University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

If it takes two to tango then teach both to dance: examining the influence of interpersonal and contextual features on a co-teaching partnership

(USC Thesis Other)

If it takes two to tango then teach both to dance: examining the influence of interpersonal and contextual features on a co-teaching partnership

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO 1

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO THEN TEACH BOTH TO DANCE: EXAMINING THE
INFLUENCE OF INTERPERSONAL AND CONTEXTUAL FEATURES ON A CO-
TEACHING PARTNERSHIP
By

Juliet Chinyere Anyanwu

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Juliet Chinyere Anyanwu

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

2
Acknowledgements
This dissertation process was a challenging journey that influenced the way in which I
now view instructional practice, public education, policy, research, and data analysis. I was lucky
enough to have amazing people in my life that supported me throughout this journey. I would
like to thank them.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie Slayton: Words can’t explain how truly blessed I am
to have had you as a mentor throughout this process. I appreciate your patience, guidance,
expertise, and genuineness, which has been invaluable throughout this journey. I appreciate your
candidness and support throughout the changes in my professional life. You are an inspiration
and I could not have completed this journey without you.
To Dr. Marleen Pugach: Your support throughout this doctoral experience has been
priceless. I appreciate your feedback and support in elevating the work I was able to produce at
the end of this journey.
To Dr. Pat Gallagher: You have been a valuable resource at many instances of this
doctoral program. I truly appreciate the mentorship experience and found it very valuable. You
helped me appreciate on-line learning and aspire to educate teachers using an on-line platform.
To Glen: Your unconditional love, support, and patience are what truly got me through
this experience. Although this process was stressful for the both of us, we have wonderful
memories together that I will cherish forever. Thank you for believing in me and pushing me
when I needed to be pushed.
To my family and friends: I have been distant for the past three years and you have
continued to be supportive. Thank you for not passing judgment or making me feel terrible about
accomplishing my goals.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

3
To my CNCA family: Thank you for being a sounding board as I went through this
dissertation process. I started and ended this process with you all and I could not have finished
without your support.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
Figures 6
Abstract 7
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 9
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 13
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations 14
Delimitations 14
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Co-teaching 16
Models of Co-teaching 17
Structural Features 20
Theory of the Structural Features Necessary for Successful Co-teaching Relationship 20
Empirical Literature Related to Successful Co-teaching Relationship 23
Conclusion 28
Interpersonal Features 29
Teacher Ideology 29
Teacher Attitudes and Perspectives 35
Co-teaching Relationship 46
Conclusion 49
Leadership 50
Attributes of an Effective Leader 50
Cultural Change Principal 53
Principals’ Knowledge Base and Formal Training 56
Principals’ Attitudes Towards and Perceptions of Inclusion 59
Conclusion 63
Conceptual Framework 64
Interpersonal Features 66
Contextual Features 67
Conclusion 69
CHAPTER 3: METHODS 70
Research Design 70
Sample and Population 72
Site Selection 72
Participant Selection 74
Instrumentation and Data Collection 76
Data Analysis Procedures 80
Validity and Reliability 81
Internal Validity 81
Reliability 83
Generalizability 83
Conclusion 84
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

5
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 85
Background: Glenford Academy and the Classroom 86
Ms. Jackson: Special Education Teacher 87
Ms. Brown: General Education Teacher 88
Ms. Staine: Principal 89
A Return to the Conceptual Framework-Successful Co-teaching Partnership 89
Research Question 1: How do Interpersonal Features Shape how Co-teaching is
Enacted? 91
Teacher Ideology 92
Role Enactment 111
Compatibility 117
A Return to the Conceptual Framework–Inclusive Special Education Leader and School
Climate with Structural Features 120
Inclusive Special Education Leader 120
School Climate with Structural Features 121
Research Question 2: How do Contextual Features Shape how Co-teaching is
Enacted? 122
Ideology 123
Volunteering and Compatibility 126
Common Planning 130
Conclusion 133
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH 135
Summary Findings RQ #1 135
Summary Findings RQ #2 138
Implications and Recommendations 139
Practice 140
Policy 143
Research 145
References 147
Appendix A: Special Education Teacher Interview Protocol 152
Appendix B: General Education Teacher Interview Protocol 155
Appendix C: Principal Interview Protocol 158
Appendix D: Paraprofessional Professional Interview Protocol 160
Appendix E: Special Education Coordinator Interview Protocol 162
Appendix F: Classroom/Lesson Planning Observation Protocol 164
Appendix G: Classroom Observation Protocol 165

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

6

Figures
Figure 1: Visual of six co-teaching models 19
Figure 2: Presentation of Conceptual Framework 65

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

7
Abstract
There are certain elements that must be in place for a co-teaching partnership to be
successful. All of these elements must be in place to a sufficient degree for the partnership to
lead to powerful learning opportunities for both special and general education students. These
elements can be organized into two interacting categories: 1) the interpersonal features that each
member of the co-teaching partnership bring to and enact in the relationship and 2) the
contextual features that are created by the school leadership that support or impede the partners’
ability to be successful. With respect to the interpersonal features, both teachers have an asset-
oriented ideology and believe that students with disabilities can learn in an inclusive setting, both
teachers have an asset-oriented ideology about their paraprofessionals, both teachers enact the
role of instructional leaders, and both teachers instruct coactively utilizing station teaching,
parallel teaching, or team teaching models. With respect to the leadership that must exist for the
partnership to be successful, the administrator should have an inclusive paradigm, a knowledge
base around special education and inclusion, values compatibility when selecting co-teaching
partnership, and provides common time for planning and relationship building. This study
examined 1) the ways in which interpersonal features and leadership enacted by the principal
shaped the way co-teaching was enacted by one general education and one special education
teacher in a first grade classroom. Data collection from this study included eight interviews with
both teachers; three interviews with the principal; one interview with two paraprofessionals; one
interview with the paraprofessional coordinator; eight semi-structured classroom observations;
four semi-structured observations of their grade level common planning time; and a review of
lesson plans, information from school’s website, recourses from the main office, teacher’s daily
schedule, worksheets, professional development handouts, and a classroom map. Analysis of the
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

8
data revealed that interpersonal features expressed by each of the teachers lead to a partnership
that could be characterized as efficient but not one that could be characterized as “successful”
given that their interactions lead to actions that impeded student learning in their classroom. Both
teachers had a mostly deficit ideology about their students with disabilities and some of the
paraprofessionals that supported them. Their deficit ideology allowed them to be efficient but
decreased the rigor of the lessons they created. Both teachers were well-intentioned in creating
learning opportunities that had adequate supports for their students with disabilities. The data
also revealed that their partnership was negatively shaped by the choices made by the principal.
The principal’s approach to supporting co-teaching partnerships in her school caused these two
teachers to have an efficient co-teaching partnership rather than a successful co-teaching
partnership.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

9
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Education has become a high stakes environment in which students with disabilities
struggle to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicators specified by federal mandates
(Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires that all
students, including students with disabilities, access the general education curriculum; be taught
by highly qualified teachers; and be included in accountability measures for achievement
outcomes (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). A key piece of legislation
coinciding with NCLB is the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), which
mandates that students with disabilities access the general education curriculum and programs in
the least restrictive environment with age appropriate peers (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012). In
some instances, this results in an inclusive classroom setting, where a general education and
special education teacher co-teach together to meet the needs of all students by providing
appropriate accommodations and modifications. It is important to note that inclusion and co-
teaching are not the same. Co-teaching is one way to create an inclusive classroom setting.
Within this inclusive setting, the influence that both teachers have on students’ academic
progress is significant. The success of a partnership between co-teachers can have implications
for student achievement (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012).
The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which interpersonal features and
contextual features created by the principal’s leadership shaped the relationship between a
general education and a special education teacher who co-taught together in an inclusive setting.
In this chapter, I set the context of this study by discussing the background of the problem that
more students are being taught in inclusive settings and in spite of the good intentions of the law,
students with disabilities frequently do not have their needs met. These students are not
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

10
experiencing the improved outcomes that proponents of IDEA, NCLB, full inclusion, and
disability advocates had intended. I then present the statement of the problem, purpose of the
study, significance of the study, limitations, delimitations, and definitions.
Background of the Problem
In the early 1990s, the primary educational option for students with disabilities was a
special day classroom setting. In the early 1950s and 1960s, concerned parents of students with
disabilities pressured legislatures and courts and proposed changes in the educational services
available to their children. They sought access to public schools as an issue of civil rights for
students with disabilities. As a result, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
(PL 94-142) mandated that all children, regardless of disability, had the right to a free
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (Gerber & Popp, 2000). One common
placement that emerged to comply with this legislation was the general education classroom
where students with disabilities were mainstreamed with their typical peers (Gerber & Popp,
2000).
While federal regulations to mainstream students with disabilities in general education
and increase their proficiency rates has led to increased inclusion in mainstream classrooms, the
achievement gap between general and special education students still persists (Brinkmann &
Twiford, 2012). One means to address this gap was implementing Response to Intervention
(RTI), which is a multi-tier approach that supports of students with learning needs (Sileo, 2001).
The National Center for Education Statistics (2012) collected data across 50 states, the District of
Colombia, and the Bureau of Indian Education Schools and analyzed the percentage distribution
of students with disabilities ages 6-21 and the amount of time spent in general education. This
study found that over the past 20 years the percentage of students who spend the vast majority of
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

11
their time in mainstream classrooms has increased dramatically (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2012). In 1990-1991, only 33.1% of students with disabilities spent more than 80% of
their time in general education classrooms (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). By
2009-2010, this percentage had risen to 58.5% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).
Yet performance for students with disabilities continues to lag (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2012). With such a high percentage of students with learning disabilities entering the
general education setting and spending more time there, co-teachers need to have the knowledge
and skills to support the various learning needs in their classrooms.
In addition to the high percentage of students with disabilities entering the general
education setting who continue to lag, there is an over-representation of students from
historically marginalized populations within the population of students with disabilities
(Guarino, Buddin, Pham, & Cho, 2009). The prevalence of disabilities in school-age children
varies widely by gender, race, and disability type. While the prevalence of disability varies
widely, there is an over-representation of certain populations designated for special education
(Guarino et al., 2009). Guarino et al., (2009) state that, “Approximately two thirds of all special
needs students are male…. African American children are overrepresented in the special needs
population, sometimes as much as 50%” (p. 162). Minority students are significantly more likely
to be identified with learning disabilities than their White and Asian peers. Additionally, the
disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic minority groups and linguistic minority groups
(i.e., those speaking native languages other than their mainstream White peers) in special
education is a long-standing issue (Sullivan, 2011). This on-going disproportionality strongly
indicates systemic problems of inequity, prejudice, and marginalization within the education
system (Sullivan, 2011).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

12
The systemic problems within the education system are perpetuated by the ideologies of
teachers who work with students with disabilities in inclusive settings. A multitude of attitudinal
studies (c.f., Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000; Cook 2001; Cook, 2004; Solis,
Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012) have examined teachers’ attitudes towards students with
disabilities, inclusion, and co-teaching. The results from these studies revealed that some
teachers had positive perspectives towards students with disabilities, inclusion, and co-teaching
while others had negative perspectives. Although both perspectives have implications for student
achievement, the latter perspective leads to teachers having a deficit ideology about instructing
students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Cook et al., 2000; Cook 2001). As such, there are
deficit-minded teachers instructing student with disabilities in inclusive settings, which has
implications for the quality of instruction that students receive in these educational settings.
These deficit views do not allow teachers to recognize, value, and build upon students’
previously acquired knowledge and skills (Bartolomé, 1994), thus making learning challenging
for students. A deficit mind-set can also harm the relationship between the general education
teacher and the special education teacher, thus making it difficult for them to meet the needs of
all students in their classroom (Solis et al., 2012).
Statement of the Problem
Despite federal legislation that mandated students with disabilities to have access to the
general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment, the achievement gap between
general and special education students still persists. The least restrictive setting oftentimes is an
inclusive classroom where co-teachers accommodate or modify instruction to meet the diverse
needs of their students. In order to instruct collaboratively in this inclusive classroom setting, co-
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

13
teachers need to have a productive relationship. There is little evidence that illustrates what this
relationship looks like and what essential components allow the relationship to progress.
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to examine the ways in which interpersonal features expressed
by each co-teacher in a partnership and the contextual features fostered by the school leadership
shaped a co-teaching partnership. The research questions I addressed in this dissertation is:
1. How do interpersonal features shape how co-teaching is enacted?
2. How do contextual features influence how co-teaching is enacted?
Significance of the Study
This study is important because we have very little research that describes the inner
workings of a co-teaching partnership. The findings contribute to the wider educational research
about co-teaching, more specifically the relationship between co-teachers, teacher and
administrator ideology, and the role of leadership in shaping co-teaching partnerships. Because
there is little research that examines the ways in which the structural features of a school, teacher
and principal ideology, and interpersonal features of each co-teacher shape how co-teaching is
enacted in the classroom, this dissertation highlights the need for researchers to go into
classrooms and watch the social contexts in which these relationships between co-teachers occur.
This dissertation also extends the current literature by connecting three bodies of literature: co-
teaching, teacher ideology, and administrator ideology. These bodies are interrelated but are
rarely connected through qualitative means. Also, these bodies of literature cannot stand alone,
for each one shapes and is shaped by the others. My purpose in this dissertation was to see how
they are connected and the extent to which they influence one another.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

14
Limitations
The following limitations may affect the results of the study and/or how the study is
interpreted:
1. Generalizability–this study is only generalizable to the teacher, administrator, and
classroom that participated in this study. Having said that, qualitative studies are not
meant to generalize to a population that is beyond the sample who participated in the
study.
2. Truthfulness–data collected through the interviews and teacher created documents relied
on the truthfulness of the teachers interviewed, which cannot be controlled. This potential
limitation was addressed through my approach to ensuring credibility and trustworthiness
of the findings. I address this point in detail in chapter 3.
Delimitations
This study focused specifically on the quality of a relationship between co-teachers
because there is a lack of research on what good co-teaching looks like. This study did not focus
on the effect of inclusion on student achievement. Thus, I did not review literature related to
student outcomes in inclusive settings. I narrowed my focus to research related to the structural
features of a school, the interpersonal features between co-teachers, and the leadership and
climate at a school to determine the influence these factors had on a co-teaching relationship.
This study solely focused on the relationship of a general education teacher and a special
education teacher who co-taught together in an inclusive setting. I decided not to study the
relationship between the general education teacher and a paraprofessional who supported
students in an inclusive setting because the paraprofessional was not a credentialed teacher and
might lack the knowledge and skill sets that a special education teacher brought to the
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

