowledge, skills, and dispositionsrepresented in four sets of national professional education standards(either INTASC, CEC, NPBST, or NCATE). Second, for special educationteacher candidates seeking teaching credentials, by co-teaching withgeneral educators, they can demonstrate mastery of the common generaleducation standards without having a separate general educationexperience. Within the United States, co-teaching also assists toprepare educators to meet the legal mandates requiring services andsupports for students with disabilities to be delivered in the generaleducation classrooms. A third implication relates to the relationship between co-teachingskills and professional standards. Namely, both relationship-buildingskills and instructional strategies are identified and needed to ensureeffective co-teacher partnerships. In other words, professionaleducators and those who prepare them (i.e., teacher educators) areprompted to think about teaching more holistically and attend not onlyto the development of instructional competence but to professionaldispositions and skills for collaborating with others in instructionalplanning and assessment and the actual implementing of variousco-teaching approaches. In summary, collaborative dispositions andskills must be included among the standards, and, by implication, to thecredentialing A fourth and related implication of this study'sanalysis is that the notion of reflective teaching practice needs to beexpanded from self reflection to team reflection and include attentionto adult interpersonal interaction as well as the integrity ofinstruction and student performance. This can be done by first providingteachers with training in co-teaching at the preservice level. Once inpractice, co-teachers can be given time to work together in planning forand reflecting on the lessons provided. Finally, because school administrators are expected to evaluatetheir co-teachers, it is clear that they also need to be updated onlegislative mandates and current trends regarding collaborativeplanning, co-teaching approaches, and effective instructional practices.Such knowledge would better equip administrators not only to support andencourage effective co-teachers to mentor others, but create incentivesand recognitions (e.g., award and honors) to show their valuing ofco-teaching. For example, in addition to teacher-of-the-year awards,administrators can institute teaching-team-of-the-year awards. Conclusions This study warrants replication in other school districts in theU.S. and elsewhere. We hope other teacher education faculty who prepareteachers who join urban multicultural high school districts willresonate with the results of these studies. Restructuring efforts inteacher preparation programs at the preliminary and advanced levels willbetter prepare both general and special educators to work effectivelywith each other and with the diverse students they encounter in theclassroom today and in future years. For example, university and school district partnerships couldoffer a unique blend of training with common learning modules andclinical practices. District staff could serve as adjunct professors andguest speakers for the university. Likewise, university faculty mightavail themselves to observe, coach, and offer professional developmentfor the school districts. Such partnerships can lead to joint studentteaching internships with general and special education pre-serviceteachers, whereby both pre-service teachers would have the opportunityto co-teach together from the very beginning of their preparationresulting in these prospective teachers being more fully prepared tomeet the standards laid out by three major professional organizations. Within effective partnership models, faculty from both universitiesand school districts would be modeling and demonstrating the value ofcollaborative co-teaching practices so as to ensure continuedimprovements in the quality of education in the 21st century. References Arguelles, M., Hughes, M., & Schumm, J. (2000). Co-teaching: Adifferent approach to co-teaching. Principal, 79(4), 48, 50-51. Blanton, L. Blanton, W., & Cross, D. (1994). An exploratorystudy of how general education and special education teachers think andmake instructional decisions about students with special needs. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 17, 62-73. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.C. (1998). Qualitative research ineducation (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Carey, L. K. (1997). Inclusion training for pre-serviceteachers-From theory to best classroom practice. B.C. Journal of SpecialEducation, 21(2), 52-58. Compton, M., Stratton, A., Maier, A., Meyers, C., Scott, H., &Tomlinson, T. 1998). It takes two: Co-teaching for deaf and heard ofhearing students in rural schools. In Coming together: Preparing forrural special education in the 21st century. Conference Proceedings ofthe American Council on rural Special Education, Charleston, SC. (ED417901). Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). CEC InternationalStandards for Entry into Professional Practice. Arlington, VA: Author.Retrieved October 15, 2010, fromhttp://www.cec.sped.org/ps/ps-entry.html Cramer, E., & Nevin, A. (2005, April). A mixed methodologyanalysis of co-teacher assessments: Preliminary results. Paper presentedat American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Cramer, E. D., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). A mixed methodologyanalysis of co-teacher assessments: Implications for teacher education.Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(4), 261-274. Dieker, L. (1998). Rationale for co-teaching. Social StudiesReview, 37(2), 62-65. Dieker, L., & Murawski, W. (2003, April/May). Co-teaching atthe secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions forsuccess. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13 Hamill, L.B, & Dever, R.B. (1998). Preparing for inclusion:Secondary teachers describe their professional experiences. AmericanSecondary Education. 27(1), 18-26. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of2004, 20 United States Congress 1412[a] [5]), Pub. L. No. 108-466. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (INTASC,2005). Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support ConsortiumStandards. Washington, DC. Council of Chief State Schools Officers.Retrieved January 18, 2010 from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_New_Teacher_Assessment_and_Support_Consortium/ Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teachingin inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teachers toldus. American Secondary Education, 32 (3), 77-88. 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 NewMexico. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,25(2), 72-82. Klekotka, P. (2004). High school reform: Perspectives fromresearch, policy, and practice. Viewpoints 13. Naperville, IL: NorthCentral Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL), 1120 East Diehl Road,Suite 200, Naperville, Illinois 60563. Retrieved October 15, 2010, fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/vp13/essay.htm. Lachat, M., (2001). Data-driven high school reform: The breakingranks model. LAB, Brown University. Retrieved October 15, 2010 fromhttp://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/hischlrfm/datdrv_hsrfm.pdf Liston, A. (2004). A qualitative study of secondary co-teachers.Orange, CA: Argosy University. Luckner, J. (1999). An examination of two co-teaching classrooms.American Annals of the Deaf, 144(1), 24-34. Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., & Gabauer, K. (2005).Benefits of co-teaching in secondary mathematics classes. TeachingExceptional Children, 37(3), 20-24. Mahoney, M. (1997). Small victories in an inclusive classroom.Educational Leadership, 54(7), 59-62. Miller, A., Valasky, W., & Molloy, P. (1998). Learningtogether: The evolution of an inclusive class. Active Learner: A FoxfireJournal for Teachers, 3(2), 14-16. Murawski, W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. National Board Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2005).Performance-based teaching assessments. Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Services. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from http://www.nbpts.org/ National Council of Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE).(2009). Unit standards and supporting elements. Arlington, VA. RetrievedOctober 15, 2010, from http://www.ncate.org/ Nevin, A., Cramer, E., Salazar, L., & Voigt, J. (2008).Instructional modifications, adaptations, and accommodations ofco-teachers who loop: A descriptive case study. Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 31 (4), 283-297. Noonan, M., McCormick, L., & Heck, R. (2003). The Co-Teacherrelationship scale: Applications for professional development. Educationand Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 113-20. Patriarcha, L., & Lamb, M. (1990). Preparing secondary specialeducation teachers to be collaborative decision makers and reflectivepractitioners: A promising practicum model. Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 12, 228-232. Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1995). Unlocking expertise amongclassroom teachers through structured dialogue: Extending research onpeer collaboration. Exceptional Children, 62, 101-110. Rice, D., & Zigmond, N (1999). Co-teaching in secondaryschools: Teacher reports of developments in Australia and Americanclassrooms. Resources in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServicesNo. ED432558) Salazar, L., & Nevin, A. (2005). Co-teachers in an urbanmulticultural school. Florida Educational Leadership, 5(2), 15-20. San Diego Unified School District (2004). School accountabilityreport card. Retrieved October 15, 2010 fromhttp://studata.sandi.net/research/sarcs/ Schwab Learning. (2003). Collaboratively speaking. A study oneffective ways to teach children with learning differences in thegeneral education classroom. The Special EDge, 16(3) (4-page insert). Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitativeresearch techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thousand, J., Villa, R., & Nevin, A. (2007). Collaborativeteaching: A critique of the scientific evidence. In L. Florian (Ed.)Handbook of special education research (pp. 417- 428). London, England:Sage Publishing. Trent, S. (1998). False starts and other dilemmas of a secondarygeneral education collaborative teacher: A case study. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 31, 503-513. U.S. Census Bureau (2008). School Enrollment, Social and EconomicCharacteristics of Students 2008, Washington, DC. Retrieved September27, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2008.html Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Chapple, J. W. (2000).Preparing educators to implement inclusive practices. In R.A. Villa& J. S. Thousand, Restructuring for caring and effective education:Piecing the puzzle together, 2nd ed. (531-557). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes. Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2004, 2008). A guide toco-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A. I., & Liston, A.(2005, Fall). Successful inclusion practices in middle and secondaryschools. American Secondary Education Journal, 33(3), 33-50. Yopp, H. K., & Guillaume, A. M. (1999). Preparing preserviceteachers for collaboration. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(1), 5-19. Zigmond, N. (2004, Sept.) Research findings paint dark picture ofco-teaching. Inclusive Education Programs, 11(9), 1-3, 6. Elizabeth Cramer Florida International University Andrea Liston Point Loma Nazarene University Ann Nevin Arizona State University Jacqueline ThousandTable 1. Florida Secondary Teachers' Five Highest Rated Itemson Two SurveysVilla et al. (2004) Noonan et al. (2003)Co-Teacher Actions Co-Teacher BeliefsWe share Flexibility in dealingresponsibility for with unforeseen eventsdeciding how to teach. Parent involvementWe have fun with thestandards and each Ability to beother when we supportive toco-teach. We are colleagues and otherflexible and make staffchanges as neededduring a lesson. Interest in learning new thingsWe share ideas,information, and Dedication to teachingmaterials.We are each viewed byour students as theirteacher.Table 2. Florida Secondary Co-Teacher IntervieweesCo-Teaching Team 1 Co-Teaching Team 2Code 0501: Female, Hispanic, Code 0503: Female, Hispanic,bilingual (Spanish-English), bilingual (Spanish-English),25-35 years old, Bachelor's 25-35 year old, Master'sDegree, 0-5 years teaching Degree, 5-10 years teachingexperience, 1 year experience experience, 1 year experiencein co-teaching, 1 year in co-teaching, 1 yearteaching with current co- teaching with current co-teacher. teacher.Current teaching assignment: Current teaching assignment:ESE teacher of students with ESE teacher for students withlearning disabilities and autism.science classes; certified inbiology.Code 0502: Female, Caucasian, Code 0504: Female, Hispanic,25-35 year old, Bachelor's bilingual (Spanish-English),Degree, 6-10 years teaching 36-45 year old, Master'sexperience, 1 year of Degree, more than 21 yearsexperience in co-teaching, 1 teaching experience, 10 yearsyear teaching with current experience in co-teaching, 1co-teacher. year teaching with current co-teacher.Current teaching assignment: Current teaching assignment:General education science General education scienceteacher, biology & earth teacher, agriscience; othersciences, and assistant certifications include varyingactivities coach. exceptionalities, formerly taught students with learning disabilities, emotional handicaps, and gifted & talented designations.Table 3. Analysis of Standards from Professional TeacherOrganizations in USAINTASC CEC NBPSTStandard 3 requires Knowledge and skills Teachers adjust theirteachers to in understanding practice according tounderstand how characteristics of individual differenceslearners differ. learners with in their students. different cognitive, physical, cultural, social and emotional needsStandard 4 requires Competencies related Teachers showteachers to use a to knowledge, and multiple methods tovariety of skills for engage studentinstructional instructional content learning and tostrategies. an practice enable students to reach goals.Standard 10 asks Competencies related Teachersteachers to to communication collaboratively workcollaborate and and collaborative with others andcommunicate with partnerships coordinate services.parents, families,colleagues, tosupport studentlearning.INTASC NCATEStandard 3 requires Standard 1c requiresteachers to candidates considerunderstand how school, family, andlearners differ. community contexts.Standard 4 requires Standard 1b requiresteachers to use a candidates to selectvariety of and use a broadinstructional range of strategiesstrategies.Standard 10 asks Standard 1c requiresteachers to candidatescollaborate and collaborate with thecommunicate with professionalparents, families, community/colleagues, tosupport studentlearning.