The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections
Tachelle Banks
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Since 1975, there have been two major developments for students with
mild/moderate disabilities in special education programs in U.S. schools.
First, the number of students served steadily increased from approximately
3.7 million to over 6 million, reflecting an extraordinary achievement in
terms of access (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011; U.S.
Department of Education, 1995, 2005). Second, the placement patterns for
these students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 reflected high enrollment in general edu-
cation classes. For example, the national average for the percentage of stu-
dents aged 6 21 who spent at least 80% of their time in general education
classrooms grew from 31.6% in 1989 to 51.9% in 2004 (U.S. Department
of Education, 2005) some states (i.e., Vermont, North Dakota, Oregon,
and Colorado) significantly exceeded this national average by supporting
more than 70% of their students with disabilities in general education set-
tings (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, 2005), and more than 90% of students aged 6 21 were educated
in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the school day (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2011).
In addition to advancing the inclusion of students with disabilities in
general education classrooms, the academic performance of students with
high-incidence disabilities has been increasingly evaluated. Federal laws
have mandated that students with disabilities participate on state tests and
that states report these test results to the public (IDEA, 1997).
Unfortunately, IDEA imposed no consequences on states that did not com-
ply with these mandates, and many were slow to meet the law’s mandates.
It was not until the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
(2001) that states enacted significant, large-scale changes to their testing
and accountability systems to increase participation of students with dis-
abilities in the core curriculum and ensure that the progress of these stu-
dents was monitored and reported. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA
expanded testing requirements at the state level for students with high-
incidence disabilities, as local school districts were required to develop and
implement alternate assessments aligned with the state’s academic content
standards. In addition, states reported (a) the number and performance of
students with disabilities taking regular state assessments and how many of
them received accommodations to participate in those assessments, (b) how
many students with disabilities participated in alternate assessments aligned
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections 15
with the state standards, and (c) the number of students with disabilities
taking alternate assessments aligned with alternate achievement standards.
Finally, the performance of students with high-incidence disabilities must
be compared with the achievement of all children, including children with-
out disabilities, on those assessments.
It is important to note that placement in inclusive classroom settings
and access to the general education curriculum are important issues for all
students with disabilities (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Skiba,
Peterson, & Williams, 1997). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA stipulated
that states allow districts to use multitiered systems of support (MTSS)
strategies such as response-to-intervention (RtI) and positive behavior sup-
port (PBS) for determining if a child has a specific learning disability or
behavioral disability.
Based on the aforementioned points, it has become clear that special
educators play divergent roles in interdisciplinary connections in education.
It is clear that special educators by law have to work with students, parents/
family members, other professionals as needed, and community agencies.
Outside the law, special educators will be unsuccessful in their jobs if they
fail to collaborate, consult, and cooperate with internal and external stake-
holders of their job. This is the focus of this chapter.
To meet the varied and diverse educational needs of students with dis-
abilities in inclusive classrooms, the reauthorization of IDEA (2004)
required states to allow districts to use MTSS strategies such as RtI and
PBS for determining if a child has a specific learning disability or beha-
vioral disability. RtI involves early identification of students’ learning
problems and the use of increasingly intensive lessons, or interventions,
to address those problems before they become entrenched (Samuels,
2011). The RtI three-tiered conceptual model is designed to shift the
focus of educators from finding a disability or within-child deficits to
focusing on providing the best instruction for all students in the general
education classroom. The RtI model emphasizes early intervention, with
a focus on making sure children receive appropriate instruction at the
“first tier” or general education classroom level, and the push to match
instruction to a student’s needs based on ongoing classroom assessment
16 TACHELLE BANKS
(Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011; Vaughn, & Fuchs, 2003; Vaughn,
Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, &
Francis, 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2003).