15
relationship. Within my conceptual framework, although there were robust components, it did
not include pedagogy. For my methods section, I used specific instruments and narrowed the
focus of my protocols, the observations, and interviews by asking specific questions, which had
implications for insights gained through data collection. For example, as a novice researcher I
might not have asked questions that I would have asked if I had more experience designing
interview protocols and conducting interviews. In addition, I might have gained additional
insights while collecting observation data had I had more experience collecting observation data.
I also limited my time in the field to a specific number of days and may have missed
opportunities to collect data that would have deepened my understanding of the relationship
between the two teachers and the influence of the contextual features on their relationship. I
address my approach to dealing with these delimitations in chapter 3 as I discuss the approach I
took to ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of my findings.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Co-teaching is analogous to a professional marriage (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie,
2007). In some cases, both partners choose to have a professional marriage with each other and
in other cases both partners are forced into the marriage. In a perfect world, the beginning stage
would be similar to the ideal honeymoon stage of a marriage where both partners (i.e., general
and special education teacher) are blissful and happy. As time goes by, however, the evolving
relationship needs to be nurtured to create a stronger union.
This study sought to understand what shaped and influenced the relationship between a
general education teacher and special education teacher who co-taught in an inclusive classroom
setting. Thus, the following literature review presents relevant information that informed my
approach to answering the following research questions: How do interpersonal features shape
how co-teaching is enacted? How do contextual features influence how co-teaching is enacted?
First, I define co-teaching and describe the different models. Second, I present literature
regarding the structural features of a co-teaching relationship. Then, I draw on literature related
to teacher ideology about student with disabilities, inclusion, and co-teaching. I also draw on
literature related to volunteering, compatibility, role enactment and their influence on a co-
teaching relationship. Lastly, I will present literature related to educational leadership and its
influence on a co-teaching relationship. I conclude this chapter with my conceptual framework
that guided my data collection, instrument development, and analysis.
Co-teaching
The literature on co-teaching is diverse and complex. Co-teaching is sometimes given
other labels that actually are about related-but-distinct concepts and practices (Friend, 2008). For
this review, co-teaching is defined as:
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

17
An educational approach in which general and special educators work in a coactive and
coordinated fashion to jointly teach academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups
of students in educationally integrated settings (i.e., general classrooms)…. Both general
and special educators are simultaneously present in the classroom, maintaining joint
responsibility for specified instruction that is to occur within that setting. (Gerber &
Popp, 2000, pp. 229-230)
A number of co-teaching models have been identified; each model has advantages and
pitfalls and no single approach is considered the best or worst (Friend et al., 2010). These models
should not be thought of as existing in isolation. There are six co-teaching models that have been
identified by educational researchers. Some of these models require a higher level of
collaboration between the general education and special education teacher and therefore will
have implications for their partnership. Knowing what each model looks like provides some
insight about what roles both teachers play in the classroom, their ideology about co-teaching,
and the level of collaboration within their partnership. The descriptions of these models were
useful because they helped me answer my research question about the influence of interpersonal
features on a co-teaching relationship.
Models of Co-teaching
One Teach, One Observe. In the one teach, one observe mode, one teacher leads whole
group instruction while the other teacher observes the students and gathers information on their
academic, social, and behavioral skills (Friend et al., 2010). This structure not only allows co-
teachers to gather information about their students, it also allows them to collect information on
each other (Friend et al., 2010). The use of this structure can result in one teacher, most often the
general education teacher, taking the lead role the majority of the time (Friend, 2008).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

18
Station Teaching. In the station teaching model co-teachers divides their class into three
equal groups (i.e., two teacher led groups and one independent group) and the students rotate
through each of the instructional stations (Friend et al., 2010). The stations are non-sequential
and do not build on one another. This structure allows for increased teacher and student
interactions because there are two stations that each has a teacher to support students as they
work as opposed to one teacher at only one station (Friend et al., 2010). The use of this model
requires co-teachers to be aware of pacing and noise level, as both have the potential to become
an issue for both teachers (Friend, 2008). For example, this model required that all stations end at
the same time so students can rotate to another station. Additionally, the interactions occurring in
each group can significantly increase the noise level, which can disrupt instruction.
Parallel Teaching. In this model, co-teachers divide their class into two equal groups
and each teacher simultaneously teaches the same material to his or her small group (Friend et
al., 2010). This structure allows for increased teacher interaction and student participation as well
as differentiation of instruction (Friend et al., 2010). In order to utilize this model successfully
both teachers need to be proficient in the content being taught (Friend, 2008).
Alternative Teaching. In the alternative teaching model one teacher teaches the whole
group and the other teacher teaches a small group of students (Friend et al., 2010). The groupings
are made based on students’ needs (Friend et al., 2010). This structure allows either teacher the
opportunity to teach (e.g., remediation, pre-teaching, and enrichment) for a small amount of time
(Friend et al., 2010). Co-teachers are careful that the same students are not always pulled aside
because this can lead to issues such as isolation and stigmatization (Friend, 2008).
Team Teaching. The team teaching model causes both co-teachers to lead large group
instruction simultaneously (Friend et al., 2010). This structure allows team teachers to interact
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

19
with their students (Friend et al., 2010). It also provides co-teachers with an opportunity to ask
clarification questions of one another (Friend et al., 2010). This model requires the most mutual
trust and respect between co-teachers and requires that they be able to mesh their teaching styles
(Friend, 2008).
One Teach, One Assist. Co-teachers who use the one teach, one assist model have one
teacher lead whole group instruction and the other teacher assist individual students (Friend et
al., 2010). This structure allows the supporting teacher to provide brief periods of individualized
instruction to struggling students (Friend et al., 2010). (Friend, 2008) suggests that co-teachers
should use this model sparingly as it minimizes the role of one teacher and can lead to some
students’ dependence on the rotating teacher.
See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the co-teaching models described above.

Figure 1. Visual of six co-teaching models: One teach, one observe, Station teaching, Parallel
teaching, Alternative teaching, Teaming, and One teach, one assist. Adapted from “Co-teaching:
An Illustration of the Complexity of Collaboration in Special Education” by M. Friend, L. Cook,
D. Hurley-Chamberlain, and C. Shamberger, 2010, Journal of Education and Psychological
Consultation, 20, p. 12. Copyright 2010 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

20

The six models of co-teaching allude to implications about the relationship between the
general education and special education teacher. Before discussing the relationship between co-
teachers it is important to understand the structural features that are essential to the foundation of
a co-teaching partnership. The following section of this review will explore what structural
features co-teachers believe influences their relationship.
Structural Features
The structural features that are essential to the success of a co-teaching relationship range
from common planning time to discussions that needs to occur between co-teachers before they
start teaching together. This literature review revealed that the majority of the work in this area is
empirical with a few theoretical articles that aligned to this topic. The following paragraphs are
organized with the theoretical articles presented first, followed by the empirical studies.
Theory on the Structural Features Necessary for Successful Co-Teaching Relationships
Sileo (2001) presented key components she argued were essential for successful
relationships between co-teachers. In this theoretical piece, she proposed a step-by-step process
that co-teachers needed to experience in order to have successful partnerships. The first step took
place even before a co-teaching relationship began. Sileo (2001) suggested that teachers first
know the meaning of co-teaching, as well as the logistics involved with the co-teaching process.
Once teachers understood the definition of co-teaching they could undertake the second step,
talking about the practicalities of their relationship. In this second step, teachers discussed their
philosophy about education and how they felt about co-teaching together (Sileo, 2001). The third
step was determining how co-teachers ensured parity, that all classroom responsibilities were
shared equally including instructional planning and delivery, discipline, grading, and
collaborating with parents (Sileo, 2001). The fourth step was discussing instructional noise from
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

21
the interactions between teachers and students because individual preferences might vary and
could lead to issues in the relationship if one teacher preferred teaching in a quiet setting instead
of a noisy setting (Sileo, 2001). This discussion could also have implications for the models that
co-teachers decided to utilize (e.g., One Teach-One Observe, Parallel Teaching, Station
Teaching, Alternative Teaching, One Teach-One Assist, and Team Teaching).
Sileo (2001) suggested that the next step in the process should be that co-teachers address
issues related to curriculum planning and instruction, which was more in-depth than step three
where they decided who was in charge of different tasks. For example, co-teachers needed to talk
about who did the following things on a daily or weekly basis: plan and teach the lesson, prepare
and organize instructional materials, choose co-teaching structures that complement the lessons
and students’ abilities, identify assessment processes that determine students’ acquisition of
knowledge and ability to demonstrate skills and competencies, and grade assignments (Sileo,
2001). Thus, when teachers focused on the technical aspects of planning, a mutually satisfying
co-teaching relationship could emerge, which could be beneficial for teachers and students. Co-
teachers in this type of co-teaching relationship recognized the significance of identifying their
roles, responsibilities, and sequences (Sileo, 2001). These teachers also recognized the
importance of having structured planning time, instead of impromptu lesson planning 5 minutes
before class (Sileo, 2001).
Additionally, Sileo (2001) discussed what co-teachers should do when issues arose. She
argued that co-teachers must discuss issues in a well-thought-out orderly process. Co-teachers
could find various problem-solving models that could be modified to meet specific needs. Sileo
(2001) suggested Sinclair's (1998) classic model, which was a seven-step process that included
(a) identifying issues; (b) developing alternative courses of action; (c) analyzing risks and
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

22
benefits of each course of action; (d) choosing a course of action; (e) taking action; (f) evaluating
results of the action; and (g) assuming responsibility for the consequences, correcting potentially
negative consequences, or re-engaging in the decision-making process. This process allowed co-
teachers to be reflective problem solvers who analyzed issues that arose in their relationship
(Sileo, 2001)
In addition to being reflective problem solvers, co-teachers should also have utilized their
common planning time effectively. Howard and Potts (2009) asserted that there were ways to use
common planning time to support the necessary foundation for co-teaching success. In this
theoretical piece, the authors suggested that during common planning time, co-teachers needed to
collaboratively plan for their lessons (Howard & Potts, 2009). Specifically, co-teachers needed to
explicitly plan out and address the following lesson components: standards, assessment,
accommodations/modifications, instructional strategies, and logistics (Howard & Potts, 2009).
Standards referred to state and national content standards. Co-teachers also needed to discuss
how the standards could be broken into smaller steps to ensure mastery for all students in the
class (Howard & Potts, 2009). After standards had been broken down, co-teachers needed to
discuss how they would assess whether students had learned what was being taught (Howard &
Potts, 2009). Co-teachers also needed to consider both formative and summative assessments and
extend their common definition of assessment beyond tests and quizzes to include projects,
presentations, and verbal questioning (Howard & Potts, 2009). Additionally, both teachers would
need to discuss grading standards and whether or not rubrics would be used to assess student
work. Next, co-teachers addressed how accommodations and modifications noted in a student’s
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) could be incorporated within the existing classroom
structure as well as how IEP goals could be incorporated into their instruction (Howard & Potts,
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

23
2009). After co-teachers had addressed standards, assessments, and
accommodations/modifications, it was important to discuss what strategies would be used to
deliver instruction. Also, co-teachers needed to reflect on the status of their relationship and
evaluated how specific strategies were working (Howard & Potts, 2009). This reflection
provided co-teachers with an opportunity to make necessary changes to improve the
effectiveness of their relationship and their instruction (Howard & Potts, 2009).
Empirical Literature Related to Successful Co-Teaching Relationships
In a study on the components of a co-teaching relationship, Bacharach, Heck, and
Dahlberg (2008) investigated the essential elements of a successful co-teaching partnership in the
context of student teaching. Six university faculty members from a mid-sized state university in
the Mid-west brainstormed a list of elements necessary for successful co-teaching. These
elements were utilized to create the What Makes Co-teaching Work (WMCW) instrument, a 6-
point likert scale survey comprised of 32 fundamental elements of a successful co-teaching
partnership and eight value statements about co-teaching and perceived challenges (Bacharach,
Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008). This instrument was sent to 30 cooperating teachers who were
identified by university supervisors as successful co-teachers. Participants were asked to
complete the survey and were invited to a half-day workshop to discuss the instrument and
findings. Sixteen cooperating teachers (53%) completed the survey, and 15 (50%) attended the
workshop. During the workshop, teachers identified essential elements of co-teaching that they
felt were missing from the WMCW survey and which elements could be modified or excluded.
Their feedback was utilized to make minor revisions on the survey. Subsequently, 60 teacher
candidates who participated in co-teaching in the university’s teacher preparation program were
invited to be a part of a focus group and were asked to brainstorm elements they believed were
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

24
essential to successful co-teaching (Bacharach et al., 2008). Teacher candidates were also asked
to complete the WMCW survey and upon completion of this survey, they engaged in a
discussion regarding its contents. The study did not specify whether teacher candidates
completed the original or revised WMCW survey.
Data from the WMCW survey and the focus group were analyzed for the 13 cooperating
teachers and 59 teacher candidates (Bacharach et al., 2008). The researchers did not explain why
they only reported data for these participants and not the original number they started with. This
study found that the five most critical elements in the eyes of the cooperating teachers were:
sharing leadership in the classroom, planning together for co-taught instruction, respecting and
trusting each other, communicating honestly with each other even when it was difficult, and the
teacher candidate assuming leadership in planning and teaching lessons (Bacharach et al., 2008).
Cooperating teachers were more likely to rate the following items as more important to the
success of co-teaching: support and training by the university, handling interruptions without
stopping the class, and strategic planning (Bacharach et al., 2008). On the other hand, the teacher
candidates agreed that three of the five elements listed above by the cooperating teachers were in
their top five: respect and trust, communicating honestly, and sharing leadership (Bacharach et
al., 2008). Additionally, teacher candidates were more likely to identify the following items as
important components of a successful co-teaching partnership: students view teacher candidate
as a real teacher, working well with co-teacher (Bacharach et al., 2008).
Brinkmann and Twiford (2012) sought to identify the skill sets perceived necessary by
elementary general and special education teachers to be successful in a co-teaching classroom.
The sample population for this study included three suburban school divisions in Central
Virginia. These divisions were selected because they were the largest suburban school divisions
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

25
surrounding the Richmond metropolitan with a diverse student population. The researchers did
not provide a description of a school division. The selection criteria for participation were as
follows: general or special education teacher, 0-5 years of experience, pre-service experience still
fresh in their mind, current or previous experience in a collaborative or co-taught classroom,
teaching degree awarded by the Virginia institution of higher education (Brinkmann & Twiford,
2012). Three focus groups were formed per school division and participants were randomly
selected for a focus group, each group consisted of five to eight teachers. The first focus group
had six general education and one special education teacher. The second focus group had two
general education and two special education teachers, and one teacher under the “other”
category. The third focus group had five general education and two special education teachers.
Analysis of the data from the focus group interviews showed that general education teachers
perceived the following skills as most important: communication, data collection/diagnostic
testing, interpersonal skills, differentiation, self-advocacy, writing effective lesson plans,
organization in providing accommodations, and classroom management strategies and skills
(Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012). This study also found that special education teachers perceived
the following skills as most important: communication, advocacy, differentiation, behavior
management, effective IEP writing skills, data collection, analysis, application skills, lesson
planning, problem-solving, and discipline and classroom management skills (Brinkmann &
Twiford, 2012). Skills such as classroom management, collaborative lesson planning,
communication, data collection, interpersonal skills, differentiation of instruction, and self-
advocacy were reported by both general and special education teachers as areas of importance
that fosters successful collaboration and co-teaching experiences (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

