Inclusion Models for a Building Level
by Elaine E. Daack, UNI masters thesis (1999)

More and more general education and resource teachers are working together using different forms of teaming. A number of these models been successfully implemented at building level in school districts across the United States. Three of those models ar e a consultant approach, teaming, and co-teaching. (Gartner and Lipsky, 1997).

Consultant Model - In a building with a low incidence of special needs students and overall low student population, this model would be very compatible. The special education teacher is made available to reteach a difficult skill or to help the student(s) practice a newly acquired skill. This is a non-intrusive approach that provides the special needs students with at least two teachers to ask for help with curriculum problems. Regularly scheduled meetings are recommended rather than communica tion on an as-needed basis.

Teaming Model - The special education teacher is assigned to one grade level team with one planning period per week for the team. The special ed teacher provides student information, possible instructional strategies, modification ideas for as signments/tests, and behavior strategies. The team meets on a regular basis, establishing consistent communication among the team members. The team model is presented so teachers are not working independently to achieve success with their students. All team members work together and broaden their knowledge in various areas, whether they are from general education or special education.

The disadvantages of this model could include possible resistence to implementing the modifications, delayed assistance for students with difficulty, high student to teacher ratio, and limited opportunities for special ed teachers to work in the gener al education classroom.

Collaborative, Co-teaching Model - Using this model, the general education and special education teachers work together to teach students with/without disabilities in a shared classroom. Both are responsible for instruction planning and deliver y, student achievement, assessment, and discipline. Students receive age-appropriate academics, support services, and possible modified instruction. This model provides a minimum of scheduling problems, continuous and ongoing communication between educat ors, and lower student to teacher ratio than the teaming or consultant models.

Collaborative teaching can be organized in a number of ways:

One teacher, one support - This organization works well for teaching a unit where one teacher is more expert than the other. Students still have two teachers to ask questions of and get help.

Parallel teaching design - The teacher divides the class into groups and teaches them simultaneously. The student to teacher ratio is low, more time is devoted to learning versus students waiting for help, opportunities for re-teaching are immediate, support for the teacher is present, communication is constant, and behavior problems can be minimized.

Station teaching - This collaborative teaching model divides up content and students so that teachers or students rotate at the end of a unit. It is ideal for subject matter taught in units with no particular sequence. Benefits include the opportuni ties for re-teaching are immediate, the student to teacher ratio is low, teachers become experts with material, and communication among teachers is constant.

Alternative teaching design - In this model, one teacher leads an enrichment or alternative activity while a second teacher re-teaches small group of students if they are having difficulty with content. Math is compatible with this design where a l ot of re-teaching is done.

Team teaching - Teachers work together to deliver the same material to the entire class. Teachers circulate around the class providing immediate re-teaching and a lower student to teacher ratio.

Resource: Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. D. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transferring America's classrooms. Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Publishing.