PBS has specific characteristics associated with it and these include (a)
the development of positive behavioral expectations, (b) specific methods
to teach these expectations to staff and students, (c) proactive supervision
or monitoring of behaviors, (d) contingency management systems to rein-
force and correct behavior, and (e) methods to measure outcomes and to
evaluate progress across three tiers with specific core elements at different
levels. These levels are:
(1) Primary prevention/school-wide level, including universal school-wide
management strategies to reduce disruptive behavior and teach proso-
cial skills to all students;
(2) Secondary prevention level, including targeted or group-based interven-
tion strategies for students at-risk of developing more serious antisocial
behaviors (about 5 10%); and
(3) Tertiary prevention level, including functionally derived treatment stra-
tegies for the small number of students (about 1 3%) who engage in
more chronic patterns of antisocial behavior (Horner, Crone, & Stiller,
2001; Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005).
The previously described evidence-based approaches to instruction and
behavior support have served to pave the way for marching toward success-
ful inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.
No longer are students with high incidence disabilities separated from
mainstreamed students (Praisner, 2003); instead, efforts are made to pro-
vide effective education for students with disabilities in inclusive general
education classrooms. The professional literature has now focused on the
preparedness of educators and administrators to develop and implement
effective inclusive programs and support within their general education
classrooms (Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012).
were not prepared to teach students with disabilities, and these teachers
lacked the confidence and support needed in addressing the needs of these
students (Daane et al., 2000). This investigation provides critical informa-
tion for practitioners that must be addressed as they work to develop and
implement effective inclusive programs.
In another investigation that provided a rich description of inclusive
education, Idol (2006) described how special education services were pro-
vided in four elementary schools and four secondary schools in a large
metropolitan school district. The schools were purposefully selected as set-
tings with well-developed special education programs in which the staff
believed they provided strong and supportive programs for educating stu-
dents with disabilities. The schools were also selected so that one half were
from the top and the other from the bottom of a continuum from no inclu-
sion to full inclusion. Idol thus provides a description of a range of perspec-
tives on providing high-quality educational services for students with
disabilities in a cross-section of schools that are similar to those in many
local education agencies. The results of this investigation revealed that only
one of the elementary schools had placed an emphasis on special education
and inclusion in their school improvement plan, and included students with
disabilities within the general education classroom for all of the school day.
Many students with disabilities in the other three elementary schools were
educated for some or most of the school day in separate special education
classrooms. Administrators in these schools were asked how students with
disabilities were best educated. Three of the building administrators were in
favor of inclusion only if an instructional assistant or a special educator
were provided to support the general education teacher. Teachers and
instructional assistants in all four elementary schools stated that they were
applying the skills necessary for effective inclusion, which included (a)
adaptation of instruction, (b) modification of curriculum, and (c) classroom
management and student discipline.
Many teachers in the four elementary schools had additional comments
that were generally positive about students with disabilities and inclusion.
For example, these teachers indicated that they liked having instructional
assistants and valued special education teachers in their classrooms, felt
that statewide test scores were not affected by inclusive programs, did not
like pull out programs, liked inclusive programs, and felt that mainstream-
ing be used rather than inclusion for students with more serious emotional
problems. These teachers also stated that there was a need for more profes-
sional development related to inclusion, more opportunities were needed to
visit schools with successful inclusive programs, better training for
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections 19
of the teachers also noted that more personnel were needed to provide ade-
quate support in general education classrooms for students with disabilities.
Finally, many of these teachers indicated the need for additional profes-
sional development related to inclusion.
Idol (2006) noted that this investigation provided strong “support for
including students with special education challenges in general education
programs” (p. 94). However, she also provided several recommendations
from educators in these settings to support inclusive practices, including
more professional development for teachers in areas that support effective
classroom practice, visits to successful inclusive schools, use of heteroge-
neous learning groups, and more professional development of instructional
assistants. Finally, teachers across the schools made recommendations for
policy and practice, including:
• Reconsider the viability of self-contained classes for students with
disabilities;
• Consider mainstreaming rather than inclusion for some students with
emotional/behavior disorders;
• Consider redistributing all students with disabilities to their neighbor-
hood schools for more equitable distribution of students with different
types of disabilities;
• Provide open and clear communication regarding why some students are
provided more assistance in the general education classroom, including
those who are provided instructional or curricular modifications;
• Ensure that the entire school staff is well prepared related to the use of
consulting teachers, instructional assistants, and cooperative teaching;
• Make sure that special education teachers work with the principal and
other professionals to determine how to best use their professional time
working with students.