26
Gerber and Popp (2003) sought to identify the features of an effective collaborative
classrooms. They sampled 103 special education and general education teachers from four
elementary, four middle, and two senior high schools from seven school districts that comprise
the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC). These sampled district schools
were a mix of urban, suburban, and rural schools that implemented collaborative programs for at
least two years and participants had experience teaching in a collaborative classroom setting.
Participants were part of a focus group where interviews were conducted to gain insight on the
necessary elements of an effective collaborative classroom. Data from the focus group interviews
with teachers were analyzed in three phases: (1) data reduction, (2) data reduction and verifying
conclusions, (3) conclusions were linked to emergence of patterns and themes that were linked to
collaborative teaching. A force-field group technique, which was not described in the study, was
utilized by the researchers to generate recommendations. Two areas in which they offered
recommendations were: delivery of services and administrative issues (Gerber & Popp, 2003).
Delivery of services contained two pertinent structural features, defining collaboration and
establishing limits. With defining collaboration, a collaborative team should spend a minimum
amount of time and effort collaborating in the classroom to qualify as true collaboration (Gerber
& Popp, 2003). The criteria for a true collaboration were set by schools and/or collaborative
teams on an a priori basis (Gerber & Popp, 2003). With establishing limits, the school should
limit the number of students with disabilities in the classroom based on academic ability, severity
of disability, and supports required (Gerber & Popp, 2003). The other area in which they offered
recommendations was administrative issues. This area had two pertinent features: strategic
scheduling and planning time (Gerber & Popp, 2003). With strategic planning, placement of
students with IEPs in collaboratively taught classrooms were done after a thorough identification
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

27
of individual student profiles and needs (Gerber & Popp, 2003). Special educators and other
support staff were scheduled to be in these specific classrooms on a regular basis (Gerber &
Popp, 2003). With planning time, it was important that administrators relieved co-teachers from
school duties (i.e., bus, lunchroom) in order to ensure sufficient planning time (Gerber & Popp,
2003). In addition to regular planning, time was allocated for preplanning, team-building,
problem solving sessions, and long-range goal setting (Gerber & Popp, 2003).
In a similar study about components that were essential to an effective co-teaching
partnership, Hang and Rabren (2009) used surveys to identify teachers’ perspectives on what
they believed to be important. This study included seven schools from a southeastern public
school system: four elementary schools, one middle school, one junior high school, and one high
school. Participants included 31 general and 14 special education teachers who were
implementing their first year of co-teaching together. Within this sample of participants, special
education teachers co-taught with more than one general education teacher. Participants also
included 58 students with disabilities in co-taught classrooms. Results from the survey showed
that most teachers valued common weekly planning schedule during school hours (Hang &
Rabren, 2009). Teachers also believed that comprehensive planning, which included content,
evaluations, and other classroom issues (e.g., behavior management), were important for an
effective co-teaching partnership (Hang & Rabren, 2009). Additionally, the development of a
routine for their common planning provided teachers with the opportunity to share teaching
expectations, methods, and instructional strategies, which were essential parts of an effective co-
teaching partnership (Hang & Rabren, 2009).
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) investigated the practice and processes of co-
teaching by synthesizing 32 qualitative research reports on co-teaching in inclusive classrooms.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

28
Reports included in this investigation were reported in journals, dissertations, and master’s
research reports. The authors identified a number of important needs that would assist in
fostering an effective co-teaching relationship. Their investigation concluded that there was a
need for administrative support, specifically support from the principal in providing common
planning time between co-teachers on an ongoing basis and training both individuals in the area
of co-teaching. Common planning time between co-teachers needed to be longer than 40 minutes
a week (Scruggs et al., 2007). Additionally, co-teachers expressed a need for training on flexible
thinking, practical skill development, different teaching models, characteristics of disabilities,
collaborative consultation skills, group interpersonal skills, and communicating more effectively.
Conclusion
There is a wide range of essential components and skills that are necessary for a
successful co-teaching relationship to develop (Sileo, 2001; Howard & Potts, 2009; Bacharach,
Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008; Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012; Gerber & Popp, 2003; Hang & Rabren,
2009; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Based on the review of the literature some of
these components and skills are common planning time, discussion of teaching philosophy,
sharing teaching responsibilities, problem solving skills, open communication, classroom
management skills, the role of leadership, just to name a few. Thus, it can be concluded that the
structural components of a co-teaching relationship plays an essential role to its success. The
following section will discuss other essential components that play an important role in the
success of a co-teaching relationship: teacher ideology, opportunity gaps, teacher attitudes and
perspectives, volunteering and compatibility, and role enactment.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

29
Interpersonal Features
Interpersonal features make up another component that is essential to the success of a co-
teaching relationship. The personal attributes that each individual brings to the relationship
influence the effectiveness of the partnership. The following section first examines teacher
ideology, which significantly influences the partnership between co-teachers because it directly
relates to their philosophy about students with disabilities and inclusion. By extension, I explore
the ways in which teachers’ ideologies about their students can be identified and directly
addressed by educators so that they are able to understand the gaps that exist across school
contexts and reduce them. Then, I examine teacher attitudes and perspectives about the
following: students with disabilities, co-teaching, and inclusion. Lastly, I discuss compatibility
and volunteering as factors that influence a co-teaching relationship and the roles co-teachers
enact in the classroom. Exploring these areas allowed me to gain insights that contributed to my
ability to answer the following research question: How do interpersonal features shape how co-
teaching is enacted?
Teacher Ideology
The ideologies that co-teachers bring into their partnership influence their relationship.
Teachers function under different ideologies throughout their tenure in the classroom; some are
conscious while others are unconscious. When two teachers come together to co-teach in a
classroom, it is important to understand how their ideologies can shape how co-teaching is
enacted in the classroom. The following paragraphs explore teacher ideology about marginalized
and subordinated groups. This population is described as African American, Latino, and other
immigrant and minority students (Bartolomé, 2009). These students are often overrepresented in
the special needs population (Guarino et al., 2009). Thus the ideas asserted here can and are
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

30
relevant for examining what happens to students with disabilities whether or not they are from an
additional historically marginalized group. It is important to understand how teachers’ ideologies
about both immigrant and minority students and students with disabilities can play themselves
out in the context of a co-teaching relationship. I also discuss how ideologies can influence co-
teachers’ pedagogical choices. Their choices influence the roles they enact, which has
implications for their relationship as well as the classroom environment they are creating for
students with a wide range of needs. Descriptions of pedagogical practices that co-teachers could
take up in their classroom to support subordinated groups are presented below. Lastly, I will also
explore opportunity gaps and how teachers’ mind-sets about their students shape their students’
learning opportunities. I argue that co-teachers’ beliefs about their students will play themselves
out in the way that they plan and provide instruction in their classroom.
Bartolomé defined ideology as “the framework of thought constructed and held by
members of society to justify or rationalize an existing social order” (Bartolomé, 2008, p. xiii).
She suggested that the dominant ideologies that existed in our society were oftentimes
unconscious and prevented educators from accurately identifying and analyzing current
challenges in educating subordinated and marginalized populations (Bartolomé, 2008).
Bartolomé (2008) asserted that these invisible ideologies that informed our perceptions and
treatment of subordinated students needed to be studied critically so educators had a better
understanding of the challenges in our educational system (Bartolomé, 2008). According to her,
it was important to identify these unconsciously accepted ideologies and make teachers aware of
them so that they could resist accepting ideologies that could potentially become discriminatory
pedagogical practices (Bartolomé, 2008).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

31
Researchers suggested that a teacher’s ideological orientation is often reflected in his or
her beliefs and attitudes and in the way he or she instructs his or her students (Bartolomé, 1994;
Bartolomé, 2004; Milner, 2010). Bartolomé (1994) argued that development, selection, and use
of certain teaching methods and strategies come from teacher ideology about learning and
learners. Teachers who worked with students from subordinated groups provided these students
with the appropriate knowledge base that prepared them for the greater society (Bartolomé,
1994). This process involved teachers adding new concepts and skills to students’ existing
background knowledge (Bartolomé, 1994). In order to go through this process, teachers
discarded their deficit views so that they could learn to recognize, value, and build upon
students’ previously acquired knowledge and skills (Bartolomé, 1994). By employing a variety
of teaching methods (e.g., culturally responsive education and strategic teaching), teachers
interacted with their students in meaningful ways (Bartolomé, 1994). Bartolomé (1994) defined
cultural responsive instruction as “instructional situations where teachers use teaching
approaches and strategies that recognize and build on culturally different ways of learning,
behaving, and using language in the classroom” (p. 184). She also defined strategic teaching as
“an instructional model that explicitly teaches students learning strategies that enable them to
consciously monitor their own learning” (p. 186). The use of culturally responsive instruction
had the potential to equalize power relations between teachers and their students from
subordinated groups while the use of strategic teaching highlights the significance of teacher-
student interaction and negotiation (Bartolomé, 1994).
Utilizing these teaching methods could also create a safe environment where students
displayed their knowledge and skills or acquired new knowledge so they feel empowered to
succeed (Bartolomé, 1994). Teachers could also benefit from utilizing these methods because
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

32
they humanized their perceptions of students previously perceived as deficient (Bartolomé,
1994). This human interaction between students and teachers created a learning environment
where both parties could learn from each other (Bartolomé, 1994). It also created mutual respect
instead of the hostility that occurred between teachers and students from subordinated groups
(Bartolomé, 1994). Bartolomé (1994) also asserted that the humanizing effects of these teaching
methods allowed teachers to listen, learn from, and mentor their students.
The effectiveness of these teaching methods depended on whether the teacher embraced a
humanizing pedagogy that valued the students’ background knowledge and life experiences and
created a classroom environment where power was shared by teachers and students (Bartolomé,
1994). These teaching methods were a “means to an end–humanizing education to promote
academic success for students historically underserved by the schools” (Bartolomé, 1994, p.
190). It was also essential that these methods be situated in the students’ cultural experiences
because they allowed the students’ identity to be valued in the classroom (Bartolomé, 1994).
Additionally, educators needed to be aware that most pedagogically advanced methods were
likely to be ineffective in the hands of those who implicitly or explicitly subscribed to a belief
system that regarded some students as disadvantaged and in need of fixing and other students as
deficient and therefore beyond fixing (Bartolomé, 1994). Thus, in order for these methods to be
effective teachers needed to be conscious of their ideologies about students and, if necessary, be
willing to change their ideologies to align with these teaching methods (e.g., culturally
responsive education and strategic teaching). The ideas that I presented here are relevant for
examining what happens to students with disabilities whether or not the students with disabilities
are from an additional historically marginalized group (e.g., African Americans and Latinos).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

33
Opportunity Gaps. Milner (2010) identified five forms of teacher ideology and inverted
them from their negative expression that created opportunity gaps for students into a positive
expression that could be used by educators to confront and overcome these gaps. He put these
five forms of ideology together in a conceptual framework to be used by educators to 1) better
understand how their actions create opportunity gaps for students and 2) bridge the gaps that
exist across school contexts in order to eliminate these gaps (Milner, 2010). The expressions
were:
(1) rejection of color blindness; (2) ability and skill to understand, work through, and
transcend cultural conflicts; (3) ability to understand how meritocracy operates; (4)
ability to recognize and shift low expectations and deficit mind-sets; and (5) rejection of
context-neutral mind-sets and practices. (Milner, 2010, p. 14)
According to Milner (2010), educators had a difficult time avoiding the notion that they
should not recognize race and how it affected our educational system. Educators also found it
hard to understand how individual experiences with race could influence ideologies, attitudes,
belief systems, and consequently educational practice (Milner, 2010). Furthermore, educators
who rejected the notion that race does not matter understood the importance of race in our
educational system and how it influenced educational practices in the classroom (Milner, 2010).
The second area of Milner’s (2010) conceptual framework was the ability to understand,
work through, and transcend cultural conflicts. Milner suggested that, “Educators are challenged
to become mindful of the conflicts that could emerge in the classroom as a result of the culturally
grounded and shaped experiences of both teachers and students” (p. 14). These cultural conflicts
could make teaching and learning difficult due to discrepancies between teachers and students
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

34
(Milner, 2010). Opportunity gaps could persist because the educators’ cultural background takes
precedence over their students (Milner, 2010).
The third area of Milner’s (2010) conceptual framework was the ability to understand
how meritocracy operates. When educators function under a meritocratic mind-set, they believe
that:
Student performance is primarily and summarily a function of hard work, ability, skill,
intelligence, and persistence…. [and] student success is a consequence and result of
merit–that is, students (and people in general) deserve their success and failure in school
and society because they have earned them. (Milner, 2010, p. 15)
Educators were sometimes aware that external factors, beyond merit, could impact a student’s
access to opportunities, but found it challenging to be mindful of the myth of meritocracy
(Milner, 2010).
The fourth area of Milner’s (2010) conceptual framework was the ability to recognize
and shift low expectations and deficit mind-sets. With this mind-set, educators tended to focus on
what students were lacking instead of their assets, which should be valued and capitalized on
(Milner, 2010). When addressing this opportunity gap, educators had a hard time believing that
students would meet their expectation, even when it was set high (Milner, 2010).
The fifth area of Milner’s (2010) conceptual framework was the rejection of context-
neutral mind-sets and practices. Educators sometimes approached their work with students
without considering the social context of teaching and learning, which Milner (2010) described
as “the state, the city, the local community surrounding the school, or the sociology of the school
itself” (p. 15). In attempts to address opportunity gaps, educators were challenged with
recognizing the ways in which the social context of teaching and learning could influence how
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