The studies by Daane et al. (2000) and Idol (2006) provide rich, descrip-
tive information that is useful for practitioners as they develop and imple-
ment effective inclusive programs in their schools and classrooms. These
investigations serve to provide practitioners with a realistic picture of what
should be expected as they work in inclusive settings, and some of the com-
plexity that is associated with these activities. More investigations are
needed that provide this type of information that is usable by teachers and
principals as they work to provide more effective inclusive schools and
classrooms for all students with disabilities. Ecological models, which
address educational phenomena, assert that students are involved in multi-
ple environments where they play different roles. In each environment, they
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections 21
are expected to show certain behaviors; sometimes this can create conflicts,
perhaps due to a discrepancy between the individual’s skills in meeting the
requirements of that environment or because the environment does not
meet the individual’s needs. As a result, comprehensive service provision
includes meeting the educational social emotional needs of students with
disabilities in home and community environments.
COLLABORATIVE TEAM-CENTERED
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCHOOL PERSONNEL
AND FAMILY MEMBERS
Families have complex needs and rarely in the categorical system of ser-
vice provision is attention paid to the overall plan of assistance. When a
vehicle for arranging this interagency collaboration and coordination of
services does not formally exist in a community, schools may be the focal
point for developing this (Cohen, Linker, & Stutts, 2006). Schools may
help by establishing a framework for such services to exist.
Van Hove et al. (2009) discuss the relationship between the extent to which
families can participate in the educational process of their child and the speci-
fic characteristics of the families’ capabilities and problems. Families can par-
ticipate more or less depending on such variables as their interests, the
severity of the child’s problems, the impact of the child’s problems on the
family members, work availability and hours, and availability of respite care
(Dyson, 2010). If services are to be provided that meet the expressed needs of
the family in a team format, the burden of training rests on all members of
the team the school, the family, and the service agencies.
Probably the best method of reporting pupil progress is through prop-
erly structured parent teacher conferences. Such meetings allow for
exchanging information about the student and clearing up misconceptions
about the student’s program. Parents may ask questions about areas that
might otherwise be unclear or misunderstood. The key to conducting mean-
ingful conferences is planning. The following are some general considera-
tions to bear in mind when setting up conferences:
Tape lessons or instructions Change the student’s seat Establish home school
assignment communication system
Simplify vocabulary of test Assign preferential seating Post rules and consequences
items, practice sheets for behavior
Provide tests in segments Post class routine Put student on daily or
weekly progress report
Provide visual or memory aids Move location of classroom Keep graphs, charts, or
such as number lines, supplies to minimize calendars of student
formulas, pictures, and distractions progress
charts
Highlight main ideas and Assign student study partner Establish contingency
supporting details in text contract
Provide study outlines and Provide one-on-one tutoring Ignore inappropriate behavior
guides
Reduce quantity of material to Use small group instruction Give verbal or nonverbal
be read signals (winks, hand
signals, etc.) to monitor
behavior
Have student keep an Provide a monitoring buddy Move closer to student to
assignment notebook monitor behavior
Provide a sample or practice Establish time expectations Establish list of reinforcers for
test for assignment completion student
Provide opportunities for extra Provide verbal cues to Offer social reinforcers for
drill indicate beginning and student
ending instructional time
Use special supplementary Provide visual, tactile, or Offer tangible reinforcers
material auditory prompts to (points, tokens, stickers)
indicate appropriate
behavior
Provide text written at Provide immediate
student’s reading level reinforcement for correct
responses
Provide self-checking materials Implement a token or point
system
Provide immediate correction Implement self-recording of
of errors behavior
Teach learning strategies
Ask student to repeat
directions
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections 29
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This chapter addressed many facets of school-related issues that impact stu-
dent performance and teacher productivity. Teachers and students are part
of a larger, complex system of education that must accept guidance from
their district, legislators, researchers, parents, and state departments of edu-
cation. Understanding the larger picture of how student behavior fits
within our present laws, expectations, and research allows teachers to con-
sider factors that extend beyond the daily work they accomplish with stu-
dents with and without disabilities. The influences of NCLB and IDEA are
felt from the state levels to the local education agencies, to the campus, to
the teacher and child. Issues that impact the equivocal educational
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections 31
REFERENCES
Dietel, R. (2006). Get smart: Nine ways to help your child succeed in school. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Dyson, L. (2010). Unanticipated effects of children with learning disabilities on their families.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 43 55.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1 22.