35
education worked (Milner, 2010). Overcoming this challenge could allow educators to empower
their students to “learn, think, and challenge existing forces that place them at a disadvantage in a
particular community or social context” (Milner, 2010, p. 16).
Teacher Attitudes and Perspectives
Teachers’ attitudes and perspectives about students with disabilities, co-teaching, and
inclusion played an important role in answering one of my research questions: How do
interpersonal features shape how co-teaching is enacted? Teachers’ ideology about students with
disabilities could influence how they interacted with these students in the classroom (Cook,
Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000; Cook 2001; Cook, 2004), which had implications for how
they interacted with their co-teacher. The philosophies about learning and teaching that co-
teachers bring into their relationship influenced how they position themselves and their co-
teacher during common planning time and when working with students (Gerber & Popp, 2003).
Co-teachers’ ideology about students with disabilities, co-teaching, and inclusion influenced
which co-teaching model they decided to enact in the classroom. Some of the models require
more collaboration between co-teachers than other models (Sileo, 2011). The following
paragraphs examine various research studies about teacher attitudes and perspectives about
students with disabilities. Additionally, as an extension of a previous section in this literature, I
will also discuss the intersectionality of race and disability as it relates to teacher attitudes about
students with disabilities. Lastly, I will present relevant research about teacher attitudes and
perspectives on co-teaching and inclusion.
Students with disabilities. Cook (2004) sought to replicate the findings of Cook,
Tankersley, Cook, and Landrum (2000) and Cook (2001), which measured inclusive teachers’
attitudes towards their included students using the attitudinal categories of attachment,
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

36
indifference, concern, and rejection in comparison to their nondisabled students. Cook, 2004
sampled teachers from 16 elementary schools in Northwest Ohio, which represented a subsample
of a larger investigation of teachers’ attitudes towards their included students. Teachers in 10 of
the 16 schools participating in the larger investigation were asked to complete the same
attitudinal nomination procedure that Cook et al. (2000) used in their study. Teachers from the
remaining six schools completed a newly developed rating scale regarding their attitudes towards
included students with disabilities in the same categories of attachment, indifference, concern,
and rejection (Cook, 2004). Seven of the 10 schools participating in the present study were from
districts with low social economic status (SES) and the other three schools had high SES. Forty-
six of the 75 teachers (61.3% return rate) who taught in inclusive settings volunteered to
participate in the study. Eight hundred forty-two (85.7%) nondisabled students and 140 (14.3%)
included students with disabilities attended participating classrooms. Teachers were asked to
nominate three of their students (i.e., students with disabilities and nondisabled students) to each
of the four nomination prompts corresponding to the attitudinal categories of attachment,
indifference, concern, and rejection. They could also nominate a student in more than one
attitudinal category. Teachers had to provide demographic information (e.g., disability category,
proportion of a typical day student spends in inclusive class) regarding their included students
with disabilities (Cook, 2004). They also had to provide demographic information about
themselves (e.g., gender, years of inclusive teaching experience) and their classroom (e.g.,
average daily attendance, hours that paraprofessionals were present per week) (Cook, 2004).
In order to analyze the degree to which teachers held different attitudes toward their
included students with disabilities and their nondisabled students, four one-way chi-square
analyses were performed (Cook, 2004). Additionally, a series of two-way chi-square analyses
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

37
was performed to examine the effect of teacher and classroom variables on teachers’ concern and
rejection nominations of their included students with disabilities in comparison to their
nondisabled students. Results from the study showed that although students with disabilities
comprised 14.3% of students in inclusive classrooms, 24.3% of this group of students was
nominated in the concern category, 20.0% were nominated in the indifference category, and
22.9% were nominated in the rejection category (Cook, 2004). This showed that more than half
of the included students with disabilities were nominated in these three attitudinal categories.
Teachers also nominated students with mild disabilities more frequently than students with
severe disabilities in the concern category.
Findings also revealed that 15.6% of teachers’ concern nominations involved included
students with disabilities in low-SES school districts while 41.3% of concern nominations
involved included students with disabilities in high-SES districts (Cook, 2004). Socioeconomic
status was also significantly related to teachers’ rejection of their included students. Though only
17.6% of teachers’ rejection nominations in low-SES school districts were included students,
almost twice that proportion (32.6%) were represented among teachers rejection nominations in
high-SES districts (Cook, 2004). Participants also nominated their students with disabilities in
the rejection category significantly less frequently in classrooms in which paraprofessionals were
present (17.2%) than in classrooms without paraprofessionals (29.9%) (Cook, 2004). Lastly,
more included students with disabilities (31.4%) were nominated in the rejection category by
inexperienced teachers (i.e., 11 years or fewer teaching experience), whereas only 12.2% of
included students with disabilities were nominated by experienced teachers (Cook, 2004).
Brandes and Crowson (2009) examined factors that may contribute to negative attitudes
among pre-service educators towards students with disabilities and the practice of inclusion:
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

38
cultural conservatism and right-wing authoritarian, social dominance orientation, economic
conservatism, and personal discomfort with disability. Cultural conservatism was described as a
“dimension of conservative ideology that is represented by traditionalism and conformity at one
pole and openness, autonomy, and personal freedom at the other…. One prototypical indicator of
culturally conservative beliefs is right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)” (Brandes & Crowson,
2009, p. 273). Social dominance (SDO) was defined as “the extent to which one desires that
one’s in-group dominate and be superior to out-groups and can be considered a general
attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations” (Brandes & Crowson, 2009, p. 274).
Economic conservatism was defined as an “ideological dimension characterized by concerns
regarding governmental involvement in and regulation of private enterprise and the economic
lives of its citizens…. Economic conservatives preferred capitalist ideology, private initiative,
and unrestricted competition among individuals” (Brandes & Crowson, 2009, p. 275). Lastly,
personal discomfort with disability would lead an individual to “distance themselves from
students with disabilities either psychologically by minimizing their common humanity or
politically by endorsing policies that decrease the likelihood of coming into physical contact with
these students” (Brandes & Crowson, 2009, p. 276).
Research participants were solicited from students enrolled in a mandatory, introductory
undergraduate-level course in special in special education (Brandes & Crowson, 2009). This
study included a total of 190 pre-service educators, 42 were male participants and 148 were
female participants. These pre-service educators were asked to respond to various scales using a
bipolar scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scales utilized in this
study measured the following factors: cultural conservatism, economic conservatism, right-wing
authoritarianism, social dominance, discomfort with disability, opposition to inclusion, and
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

39
general negative attitudes/prejudice towards students with disabilities (Brandes & Crowson,
2009). The researchers analyzed the data by conducting two hierarchical multiple regression
analysis. One analysis used discomfort with disability and ideological measures as predictor
variables while the second analysis utilized gender, discomfort with disability, economic
conservatism, cultural conservatism/RWA, and SDO to predict prejudice against students with
disabilities. Findings from the study revealed that pre-service teachers who were high in cultural
conservatism/RWA, economic conservatism, SDO, and personal discomfort with disability were
more likely to hold negative attitudes toward students with disabilities and to be less supportive
of inclusion than pre-service teachers who scored lower on measures of the factors listed above
(Brandes & Crowson, 2009). Results also indicated that pre-service teachers who reported
feeling less comfortable with disability preferred social inequality (Brandes & Crowson, 2009).
These individuals were more likely to hold negative attitudes towards students with disabilities
and disagreed with including these students in general education classrooms (Brandes &
Crowson, 2009). Additionally, SDO among pre-service teachers contributed to the adoption of
negative attitudes toward students with disabilities, which contributed to pre-service teachers’
opposition to inclusion (Brandes & Crowson, 2009).
Ahram, Fergus, and Noguera (2011) examined the root causes of disproportionality in
two multiracial suburban school districts in New York State that were identified as having an
overrepresentation of students of color in special education. This study was based on a statewide
project on disproportionality funded by the New York State Department of Education (2004-
2009), which was conducted by the Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality (TACD).
The TACD project used mixed methods in collating district data and conducting technical
sessions with districts to identify the factors to disproportionality. The technical assistance
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

40
sessions were provided by the TACD and included two activities: observing in classrooms in
each of the schools districts and providing root cause analyses of disproportionality (Ahram,
Fergus, & Noguera, 2011). Quantitatively, the TACD project compiled district demographic
data, special education classification data, and yearly referral data (Ahram et al., 2011).
Additionally, a large amount of qualitative data was collected between 2004-2009. These data
consisted of post-session evaluations collected from more than 40 hours of training sessions
provided per year; focus groups and individual interviews with individuals from a 20-member
district team; surveys of teachers and administrators; and analysis of documents related to district
policies and practices (Ahram et al., 2011).
The two districts were called Carroll School District and Hannover School District
(pseudonyms). Carroll School district began the TACD project with an overall classification rate
of 13.56%, meaning that more than 13% of their overall district population was classified as
disabled (Ahram et al., 2011). Additionally, more than 16% of Black students and more than
23% of Latino students were classified as disabled (Ahram et al., 2011). This meant that Black
students were 1.24 times and Latino students were nearly 1.70 times more likely to be classified
as disabled as compared with all other students (Ahram et al., 2011). Furthermore, more than 9%
of their overall district population was classified as emotionally disturbed (ED), learning
disabled (LD), or speech or language impairment (SI) (Ahram et al., 2011). Comparatively, 12%
of the Black student population and more than 21% of the Latino students were classified as ED,
LD, or SI (Ahram et al., 2011). This meant that Black students were more than 1.31 times and
Latino students were nearly 2.23 times as likely to be classified as ED, LD, or SI as compared
with all other students.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

41
On the other hand, Hannover school district began the TACD project in the 2004-2005
school year with an overall classification rate of 15.74%, significantly higher than New York
State’s average classification (Ahram et al., 2011). Additionally, nearly 18% of Black students
and nearly 17% of Latino students were classified as disabled (Ahram et al., 2011). This meant
that Black students were more than 1.29 times and Latino students were more than 1.11 times
more likely to be classified as disabled as compared with all other students (Ahram et al., 2011).
Furthermore, more than 12.78% of their overall district population was classified as ED, LD, or
SI (Ahram et al., 2011). Comparatively, more than 16% of Black students and more than 14% of
Latino students were classified as ED, LD, or SI (Ahram et al., 2011). This meant that Black
students were more than 1.34 times and Latino students were nearly 1.21 times more likely to be
classified as ED, LD, or SI as compared with all other students (Ahram et al., 2011).
The analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data from the TACD project revealed key
causes of disproportionality across both districts (Ahram et al., 2011). The first cause was
cultural deficit thinking in educators’ construction of student abilities. The second cause was the
existence of inadequate institutional safeguards for struggling students. The third cause was
attempts at addressing disproportionality often resulted in institutional fixes, but not necessarily
changes in the beliefs of education professionals.
Co-teaching and Inclusion. Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCulley (2012) conducted a
synthesis of 146 studies on teachers’ attitudes toward co-teaching and inclusion. The authors
sought to gain a better understanding of the evidence base associated with collaborative models
of instruction. Solis et al. (2012) defined collaborative models as a:
General education teacher co-planning and/or teaching with the special education teacher
[and] are implemented in a variety of instructional arrangements: whole class–teacher
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

42
led, two heterogeneous groups, two homogeneous groups, station teaching, whole class
plus small group, and whole class team teaching. (p. 501)
This study included a synthesis of articles about co-teaching and inclusion that met the following
eligibility criteria: (a) investigations focused on co-teaching or inclusion, (b) reviews included
either quantitative or qualitative studies, and (c) investigations were peer-reviewed (Solis et al.,
2012). The authors approached the data through a grounded theory framework, which focused on
generating theoretical explanations that were grounded in data, through actions, interactions, and
social processes. This approach provided a systematic way of reducing a large body of data into
a concise conceptual framework that could describe or explain a phenomenon. The data were
analyzed through open coding, which makes use of constant or systematic comparison of data
(Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). The authors utilized a systematic, iterative
process of sifting, cross-referencing, and questioning the data, and were able to examine and
synthesize a diverse body of both quantitative and qualitative information. After this process, a
total of six syntheses were identified based on the established criteria noted above (Solis et al.,
2012). Utilizing the results from the six syntheses, the following paragraph will discuss findings
as they relate to teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions.
Results showed that teachers’ views on collaborative models were mixed; early surveys
(prior to 1994) indicated that teacher attitudes were not positive toward inclusion while later
surveys indicated that teachers who had the opportunity to teach in an inclusive setting reported
more positive attitudes (Solis et al., 2012). Additionally, teachers often perceived social benefits
to students who participated in co-taught classrooms. Findings also showed that teacher attitudes
and perceptions were highly influenced by the nature and severity of disabilities for students
participating in inclusive classroom settings (Solis et al., 2012). Teachers’ support for inclusion
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

43
depended on the intensity and severity of student needs (Solis et al., 2012). Teachers also tended
to report more positive attitudes toward the inclusion of students with physical and sensory
impairments than those with learning or behavioral disabilities (Solis et al., 2012). Teachers were
concerned that having students with disabilities in the general education classroom setting might
have required significant changes to accommodate all students’ needs (Solis et al., 2012).
Findings from this synthesis (Solis et al., 2012) also included that teachers expressed caution
about the effectiveness of co-teaching because of behavior and academic concerns. Lastly,
teachers who accepted responsibility for teaching students with diverse needs tended to be
successful in implementing inclusion (Solis et al., 2012).
A teacher’s attitude towards inclusion played a crucial role in the successful
implementation of this educational setting (Cook et al., 1999). Cook, Semmel, and Gerber (1999)
investigated the attitudes of 64 special education teachers toward the inclusion of students with
mild disabilities through the use of a questionnaire. Participants were sampled from 57 diverse
schools (33 elementary and 24 junior high schools) in southern California that implemented a
wide array of inclusive practices. In the elementary sample, questionnaires were given to 1
randomly selected special education teacher within each school. Twenty-nine elementary special
education teachers completed and returned the questionnaire (87.87% return rate). In each junior
high school 2 special education teachers were randomly sampled. Thirty-five junior high school
special education teachers returned questionnaires (72.91% return rate). The return rate for the
entire sample was 81.88%. The questionnaire included a Likert scale and asked respondents to
provide their opinion on statements regarding the inclusion of students with mild disabilities.
Findings indicated a lack of support from special educators about students with disabilities
improving their academic achievement in an inclusive setting (Cook et al., 1999). Special
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

44
educators were also less optimistic about teaching in an inclusive setting when forced into
teaching with another teacher who did not see the effectiveness or appropriateness of this type of
classroom setting (Cook et al., 1999). Additionally, the majority of teachers indicated that
general education teachers did not have the instructional skills to support students with
disabilities in inclusive settings (Cook et al., 1999). This sample of teachers typically had more
training and experience and was expected to lead the implementation of inclusion (Cook et al.,
1999).
Hang and Rabren (2009) examined the efficacy of co-teaching by investigating teacher
perspectives about this instructional delivery approach. This study included seven schools from a
southeastern public school system. Specifically, there were four elementary schools, one middle
school, one junior high school, and one high school. Participants included 31 general and 14
special education co-teachers who were implementing their first year of co-teaching. Of this
group of teachers, special education teachers co-taught with more than one general education
teacher. Results from this study showed that teachers have positive perspectives of co-teaching
(Hang & Rabren, 2009). Teachers agreed that students with disabilities increased their self-
confidence, learned more, had sufficient support, and showed better behaviors in co-taught
classrooms (Hang & Rabren, 2009). Special education teachers felt more strongly that students
with disabilities receive adequate support in co-taught classrooms because they were the
individuals providing the support for these students (Hang & Rabren, 2009). Additionally, both
general and special education teachers believed that students with disabilities improved their
academic performance while in an inclusive class setting where both teachers co-taught.
Teachers also indicated that co-teaching had a positive effect on student behavior. Despite the
positive perceptions shared by participants from the study, there were some challenges and issues
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

45
about co-teaching. General and special education teachers each view themselves as having more
responsibility for behavior management than the other, which could imply that there may be a
lack of understanding between co-teachers about who is fulfilling this responsibility (Hang &
Rabren, 2009).
Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevins (1996) examined the perceptions of general and
special education teachers related to the full inclusion of all students with disabilities. The study
surveyed 680 general and special education teachers from 32 schools in Canada and the United
States. The schools were selected because of their efforts to provide heterogeneous educational
opportunities for all children. Results from the surveys given to participants revealed that both
general and special education teachers supported the education of students with disabilities in
inclusive settings (Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996). Specifically, general education
teachers believed inclusion benefited all students and they also supported changes in school
organization and culture to support inclusion. Their support, however, was not as strong as the
support demonstrated by special education teachers in their responses (Villa, Thousand, Meyers,
& Nevin, 1996). The benefits of inclusion and the changes in school culture to support this
educational setting corresponded with the amount of professional development opportunities,
administrative support, collaborative time with other teachers, and formal restructuring within
schools (Villa et al., 1996). Results from the survey also indicated that general and special
education teachers believed that educating students with disabilities in general education
classrooms contributed to the positive changes in the educators’ attitudes and job responsibilities
(Villa et al., 1996). General and special educators also identified administrative support as a
factor associated with their attitudes regarding teaching in inclusive settings (Villa et al., 1996).
Most participants in the study also believed that the general and special education teachers
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

46
should collaborate as coequal partners to meet the needs of all children, which resulted in the
enhanced feelings of competency between both teachers (Villa et al., 1996). They also believed
that the achievement level of students with disabilities would not decrease in an inclusive
classroom setting (Villa et al., 1996). One limitation in this study was that it did not clearly
define participants in the results section so it was difficult to distinguish the data for teachers and
the data for administrators.
Co-teaching Relationship
The relationship between a general education teacher and a special education teacher can
be very complicated. How the relationship starts has implications for the partnership between co-
teachers. Therefore, the following section will discuss important components that could increase
the likelihood of a successful co-teaching relationship. Additionally, the following section will
also discuss how co-teachers enact their role as they work together in the classroom. Exploring
the beginnings of a co-teaching relationship and the roles co-teachers enact as they work together
allowed me to gain insights that enabled me to answer my research question about the influence
of interpersonal features on a co-teaching relationship.
Volunteering and Compatibility. Gerber and Popp (2003) presented a series of
recommendations about creating a partnership that could improve collaborative teaching. As
described above, this study sampled special education and general education teachers from four
elementary, four middle, and two senior high schools from seven school districts that comprise
the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC). These district schools were a mix
of urban, suburban, and rural schools that implemented collaborative programs for at least two
years and participants had experience teaching in a collaborative classroom setting. Participants
were part of a focus group where interviews were conducted to gain insight on the necessary
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

47
elements of a successful collaborative classroom. Data from the focus group interviews with
teachers were analyzed in three phases: (1) data reduction, (2) data reduction and verifying
conclusions, (3) conclusions were linked to emergence of patterns and themes that were linked to
collaborative teaching (Gerber & Popp, 2003). Then a force-field group technique was utilized
by the research team to generate recommendations. This technique was not described in the
article. Through the analysis of the data, an area of action was identified: administrative issues
(Gerber & Popp, 2003). The study found that voluntary participation was important in a co-
teaching partnership (Gerber & Popp, 2003). When teachers were forced into this type
partnership it undermined the collaborative relationship (Gerber & Popp, 2003). Furthermore, the
study found that matching teachers in terms of compatibility, teaching philosophy and teaching
style facilitated a more viable co-teaching partnership (Gerber & Popp, 2003).
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) investigated the practice and processes of co-
teaching by synthesizing 32 qualitative research reports on co-teaching in inclusive classrooms.
The authors identified a number of important needs that would assist in supporting an effective
co-teaching relationship. Their investigation concluded that many teachers felt strongly about co-
teachers volunteering to teach together instead entering a forced partnership. Furthermore, there
was a positive impact on collaboration when both teachers made a voluntary commitment to
initiate the partnership (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Teachers also felt like
personal compatibility between partners was the most critical variable for successful co-teaching
(Scruggs et al., 2007).
Pugach (2011) compiled a synthesis of research on co-teaching and administrative
support for novice special education teachers. The purpose of the article was to discuss how the
research on co-teaching could assist administrators in both general and special education as they
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

48
provide induction support for new special education teachers. The article identified a number of
important points that would assist in supporting an effective co-teaching relationship. Findings
from the synthesis suggested that teachers who volunteered for co-teaching were more satisfied
with their partnership than teachers who were forced into a relationship they did not want. Also,
teachers who volunteered to co-teach reported greater mutual respect for their co-teacher than
teachers who were forced into a partnership (Pugach, 2011). Additionally, findings reported that
co-teaching partnerships that were not voluntary were not successful. A major criterion for
successful co-teaching was the personal compatibility of the teaching pair, which appeared to
trump volunteerism (Pugach, 2011). Thus, personal compatibility as well as volunteerism was
essential to the success of co-teaching.
Role Enactment. The way co-teachers enacted their role is very important to the way the
relationship plays itself out. Friend et al. (2010) explored the complexities of collaboration in
special education in this theoretical piece. Friend et al. (2010) asserted that within a co-teaching
relationship each individual played a particular role. The general educator typically held the
expertise in content knowledge while the special education teacher typically held the expertise
related to the process of learning to meet the individualized needs of students with disabilities.
The special education teacher tended to enact the role of helper rather than the co-teacher, partly
due to his/her lack of content knowledge (Friend et al., 2010). The special education teacher
needed to negotiate his/her roles and responsibilities in a co-taught class so he/she could provide
the necessary instructional supports for students with disabilities (Friend et al., 2010). Without
this negotiation, the special education teacher would remain a classroom helper instead of an
instructional partner. Friend et al. (2010) also asserted that general education teachers spent
significantly less time interacting with students with disabilities when a special educator was
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

49
present in the classroom, thus setting up a classroom environment where the general education
teacher was the main instructor of the majority of the students in the classroom while the special
education teacher helped students with disabilities understand the content being delivered whole
group.
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) investigated the practice and processes of co-
teaching by synthesizing 32 qualitative research reports on co-teaching in inclusive classrooms.
The authors identified a number of important needs that would assist in supporting an effective
co-teaching relationship. This investigation concluded that in many partnerships the special
education teacher assumed the subordinate role partly due to the lack of content knowledge,
classroom ownership, and the greater numbers of general education students in co-taught
classrooms (Scruggs et al., 2007). Furthermore, the general education teacher assumed the role
of the expert in content knowledge as well as the leader in the classroom. The general education
teacher typically employed whole class, teacher-led instruction with little individualization,
whereas special education teachers functioned largely as assistants in support of special
education students and other students in need (Scruggs et al., 2007).
Conclusion
The previous section of this literature presented research that spoke to teacher ideology in
general and its relation to students from subordinated groups (Bartolomé, 2004; Bartolomé,
2009). This section also discussed teacher ideology as it specifically relates to opportunity gaps
(Milner, 2010) and teacher attitudes and perspectives about students with disabilities, co-
teaching, and inclusion (Cook et al., 2000; Cook 2001; Cook, 2004; Solis et al., 2012, Cook et
al., 1999; Hang & Rabren, 2009; Villa et al., 1996). I also explored how volunteering for a
partnership, compatibility between a special and general education teacher, and role enactment
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

50
could influence a co-teaching relationship as well as their effect on student outcomes (Friend et
al., 2010; Gerber & Popp, 2003; Pugach, 2011; Scruggs et al., 2007). Based on the literature
review, it can be concluded that the interpersonal features of a co-teaching relationship play an
essential role to its success. The following section discusses other essential components that play
an important role in the success of a co-teaching relationship.
Leadership
Educational leadership is another component that is essential to the success of a co-
teaching relationship. The principal establishes the overall climate and influences instructional
practices, both of which influence the relationship between co-teachers. The following section
examines the attributes of an effective leader; one who fosters an environment where co-teaching
can be successful or where a change in structure can occur so that a school can adopt inclusive
practices. I also explore literature on the attributes of a cultural change principal, principals’
knowledge base and formal training, and their attitudes towards and perceptions of inclusion.
Exploring all of these areas allowed me to answer the following research question: How do
contextual features influence how co-teaching is enacted?
Attributes of an Effective Leader
Goor, Schween, and Boyer (1997) argued that, “beliefs influence the way we perceive the
world and guide our behavior” (p. 133). A principal’s beliefs could influence the climate,
instructional practices, and the effectiveness of their school (Goor, Schween, & Boyer, 1997).
For principals to be effective special education leaders, they must examine their beliefs to
determine whether they are capable of adopting inclusive paradigms. Five core beliefs offered by
Goor et al. (1997) provided the framework underlying an accepting inclusive paradigm. First,
effective school leaders believed that all children could learn. Second, effective principals
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

51
accepted all children as part of their school community. Third, principals believed that teachers
could teach a wide range of students. Fourth, principals believed teachers are responsible for all
students’ learning. Fifth, principals believed that they were responsible for the education of all
children in their building. Thus, a principal with all of these beliefs more likely adopted an
inclusive paradigm, which could be beneficial for leaders of special education programs.
Goor et al. (1997) also described the knowledge principals needed to be effective special
education leaders. First, effective school leaders needed to acknowledge when they did not have
the answer to all questions or the solution to all problems and sought out individuals who could
assist them (Goor et al., 1997). These leaders also needed to be knowledgeable about the effect
of disabilities on student performance, the referral-to-placement procedures, the importance of
participating in the hiring process; especially for individuals who would be co-teaching together,
appropriate disciplinary measures for students with disabilities, and the use of assistive
technology to support students with disabilities (Goor et al., 1997).
Principals also needed to be better collaborators with teachers, parents, and students to be
effective special education leaders (Goor et al., 1997). When principals collaborated with
teachers they needed to observe instruction and provide feedback; discuss mastery of
instructional techniques and methods, plan and design materials cooperatively; share expertise
and resources; and demonstrate and discuss new or innovative materials, techniques or strategies
through faculty meetings and in-service training (Goor et al., 1997). An effective principal
needed to model positive attitudes towards accepting all students, faculty, and staff. Moreover,
effective listening skills were essential to a principal’s success with students, parents, and related
school personnel (Goor et al., 1997). Effective leadership also involved being a good problem
solver, building trust through understanding and honesty, coordinating teacher support for both
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

52
novice and experienced educators, and providing on-site leadership for inclusive practices (Goor
et al., 1997).
An effective principal also took time to reflect on an action, whether it was routine or
reactive to an unexpected situation (Goor et al., 1997). Goor et al. (1997) described the reflective
behaviors that principals needed to develop to be effective special education leaders. Some of the
reflective behaviors included: thoughtfully reviewing decisions made, acknowledging the
possibility that a better decision could have been reached, changing a decision if necessary, and
incorporating new ways to responding to future situations (Goor et al., 1997). This process
allowed principals to continuously reevaluate the underlying beliefs of their school culture.
Developing reflective behaviors also helped principals understand their new role of providing
leadership for special education programs and model behaviors of acceptance and inclusion
(Goor et al., 1997).
Elmore (2000) explored the relationship between accountability and leadership,
specifically the way accountability systems engaged the knowledge, skill, and commitment of
educational leaders. Elmore asserted that the necessary conditions for the success of school
leaders in the future would be their capacity to improve the quality of instructional practice. This
theoretical piece also discussed the practice of improvement for leaders. Practice of improvement
was defined as “theories of action that lead to systematic increases in quality of performance
over time” (Elmore, 2000, p. 9). The practice of improvement required the mastery of practices
across different stages of development. Some of the practices noted by Elmore (2000) were as
follows: monitor instructional practices continuously; creating organizational structures,
processes, and norms that make instruction transparent; model inquiry and learning as the central
dimensions of practice; develop practices of challenge and support that help teachers deal with
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

53
the social and emotional difficulties entailed in improvement; use basic features of the
organization (i.e., structures, processes, norms, resources) as instruments for increasing the
knowledge and skill of teachers (Elmore, 2000). Educational leaders also needed to develop the
capacity to objectify their own practice by utilizing protocols for observation and analysis. The
use of protocols depersonalized their practice and in doing so it made the practice something that
could be changed through learning and further practice (Elmore, 2000). Additionally, a large part
of practice of improvement for leaders was making the invisible visible. These leaders needed to
make all the implicit rules, norms, and agreements that set constraints on actions explicit. The
type of leadership that emerged from the practice of improvement had two important
characteristics: (1) It focused on the practice of improving the quality of instruction and the
performance of students; and (2) It required more or less continuous investment in knowledge
and skill, both because the knowledge base around instructional practice was constantly
changing and because the population of actual and potential leaders was constantly depleting and
replenishing itself (Elmore, 2000). In this view, leadership was a knowledge-based discipline.
Cultural Change Principal
It takes a certain kind of principal to transform the climate at a school so that co-teaching
relationships between general education and special education teachers could thrive. This type of
leader must have certain qualities that characterize an effective change leader. Fullan (2002)
asserted that an effective change leader is a Cultural Change Principal, an individual who “must
be attuned to the big picture, a sophisticated conceptual thinker who transforms the organization
through people and teams” (p. 17). A Cultural Change Principal displayed profound energy,
enthusiasm, and hope (Fullan, 2002). Additionally, five essential components that characterized
a change leader were: moral purpose, an understanding of the change process, the ability to
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

54
improve relationships, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence making (Fullan, 2002).
Fullan (2002) described moral purpose as a “social responsibility to others and the environment”
(p. 17). Educational leaders with moral purpose sought to make a difference in the lives of
students and they acted with the intentions of making positive changes in their schools as well as
schools in other districts (Fullan, 2002). The second essential component that characterized a
change leader was that he/she had to understand the change process. Fullan (2002) offered the
following guidelines for understanding change:
• The goal is to innovate selectively with coherence.
• Leaders help others assess and find collective meaning and commitment to new ways.
• Leaders can’t avoid the inevitable early difficulties of trying something new. They
should know that no matter how much they plan for the change, the early stages will be
bumpy.
• Successful leaders don’t mind doubters because sometimes they have important points
that can be addressed.
• Change is structural and superficial. Transforming culture – changing what people in the
organization value and how they work together to accomplish it – leads to deep, lasting
change.
• There is no step-by-step shortcut to transformation; it involves the hard, day-to-day work
of re-culturing.
Fullan (2002) further asserted that the Cultural Change Principal is knowledgeable on the
difference between being an expert in an innovation and being an expert in managing the process
of change. This type of principal provided opportunities for staff members to visit other school
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

55
sites utilizing innovation practices, was open to questions and opposition, forged ahead, and
expected progress because of the conditions he or she had set up (Fullan, 2002).
The Cultural Change Principal also built relationships with diverse groups of people with
different ideologies. This type of principal needed to have emotional intelligence, which was the
ability to build relationships because of an awareness of their own emotional makeup (Fullan,
2002). An emotionally intelligent leader was also sensitive and inspired others (Fullan, 2002).
This leader worked hard to develop self-management of emotions and empathy towards others.
Additionally, the effort of this leader to motivate and develop relationships among teachers could
profoundly impact the school climate (Fullan, 2002). With regards to knowledge creation and
sharing, the Cultural Change Principal was the “lead learner in the school and models lifelong
learning by sharing what he or she has read lately, engaging and encouraging action research,
and implementing inquiry groups among staff” (Fullan, 2002, p. 18).
A Cultural Change Principal was also a coherence maker (Fullan, 2002). The four
essential components of a change leader that were previously discussed–moral purpose, an
understanding of the change process, the ability to improve relationships, and knowledge
creation and sharing–helped develop coherence through their interaction. Coherence was an
important component of complexity and a Cultural Change Principal had to realize that overload
and fragmentation were a part of complex systems (Fullan, 2002). This type of leader
appreciated creativity, diverse ideas, and strived to create a culture that had the capacity not to
settle for the solution of the day (Fullan, 2002). They also concentrated on student learning as the
central focus of reform and kept an eye out for external ideas that furthered the thinking and
vision of the school (Fullan, 2002).