Fine, M. (1993). (Ap)parent involvement. Equity and Choice, 9(3), 4 8.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be
prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and Special
Education, 26, 42 50.
Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive
pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education,
40(4), 369 386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588
Gilmer, J. F. (1985). Factors related to the success and failure of teacher assistance teams in ele-
mentary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Henderson, A. (1987). The evidence continues to grow. Columbia, MD: National Committee
for Citizens in Education.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Heward, W. (2009). Exceptional children (9th ed.), Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
Horn, J. G. (1998). Stakeholders’ evaluation of rural/small schools. Rural Educator, 20(1),
5 11.
Horner, R., Crone, D., & Stiller, B. (2001). The role of school psychologists in establishing
positive behavior support: Collaborating in systems change at the schoolwide level.
Communique´, 29(6), 10 12.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive beha-
vior support. In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with
problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359 390). New York, NY:
Guilford.
IDEA. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1997/Services to parentally
placed private school students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/idea1.html
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A pro-
gram evaluation and study of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2),
77 94.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. Pub.L. No. 108 446, § 101, 118 Stat.
2647.
Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary
school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237 269.
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 535 542.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class,
and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1),
37 53.
Lee, S. (1993). Family structure effects on student outcomes. In B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman
(Eds.), Parents, their children, and school (pp. 43 75). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
The Role of Special Educators in Interdisciplinary Connections 33
Lucyshyn, J. M., Dunlap, G., & Albin, R. W. (2002). Families and positive behavior support:
Addressing problem behavior in family contexts. Baltimore, MD: P. H. Brookes.
McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on
science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117 144.
Moes, D., & Frea, W. (2000). Using an assessment of family context to inform intervention
planning for the treatment of challenging behavior in a child with autism. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(1), 40 46.
Muller, C., & Kerbow, D. (1993). Parent involvement in the home, school, and community. In
B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (pp. 13 42).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Muscott, H. S. (2002). Exceptional partnerships: Listening to the voices of families. Preventing
School Failure, 46(2), 66 69.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-
033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Government Printing
Office.
National Peer Technical Assistance Network’s Partnership for Children’s Mental Health.
(1997). Family-professional relationships: Moving forward together. Alexandria, VA:
Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub.L.107 110, 115 stat. 1425.
Obiakor, F. E. (1999). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Impact of
“accuracy” of self-concepts. Exceptional Children, 66, 39 53.
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 35(3),
477 490.
Park, J. H., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Fleming, C. (2011). Collaborating with parents to imple-
ment behavioral interventions for children with challenging behaviors. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 43(3), 22 30.
Polat, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of pre- and in-service teacher beliefs about readiness
and self-competency: Revisiting teacher education for ELLs. System, 38, 228 244.
Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward inclusion of students
with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135 145.
Pryzwansky., W., & Rzepski, B. (1983). School-based teams: An untapped resource for consul-
tation and technical assistance. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 174 179.
Samuels, C. A. (2011). CA district uses RTI to boost achievement for all. Education Digest:
Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(1), 53 56.
Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal lea-
dership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7),
1345 1368.
Simpson, R., Peterson, R., & Smith, C. (2011). Critical educational program components for
students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Science, policy, and practice.
Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 230 242.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline:
Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban
Review, 34(4), 317 342.
Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary
intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295 315.
34 TACHELLE BANKS