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

56
Principals’ Knowledge Base and Formal Training
In order to foster a school climate that supports co-teaching, principals need to know a
number of important points that would assist in supporting a successful relationship between the
general education teacher and the special education teacher. As described earlier, Pugach (2011)
compiled a synthesis of research on co-teaching and administrative support for novice special
education teachers. The purpose of the article was to discuss how the research on co-teaching
could assist administrators in both general and special education as they provided induction
support for new special education teachers. The author argued that administrators needed to
understand the importance behind special education and general education teachers having
common time to work closely together. This was especially true for novice special education
teachers because as they collaborated with their co-teachers, they were able to widen their base
support beyond other special educators and had the opportunity to learn from general education
colleagues (Pugach, 2011). This could contribute to their socialization, not just as members of
the professional special education community, but also as members of the entire school
community (Pugach, 2011). Administrations also needed to be mindful of different sources of
stress for novice special education teachers in a co-teaching partnership. Pugach (2011) asserted
that role definition was a source of stress. Role definition occurred when the roles between the
general education teacher and special education teacher were defined; the special education
teacher’s role was subordinate to the general education teacher’s role (Pugach, 2011). This was
because the general education teacher was more experienced than the novice special education
teacher, so he/she assumed the mentor role while the general education teacher assumed the
subordinate role. In addition to role definition, potential sources of stress in co-teaching for
novice special education teachers could come from incompatible personalities and working
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

57
styles, as well as differing philosophies about instructions (Pugach, 2011). Administrators should
be aware of these stressors as well as teacher needs such as common planning time, which were
important components of a successful co-teaching partnership.
Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006) explored the knowledge base
of national secondary principals on special education issues through the use of a survey.
Participants were secondary school principals in the United States who were members of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and on the 2004 mailing list of
this organization. A systematic sampling method was used to select participants from the
sampling frame, which included approximately 15,286 principals from across the nation. A
random sample of 1,000 participants was selected from the sampling frame. The sample included
principals from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Results from the survey showed that
most principals reported having a knowledge base about fundamental issues in special education.
This knowledge base was a basic understanding of the functioning and history of special
education and the students it serves (Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006).
Some principals also reported that they had a knowledge base of instructional procedures.
Wakeman et al. (2006) argued that this knowledge base was related to the principals’ beliefs
about inclusion. For example, principals who reported more knowledge about fundamental
information, including an inclusive school climate, also reported higher beliefs about creating
access to general education instruction (Wakeman et al., 2006). Results from the survey also
showed that principals who indicated having more knowledge were involved in more aspects of
special education programs (Wakeman et al., 2006). Additionally, principals who had personal
experience with an individual with a disability indicated an ability to understand the referral
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

58
process for special education and an ability to advocate for students with disabilities (Wakeman
et al., 2006).
Although most principals reported having a knowledge base about some aspect of special
education, there were some principals who reported a limited understanding of special education
(Wakeman et al., 2006). These participants reported that they had a limited understanding of
current issues in special education such as self-determination practices, functional behavioral
assessments, and universally designed lessons (Wakeman et al., 2006). Self-determination
practices were not defined in the study. Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA) was defined as
“tools supported by research that have the potential to aid in addressing the behavior of all
students with positive outcomes” (Wakeman et al., 2006, p. 164). Universally designed lessons
were defined as “an important way to make the general education curriculum accessible”
(Wakeman et al., 2006, p. 164). Most principals also reported that the education of all students
was the responsibility of the principal and all teachers and that these students should have access
to instruction in the general education classroom (Wakeman et al., 2006). Additionally, most
principals supported the practice of promoting a culture of inclusion (Wakeman et al., 2006).
Results from this study also revealed that most principals did not agree with the inclusion of all
students’ assessment scores in school accountability scores (Wakeman et al., 2006). Although
most principals believed that all students should have access to the general education, fewer
principals believed that students were getting access in general education classrooms (Wakeman
et al., 2006).
Lasky and Karge (2006) examined the formal training of principals in a variety of school
districts in southern California and how it impacted their ability to support and train teachers
who work with children with disabilities. Two hundred and five principals from 28 different
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

59
public school districts in southern California participated in this study. Eighty male and 125
female participants completed the survey and the majority of respondents were elementary
school principals. Results from the survey showed that the majority of the participants received
little to no direct experience or training with students with disabilities during their formal
administration credential course work to support teachers working with students with disabilities
(Lasky & Karge, 2006). Although most respondents reported that they learned the essentials on
the job they still felt like course work was very critical to their development (Lasky & Karge,
2006). Additionally, most administrators reported that they reached out to individuals in the field
of special education when they needed information about students with special needs at their
school site (Lasky & Karge, 2006). The majority of principals in this study believed that
mainstreaming facilitated educational and social development of children with and without
disabilities (Lasky & Karge, 2006). Seventy eight percent of respondents also believed that
students with disabilities in an inclusive setting received adequate support (Lasky & Karge,
2006).
Principals’ Attitudes Towards and Perceptions of Inclusion
A principal’s attitude towards and perceptions of inclusion played a crucial role in
fostering a school climate that supported this educational setting (Cook et al., 1999). Cook et al.
(1999) investigated the attitudes of 49 principals regarding the inclusion of students with mild
disabilities through the use of a questionnaire. Participants were sampled from urban and
suburban schools in southern California that implemented a wide array of inclusive practices.
The majority of the students with mild disabilities were in inclusive settings for part of the school
day. Fifty-seven schools (33 elementary and 24 junior high schools) were invited to participate in
this study. Of these 57 schools, 49 completed and returned the questionnaire, which asked
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

60
respondents to provide their opinion on statements regarding the inclusion of students with mild
disabilities. The questionnaire included a Likert scale. The results from the questionnaire found
that principals supported the notion that students with mild disabilities could improve their
academic achievement in inclusive classroom settings (Cook et al., 1999). Although principals
were supportive of the general efficacy and academic outcomes of inclusion, a majority of them
disagreed that special education resources should be protected (Cook et al., 1999). Cook et al.
offered that this attitude might suggest that many or most principals might see inclusion as a
means to save money by using special education funds for other school related areas (Cook et al.,
1999). Additionally, the majority of principals indicated that general education teachers do not
have the instructional skills to support students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Cook et al.,
1999).
Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevins (1996) examined the perceptions of administrators
related to the full inclusion of all students with disabilities. The study surveyed 680 educators-
578 licensed general education teachers, of whom 53 also held administrative certification, 102
licensed special education teachers, of whom 5 had administrative endorsements-from 32 schools
in Canada and the United States. The 58 participants in this study who held an administrative
certification were considered by the researchers as administrators. Participants were given two
surveys that asked questions about their perceptions about educating students with disabilities
and their attitudes towards full inclusion. Although this study examined both educators and
administrators, I focus on the findings for those individuals who were considered to be
administrators. Results from the two surveys given to administrators supported the education of
students with disabilities in inclusive settings through collaborative relationships between the
special and general education teacher (Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996). Specifically,
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

61
administrators agreed with items on the survey that were related to the benefits of inclusion for
all students and the necessary changes in school organization and culture to support this
educational setting (Villa et al., 1996). The benefits of inclusion and the changes in school
culture correlated with the number of professional development opportunities, administrative
support, collaborative time with other teachers, and formal restructuring within schools (Villa et
al., 1996). Most administrators in the study also believed that the general and special education
teachers should collaborate as coequal partners to meet the needs of all children (Villa et al.,
1996). The authors expressed that this collaboration could enhance feelings of competency
between both teachers. Additionally, administrators also believed that the achievement level of
students with disabilities would not decrease in an inclusive classroom setting (Villa et al.,
1996). This study did not clearly define their participants in their results section so it was
difficult to distinguish the data between teachers and administrators.
Horrocks, White, and Roberts (2008) examined the attitudes of principals toward the
inclusion of students with disabilities. Horrocks et al. also sought to identify the relationship
between the attitudes of the principals and their recommendations for placement of children with
autism as well as identify the relationship between specific demographic factors and attitudes
toward placement and inclusion. This study utilized a survey research design and randomly
sampled all Pennsylvania school principals. Surveys were sent to 1,500 principals and only 571
were completed and returned (38% response rate). Approximately half of all respondents were
elementary principals, a quarter were from middle schools or combined middle/elementary or
middle/high school, and another quarter were high school principals (Horrocks, White, &
Roberts, 2008). The survey consisted of four parts. Part 1 assessed principals’ personal and
professional characteristics. Part 2 measured principals’ placement decisions related to the
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

62
inclusion of students with autism. Part 3 measured 17 specific attitudes about inclusion. Part 4
measured general attitudes toward inclusion and special education. Although there were four
parts to this survey that each measured a different component of a principal, there was overlap
within the findings.
Results from the study (Horrocks et al., 2008) suggested that principals who believe that
children with autism could be included in regular education classrooms were more likely to
recommend higher levels of inclusion. Most of the principals surveyed had a positive attitude
about the inclusion of children with disabilities (Horrocks et al., 2008). Additionally, principals
were more likely to recommend higher levels of inclusion for students with stronger academic
profiles from the descriptions given in Part 2 of the survey (Horrocks et al., 2008). Professional
experience with children diagnosed with autism and positive experiences with inclusion were
also correlated with positive attitudes (Horrocks et al., 2008). Principals with more experience in
their current school district were less likely to have positive attitudes toward the inclusion of
children with disabilities (Horrocks et al., 2008). Formal training correlated with higher least
restrictive placement recommendations for children with autism (Horrocks et al., 2008). Findings
from the study also showed that principals were less likely to recommend high levels of
inclusion for children with autism when the student descriptions from Part 2 depicted social
detachment (Horrocks et al., 2008).
Praisner (2003) investigated the attitudes of elementary school principals towards
inclusion and their perceptions of appropriate placements based upon the student’s disability.
This study randomly sampled 408 elementary school principals from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and 47.1% of the sampled schools identified between 6%-10% of the student body
as students with disabilities and had varying degrees of inclusion (Praisner, 2003). The study
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

63
utilized the Principals and Inclusion Survey (PIS) to determine the extent to which variables such
as training, experience, and program factors were related to principals’ attitudes and the impact
of those attitudes on appropriate placement for students with disabilities (Praisner, 2003). The
survey consisted of 28 questions and was initially mailed to 750 participants with only a 54%
return rate. Although the PIS consisted of four sections, findings from three sections: (a)
experience, (b) attitudes towards inclusion, and (c) principals beliefs about appropriate
placements, will be discussed (Praisner, 2006).
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, present summaries, and to examine
the relationship among the variables (Praisner, 2003). Findings from the analysis as it pertained
to the factors related to placement perceptions of principals are as follows. Principals with more
positive attitudes toward inclusion were more likely to believe that less restrictive placements
were most appropriate for students with disabilities (Praisner, 2003). Additionally, participants
also believed that mild disabilities are more appropriate for inclusive settings. Findings as it
pertained to the role of a principal’s experience with students with disabilities are as follows
(Praisner, 2003). This study revealed that the more positive the experiences with students with
disabilities, the more positive a principal’s attitude toward inclusion. Additionally, positive
experiences with students with disabilities were also associated with placement. The more
positive the experience the more principals chose least restrictive placements regardless of
severity of disability.
Conclusion
Effective special education leadership plays an essential role in fostering a school climate
where co-teaching can thrive (Goor et al., 1997). For a principal to be an effective special
education leader she or he needs to have certain attributes. She/he needs to be able to examine
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

64
her or his beliefs about adopting an inclusive paradigm, collaborate effectively with stakeholders,
reflect on her or his actions, and have the capacity to improve the quality of instructional practice
(Elmore, 2000; Goor et al., 1997). This type of principal also needs to have certain qualities that
characterize an effective change leader (Fullan, 2002). Five essential components that
characterize a change leader are: moral purpose, an understanding of the change process, the
ability to improve relationships, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence making (Fullan,
2002). Effective special education leaders also need to have a comprehensive knowledge base
and formal training about special education and how to support students with disabilities (Goor,
et al., 1997; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Pugach, 2011; Wakeman et al., 2006). This type of principal
must also have a positive attitude towards and perceptions of inclusion (Cook et al., 1999;
Horrocks et al., 2008; Praisner, 2003; Villa et al., 1996).
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I present my conceptual framework, which formed the overall framework
of this study. The conceptual framework is the “system of concepts, assumptions, expectations,
beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research [and] is a key part of your design”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). My conceptual framework is the lens that informed my research
including my data collection methods, data analysis and interpretations, and research findings.
Presented first is a visual model of the conceptual framework and a description of the model
(Figure 2).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

65

Figure 2. A successful co-teaching partnership is strongly influenced by interpersonal and contextual
features. Interpersonal features encompass the following: asset-oriented teacher ideology, role enactment, and
compatibility. In order to have a successful co-teaching partnership both co-teachers should have an asset-oriented
ideology about the following: students with disabilities and paraprofessionals. Additionally, both teachers should
enact the role of instructional leader during planning and instruction. The roles that they enact in the classroom are
influenced by the some of the contextual features at the school. Both teachers should also be compatible in the
following areas: philosophy about education and personality. On the other hand, contextual features are solely based
on the leader of the school. In order to have a successful co-teaching partnership the leader must have an inclusive
paradigm. This leader has a knowledge base around special education and inclusion. She/he emphasizes
compatibility when selecting co-teaching partnership and provides common time for planning and relationship
building.

Below, I will first define a successful co-teaching partnership. Then, I will discuss how I
conceptualize interpersonal features. Finally, I will describe how I conceptualize contextual
features.

Successful
Co-‐
teaching

Partnership

Interpersonal

Features
(Teacher)

Asset-‐Oriented

Teacher
Ideology

Students
with

Disabilities

Paraprofessionals

Co-‐teacher

Compatibility
Role
Enactment

Contextual

Features
(Leader)

Inclusive
Paradigm

Special
Education

Knowledge
Base

Volunteering
and

Compatibility

Common
Planning

Time

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

66
Interpersonal Features
Drawing on the works of Gerber and Popp (2000), Sileo (2001), Pugach (2011) and Cook
(2004), I define a successful co-teaching partnership as having the following qualities: both
teachers have an asset-oriented ideology and believe that students with disabilities can learn in an
inclusive setting, both teachers have an asset-oriented ideology about their paraprofessionals,
both teachers enact the role of instructional leaders, and both teachers instruct coactively
utilizing station teaching, parallel teaching, or team teaching models. In a successful co-teaching
partnership, I argue that both co-teachers have an asset-oriented ideology, which will allow for
the implementation of an asset-oriented pedagogy. Co-teachers believe that although students
with disabilities have some challenges in learning they have many assets that can contribute to
the classroom. These teachers believe that students with disabilities have funds of knowledge
that they can tap into. They also believe that students with disabilities can learn alongside general
education students in an inclusive setting. Co-teachers believe that the knowledge base and skills
that students with disabilities have is sufficient when developing a learning environment where
they can be successful. Additionally, they also have an asset ideology about their
paraprofessionals and consider their deployment during common planning time.
In a successful co-teaching partnership, I also argue that both teachers enact the role of
instructional leader during their common planning time as well as when they are instructing
students. During a common planning session, co-teachers are maintaining joint responsibility for
instruction that is to take place in their inclusive classroom setting. Both of their ideas are
represented in their co-constructed lessons and decision-making process involves both of their
input. Thus, both teachers are playing an active role during their common planning time. During
instruction both general and special educators work in a coactive and coordinated fashion to
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

67
jointly teach academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups of students. They also utilize
more collaborative co-teaching models such as parallel teaching, station teaching, and team
teaching. Furthermore, in a successful co-teaching partnership both teachers are compatible in
their educational philosophy and personality traits. Specifically, there is alignment in their
philosophy and their similar personality traits or traits that complement each other.
Contextual Features
Drawing on the works of Goor et al. (1997), Cook (1999), Villa et al. (1996), Horrocks
(2008), and Praisner (2003), I define an effective leader as a leader who adopts an inclusive
paradigm and believes that all students can learn and all teachers can teach a wide range of
students in an inclusive setting. This type of leader believes that inclusion is beneficial for all
students and supports the general efficacy and academic outcomes of this educational setting.
She/he believes that general education teachers have the instructional skills to support students
with disabilities in an inclusive setting and that the collaboration with a general education teacher
can significantly improve the learning environment in which general and special education
students are exposed to. An effective leader also believes that the achievement levels of students
with disabilities and general education students would not decrease in an inclusive classroom
setting. This individual has positive experiences with inclusion and believes in less restrictive
placement of students with disabilities.
An effective leader has a knowledge base about fundamental issues in special education
and an inclusive school climate. She/he understands the needs of co-teachers such as common
planning time and professional development and provides them with the structures that help
support their partnership. This type of leader is also knowledgeable on the impact of a disability
on student performance and she/she embraces the practice of improvement process, which allows
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

68
them to increase their quality of performance as it relates to improving the quality of instruction
and student performance. An effective leader will collaborate with teachers to help support their
instructional techniques and methods to meet the needs of all students in an inclusive classroom
setting. This individual will be reflective and a good listener and problem solver. Being more
reflective will help with being more thoughtful about decisions being made that influences the
partnership between the general education and special education teacher. Being a good listener
and problem solver will help build the collaboration between the leader and co-teachers.
An effective leader creates a school climate that values a thorough selection and
development process as it relates to co-teaching partnerships. Based on the works of Gerber and
Popp (2003), Pugach (2011), and Scruggs et al. (2007), this type of leader selects co-teaching
partnerships based on compatibility. The personality traits of each individual considered for a co-
teaching partnership will be factored in when selecting co-teaching partnership. Additionally, the
personality trait of each co-teacher should complement each other so the relationship between
the two teachers won’t be as cumbersome. An inclusive administrator also factors in each
teacher’s philosophy about education to assure that there is alignment or that their philosophy
compliments each other. Moreover, during the selection process of co-teachers the administrator
also collaborates with teachers who volunteer to co-teach and listens to their opinion and utilizes
it when creating partnerships. These teachers are thought partners for the administrator and the
school climate values this collaboration and sees it as an important component of this process.
Using the work of Bacharach et al. (2008), Hang and Rabren (2009), Howard and Potts
(2009), and Scruggs et al. (2007), I argue that the effective inclusive leaders provides co-teachers
with common time for planning and relationship building, which shapes the school climate
because these structures that are valued and are a part of the teacher’s daily schedule. Co-
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

69
teachers will use this time to foster a foundation for successful co-teaching. They will discuss
lessons and plan out various components so they are prepared to teach together. Co-teachers are
also able to talk about their philosophies on education and also reflect on the status of their
relationship throughout the year and make adjustments to improve the effectiveness of their
partnership and their instruction. Co-teachers will also build upon their relationship as they meet
consistently to talk about instruction and their partnership.
Conclusion
My conceptual framework builds on the literature on co-teaching, inclusion, students
with disabilities, and teacher and administrator ideology. I argue that interpersonal features and
contextual features influence a successful co-teaching partnership. The interpersonal features are
asset-oriented teacher ideology about students with disabilities and paraprofessionals as well as
role enactment and compatibility. Both teachers should enact the role of instructional leader
during planning and instruction and should also be compatible in their philosophy about
education and their personality. The contextual features are based on the leader having a
knowledge base around special education and inclusion. Additionally, she/he emphasizes
compatibility when selecting co-teaching partnership and provides common time for planning
and relationship building.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

70
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection
methods that I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in
which interpersonal features and contextual features (e.g., school structural features and
leadership and climate) influenced the relationship between a general education and a special
education teacher who co-taught together in an inclusive setting. Specifically, I examined the
ways in which interpersonal features such as teacher ideology about students with disabilities
and paraprofessionals, role enactment, and compatibility influenced the success of a co-teaching
partnership. I also examined the ways in which contextual features such as the structural features
and the leadership and climate of a school influenced the success of a co-teaching partnership.
This qualitative case study is informed by the following research questions: How do
interpersonal features shape how co-teaching is enacted? How do contextual features influence
how co-teaching is enacted?
Research Design
According to Merriam (2009), “qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the
meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense of their world and the
experiences they have in the world” (p. 13). The following are four characteristics that are key to
understanding the nature of qualitative research: “the focus is on process, understanding, and
meaning; the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis; the process is
inductive; and the product is richly descriptive” (Merriam, 2009, p. 14). Thus, I chose to use a
qualitative approach because it provides a thick and rich description of the phenomenon under
study and it also provides a means to collect information about the process that created the
phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

71
A case study approach to a qualitative study is designed to uncover the interaction of
significant components that are characteristic of a phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). In addition, a
case study allowed for an in-depth analysis of a bounded system that was intrinsically bounded,
or confined (Merriam, 2009). I studied the influence that the structural features of a school,
interpersonal features of each co-teacher, and the leadership and climate of a school had on the
success of co-teaching partnership. The unit of analysis was the co-teaching relationship between
the general education and special education teacher. I was able to examine each teacher’s
ideology about her current teaching placement as well as her relationship with her co-teacher. I
was also able to examine the roles they enacted in the classroom and during their common
planning time. By examining the administrator at the same school site, I was able to examine her
ideology about special education and its influence on the inclusive classroom setting.
In this study, I sought to better understand, and help readers understand two components
of inclusion: (1) how elementary school co-teachers developed and sustained a successful co-
teaching relationship, and (2) how an elementary school administrator supported a school climate
where a co-teaching partnership can be successful. The intersections of structural features,
interpersonal features of each co-teacher, and the leadership and climate at an elementary school
are complex and contextual. As illustrated in my conceptual framework, co-teachers who have a
successful relationship are likely to understand and be able to articulate the essential components
that are necessary. Additionally, an administrator who supports such a relationship is likely to be
able to describe the essential components necessary for one to exist. Therefore, a case study of a
co-teaching partnership and their administrator allowed for a deep and thorough examination of
these complex and situated experiences (Merriam, 2009).

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

72
Sample and Population
Site Selection
The qualitative case study took place at a K-8 school in a large metropolitan school
district in Southern California. The focus of my study was on the relationship between two-co-
teachers in an inclusive setting. Due to time constraints, I used a combination of network,
convenience, and nomination sampling. This combination of techniques resulted in the selection
of a partnership that did not have an in-depth knowledge about co-teaching and inclusion.
Moreover, while my intent was to use purposeful sampling to gain as much insight on the
components that support a successful co-teaching partnership as possible, I ended up with a co-
teaching partnership that did not reflect the essential elements of a successful co-teaching
partnership as detailed in my conceptual framework. Merriam (2009) explained that a set of
criteria must be established in order to use purposeful sampling. I also used network sampling to
identify schools that met the criteria I established below. The following criteria guided my
school selection process:
Criterion 1: The first set of criteria that was needed for a school site to be considered for
this study was that it needed to be a public elementary school with a diverse student population
that included students from more than one racial and ethnic group and students from
socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The student population had to have been at least
40% racial and ethnic minorities that include more than one racial and ethnic category. In
addition, at least 60% of the students had to have been from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds and at least 30% are English Language Learners. Also at least 12% of the student
population had to be students with disabilities. This information came from state data from 2013.
Since this study was focused explicitly on the relationship between co-teachers who work with
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

73
students with a wide range of needs in an inclusive setting, the criteria listed influenced the way
they experienced the students in their room and by extension, the way they interacted with each
other.
The school site also needed to have a full inclusion program with classrooms that have
both general education and special education teachers co-teaching for a minimum of 80% of the
days when the special education teacher was scheduled to co-teach in a designated classroom.
The full inclusion program had to have been implemented three or more years ago because this
was expected to be a sufficient amount of time to create an inclusion program with successful co-
teaching partnerships. Additionally, the inclusion classroom that was included in my study had at
least 25% of the student population be students with special needs and students who were in the
SST (Student Success Team) process, which served as a pipeline for students who might qualify
for an IEP. By selecting a full inclusion classroom setting with students with disabilities and
students in the SST process and teachers who co-taught for the majority of the day when
scheduled, I was able to see co-teachers in action with their students as an audience.
Criterion 2. The second set of criteria had to do with the school’s academic performance
as determined by the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) score. To be included in this
study, a school needed a score of at least 750 for the 2012-2013 school year, and/or a consistent
API growth over the school years of 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013. The school also
needed an API score of at least 650 for the 2012-2013 school year, and/or a consistent API
growth over the school years of 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 for students with
disabilities. Considering the school’s academic performance was a key component of this study
because a successful co-teaching relationship could be devoid of a consideration for the
performance of students in inclusive classroom settings.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

74
In order to identify a school that met these criteria, I created a spreadsheet and tracked
their academic performance. I was able to eliminate schools that did not meet the entire criteria
outlined above. Through this elimination process, I was able to identify the school I utilized for
my study. Because of time constraints, I settled on a school that did not serve students with the
socioeconomic characteristics that I had set forth in my proposal. The school in my study served
students who were more affluent than students in many schools in the Southern California
region. In addition, the school had more resources at its disposal than many schools in the region.
Participant Selection
Merriam (2009) suggests that the criteria used to guide purposeful selection will provide
guidance in selecting an information-rich case for in-depth study (Merriam, 2009). Thus,
purposeful selection was used to determine the participants in this study. Additionally, network
sampling was utilized to identify key participants (Merriam, 2009) who met the criteria I
established below.
After identifying the school that met the criteria discussed above I emailed a description
of my study and the criteria I would be using to select my participants to the elementary principal
at the school site. In the email I also asked if there was a special education administrator at their
school site. I also requested some information about the principal’s background at the school site
and how her role is connected to the inclusion program. The principal forwarded my initial email
with description of my study to co-teaching partnership that she thought met the requirements.
Two co-teaching partnerships reached out to me because they were interested in participating in
the study. I interviewed both partnerships over the phone to determine which partnership would
be a better fit. The following were the questions I used during the interview:

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

75
1. Who is SPED and who is Gen Ed?
2. How long have you been in this partnership?
3. How long have you been teaching as a fully credentialed teacher?
4. What do you notice about students with IEPs and whether they are meeting their
goals consistently?
5. How many students with disabilities in your classroom?
6. How many students do you have in your class?
7. Can you describe the demographics of the classroom?
8. Do you just co-teach with each other? If not, then whom else did you co-teach with?
9. How often do you plan together?
10. Can you provide me with your co-teaching schedule?
The following section consists of two criteria, one for co-teachers and the other for the
administrator.
Criterion 1–Co-teachers. In order to select an ideal partnership for this study,
participants were selected carefully. The first criterion needed for a co-teaching partnership to be
included in this study was that one teacher is a fully credentialed general education teacher and
the other teacher is a fully credentialed special education teacher. They needed to be in their
partnership for at least two years. Co-teachers also needed to have a partnership where both
individuals are instructional leaders in the classroom who have content knowledge of core
subject areas such as ELA and math. Both co-teachers also needed to have an asset-ideology
about historically marginalized students and students with disabilities. Additionally, co-teachers
needed to have at least 70% of their students with disabilities meet at least 80% of their IEP
goals from the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year. These co-teachers also needed to have a
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

76
reputation of or see themselves as having a successful relationship. The approach I took lead me
to have two co-teaching partnerships to choose from. Again, because of time constraints, I chose
one of the two partnerships that seemed on the surface to meet the criteria I had established. I did
not have the opportunity to observe the teachers prior to beginning data collection and was
therefore unable to have confidence that they did in fact model the attributes of a successful co-
teaching partnership.
Criterion 2–Administrator. The first criterion needed for an administrator to be
included in this study was that she/he has been an administrator at the school site for at least
three years. This individual was both knowledgeable about and responsible for the inclusion
program at the school. The administrator needed to be highly collaborative with various
stakeholders within the inclusion program. I used the information gained from the questions I
asked the elementary via email to determine that she met the criteria outlined above. Again,
because of time constraints, I was unable to discover that the principal at this school site was not
deeply knowledgeable about special education or co-teaching.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which interpersonal features and
contextual features (e.g., school structural features and leadership and climate) influenced the
relationship between a general education and a special education teacher who co-taught together
in an inclusive setting. As a qualitative case study, my role as the researcher required me to
operate as the primary instrument for data collection and analysis (Merriam, 2009). I developed
and used protocols to increase the likelihood of collecting and recording rich, descriptive data
(Patton, 2002) during the observations and interviews (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2002).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

77
The special education and general education teacher interview protocol (See Appendices
A and B) indicated the school name (pseudonym), date, participant’s name (pseudonym),
position, time started, time completed, total time, and researcher’s name. Each protocol was
made up of two parts: introduction and interview questions. The interview questions were made
up of three parts: background, roles and relationships, and structural features. The questions on
these protocols varied slightly to align with the role of the participant. The principal,
paraprofessional, and special education coordinator interview protocol (Appendix C, D, and E
respectively) also indicated the school name (pseudonym), date, participant’s name
(pseudonym), position, time started, time completed, total time, and researcher’s name. This
protocol was made up of two parts: introduction and interview questions. The interview
questions were made up of two parts: background and ideology and structural features. The
classroom/lesson planning observation protocol (Appendix F) indicated the school name
(pseudonym), date, type of class observed, participant’s name (pseudonym), time started, time
completed, total time, and researcher’s name. This document also had a table with a section to
note the time and another section to script the field notes. The classroom observation protocol
(Appendix G) was designed to map the physical location of the classroom. It was used to sketch
the layout of the room and seating placement. I collected data from teacher and administrator
interviews and direct classroom observations.
Interview. Interviews provided insight (Merriam, 2009) on both co-teachers’ and
administrator’s interpretations of the phenomenon in this study. The interviews followed a semi-
structured format, where a set of issues that needed to be explored guided the types of questions
(Merriam, 2009) I asked both co-teachers and the administrator. I used my conceptual
framework as a guide of the concepts I covered in the interviews. For this study, I interviewed
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

78
two teachers who co-teach in an inclusive setting together and an administrator at their school
site. I also interviewed the paraprofessional coordinator and two paraprofessionals who worked
with both teachers in my study to gain more insight. I interviewed these individuals once. I
conducted an initial interview with each teacher separately. I used one protocol (Appendix A) for
the special education teacher and I used the second protocol (Appendix B) for the general
education teacher. The primary purpose of the initial interview was to gain insight into each
teacher’s background, roles and relationship with each other, and structural features at their
school site that influences their relationship. Each interview took about an hour. I used the third
protocol (Appendix C) to conduct my initial interview with the principal. The primary purpose of
this interview was to gain insight into her background, ideology about inclusion and students
with special needs, and the structural features at her school that influences a co-teaching
partnership.
After conducting two to three observations of both teachers co-teaching, I conducting a
series of informal interviews. I conducted eight informal interviews with both teachers and asked
questions related to what I observed in the classroom. These informal meetings ranged from
fifteen minutes to an hour. I also conducted two informal interviews with the principal, one
towards the middle of my study and the other towards the end of my study. The questions I asked
during these informal interviews were about the data I obtained from the previous interview as
well as the data I collected from classroom observations and the interviews with both teachers.
These informal interviews with the principal took approximately 30 minutes.
Observation. According to Merriam (2009), observations represent a firsthand encounter
with the phenomenon of interest. Observations are both grounded in the research question and
theoretical framework and yet flexible enough to emerge and even change over time during the
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

79
course of the study (Merriam. 2009). Since I conducted my initial interview with both teachers
the week before their school went on winter break, I conducted my first classroom observation
the second week of school after winter break. I conducted eight semi-structured classroom
observations and four semi-structured observations of their grade level common planning time. I
conducted two classroom observations and then observed their grade level common planning
time. During classroom observations, I saw both teachers co-teach in all subject areas. I also
observed the general education teacher teaching lessons on her own since the special education
teacher supported other classrooms. The total time spent observing their classroom amounted to
approximately 18 hours. The total time spent observing their grade level common planning time
amounted to approximately 5 hours.
I used my conceptual framework as a resource when I constructed my observation
protocol (Appendix E), which captured elements of collaborative co-teaching models, co-
teachers enacting instructional leadership roles, and asset-oriented pedagogy. I observed how co-
teachers interacted with each other and their grade level team during the lesson planning process,
how their personality and philosophy about education influenced their interactions, and how they
resolved conflicts while creating lessons together. I also observed the teachers’ actions and
communication patterns with each other and their grade level team as well as the students, the
students’ reactions to both co-teachers, and the students’ statements and behaviors in response to
the teachers’ statements and interactions with each other.
Documents and Artifacts. Unlike the interview and observation where co-teachers could
be influenced by my presence as the researcher, artifacts could not be altered as a result of my
presence (Merriam, 2009). In addition, documents and artifacts are products of the teacher,
produced and grounded in real-life, which offer greater descriptive information (Merriam, 2009).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

80
I collected documents such as a written copy of the teachers’ lesson plans, information from the
school’s website, resources from the main office, and the teachers’ daily schedule. I also
collected worksheets that were passed out during lessons I observed and I took pictures of
artifacts that the teachers’ referenced during their interviews. I collected documents from two
staff professional development I attended. I also collected documentation that the teachers and
administrator volunteered. Finally, I documented artifacts such as the types of physical materials
in the classroom–books, posters, plaques, and seating arrangements–on a classroom map
(Appendix G).
Data Analysis Procedures
Corbin and Strauss (2008) described analysis as the process of giving meaning to data by
taking it apart to identify its various components then taking a closer look at those components to
understand their function and relationship to each other. The data for this qualitative case study
included transcripts from teacher and administrator interviews, classroom observation field
notes, and documents and artifacts that were acquired in the field. I began my analysis during my
data collection by transcribing the recorded interviews, analyzing the transcript and observation
field notes, and coded data connected to concepts illustrated in my conceptual framework. In this
process, I also utilized the documents and artifacts that I acquired in the field as a reminder of
my observations at Glenford Academy. This enabled me to ask follow-up questions during the
subsequent interviews and observations.
As the beginning of data analysis, I used analytic coding to identify themes that coincided
with my study’s research questions and illustrated in my conceptual framework. After
identifying emerging themes in my initial data set through analytic coding, I used pattern coding
of subsequent data to sort data into categories that reflected recurring patterns that were central
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

81
to my study (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Critical to the coding process was my effort to
ensure that all categories were “mutually exclusive” and “conceptually congruent” (Merriam,
2009, p. 186). Maintaining fidelity to this process informed my data collection and analysis as I
proceeded through each stage of my study. It also allowed for the possibility of emerging themes
or patterns to take shape.
Validity and Reliability
Ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research involves conducting the study in
an ethical manner (Merriam, 2009). The results of this study must be considered trustworthy in
order for findings to be relevant to the educational field. A study is deemed trustworthy to the
extent that it was rigorously conducted through careful consideration of the study’s
conceptualization and the way in which the data are collected, analyzed, interpreted, and
presented (Merriam, 2009). This study was conducted in such a way that would ensure, as much
as possible, the validity and reliability of the findings. The design of this study included
classroom observations and interviews with the co-teachers, principal, paraprofessionals, and the
paraprofessional coordinator. The data from these interviews and observations were especially
useful in gaining insight into the influence of interpersonal features and contextual features on a
co-teaching partnership. Observations enhance the validity and reliability of interviews by
allowing the researcher to observe behavior as it happens (Merriam, 2009) while interviews offer
insight into a person’s feelings or intentions, allowing the researcher to accurately capture his or
her worldview (Patton, 2002).
Internal Validity
Interval validity hinges on the meaning of reality and deals with the following questions
of how research findings match reality: “How congruent are the researcher’s findings with
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

82
reality? Do the findings capture what is really there?” and “Are investigators observing or
measuring what they think they are measuring?” (Merriam, 2009, p. 213). Internal validity is
considered a strength of qualitative research because the researcher’s interpretation of the array
of participants’ behaviors is what constitutes reality. The researcher’s interpretation of the
participants’ understanding of teacher learning is what constitutes reality. As the primary
instrument for data collection and analysis, my interpretation of reality came from the
observations, documentation, and interviews.
Merriam (2009) asserted that another method of achieving internal validity is through
triangulation, which is the cross referencing of multiple sources (i.e., observations, interviews,
and documentation), and it is applied to obtain consistent and dependable data. In my study, I
triangulated observations, interviews, and documentation as a means of offsetting teachers’ self-
reporting, and the discrepancies or inconsistencies that may have emerged during my logging of
classroom observations. Merriam (2002) suggested a researcher should keep a research journal
throughout the study to include reflective notes. While I did not keep a journal, I did write
reflective notes, which captured my experiences, personal interpretations, hunches, biases or
other observer comments. These notes provided additional insights into what transpired before,
during, and after each observation. They also included questions and ideas that arose during the
interviews and data analysis process. The reflective notes revealed any inconsistencies between
initial interpretations and those of the participants during the time of the fieldwork. They also
served to confirm the story told by the findings.
Another method for achieving internal validity is the amount of time spent in the field.
Patton (2002) asserted that the time spent doing fieldwork depends on how long it takes the
researcher to answer the research questions. To increase the level of internal validity in my
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

83
study, I conducted my study over a two-month period. I conducted eight semi-structured
classroom observations and four semi-structured observations of the teacher’s grade level
common planning time. I conducted two classroom observations and then observed their grade
level common planning time. I also conducted eight interviews with the teachers, three
interviews with the principal and I interviewed two paraprofessionals and the paraprofessional
coordinator.
Reliability
Merriam (2009) defined reliability as “the extent to which research findings can be
replicated” (p. 220). She further stated that, “reliability in a research design is based on the
assumption that there is a single reality and that studying it repeatedly will yield the same
results” (p. 220). However, qualitative research is not conducted so that human behavior can be
isolated. To strengthen the reliability of a study, the researcher should become more equipped
through training and practice. Additionally, the researcher should incorporate and audit trail,
which documented the data collection and analysis process, including how any decisions were
formulated throughout the study. During data collection and analysis, I spent a significant
amount of time analyzing my data and refined my process. I practiced facilitating and scripting
interviews before I went into the field. I also utilized my reflective notes as an audit trail.
Generalizability
Generalizability, or external validity, is “the extent to which the findings of one study can
be applied to other situations” (Merriam, 2009, p. 223). The most common method utilized by
qualitative researchers to transfer the findings of one study to another context is through rich,
thick descriptions (Maxwell, 2013). To increase the likelihood that the results from my study can
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

84
be generalized to another setting, I offered a detailed account of my study’s context to facilitate
the transfer of the findings and provided a rich, thick description of the study.
Conclusion
This study sought to examine the ways in which interpersonal features and contextual
features, which includes structural features and leadership and climate, influenced the
relationship between a general education and a special education teacher who co-teach together
in an inclusive setting. The unit of analysis was the co-teaching relationship and the case study is
the two co-teachers and site administrator in the context discussed above. Data was collected
through semi-structured interviews with co-teachers, the principal, paraprofessionals, and the
paraprofessional coordinator. Data was collected through eight semi-structured classroom
observations and four semi-structured observations of the teacher’s grade level common
planning time. I also conducted two classroom observations and then observed their grade level
common planning time. I also conducted eight interviews with the teachers, three interviews with
the principal and I interviewed two paraprofessionals and the paraprofessional coordinator. My
conceptual framework guided the data analysis process.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

85
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which interpersonal features such
as teacher ideology about students with disabilities, co-teaching, inclusion, teacher compatibility,
and role enactment shaped the success of a co-teaching partnership. This study also examined the
ways in which contextual features of a school shaped the relationship between a general
education and a special education teacher who co-taught together in an inclusive setting. The
first three chapters of this dissertation discussed some of the issues that contribute to the
achievement gap between general and special education students, the research questions that
guided this study, a review of the literature on the interpersonal and contextual features of a
successful co-teaching relationship, my conceptual framework, and the data collection methods
used for this study. In this chapter, I present the findings of the study.
This dissertation is a qualitative case study of two elementary teachers who co-taught
together. The unit of analysis was the co-teaching relationship between the general education and
special education teacher; however, I also examined the principal, in-class paraprofessionals, and
the paraprofessional coordinator and their influence on this relationship. I conducted six in-
person interviews with each teacher and 10 classroom observations where both teachers either
taught together or the general education teacher taught the lesson alone. I observed planning
sessions with the co-teachers and their grade level team. I conducted three interviews with the
principal and also interviewed two paraprofessionals who worked with the co-teachers in this
study. I also observed these paraprofessionals in the context of the classroom observations. In
addition, I interviewed the paraprofessional coordinator and the special education teacher’s
assistant who supported the special education teacher in the study. Finally, I conducted a review
of school documents, such as written lesson plans, professional development handouts, and a
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

86
visitor information packet. The data collected from this study addressed the following research
questions:
1. How do interpersonal features shape how co-teaching is enacted?
2. How do contextual features influence how co-teaching is enacted?
These questions were explored through qualitative research methods where data were
collected through observations and interviews. Triangulation of these data sources increased the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study’s findings. The information was analyzed and the
findings were constructed to offer a rich description of the phenomenon in question.
Pseudonyms for the school site, principal, teachers, paraprofessionals, paraprofessional
coordinator, and special education teacher’s assistant were created to ensure that all participants’
identities were kept private. This chapter begins with a brief description of the school and the
participants and then presents the study’s findings in alignment with the corresponding research
question.
Background: Glenford Academy and the Classroom
Glenford Academy was a K-8 public charter school operating within Genesis Unified
School District. The student population consisted of approximately 698 students of which 61%
were White, 19% were Hispanic/Latino, 9% were Asian, and 6% were Black or African
American. Approximately 18% of the student population were eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch; approximately 7% of the students enrolled were English Language Learners and
approximately 15% were students with disabilities. The school’s API score for the 2012-13
academic year was 833. The school was located in a middle class suburban neighborhood. The
demographic of the school was similar to that of the surrounding neighborhood.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

87
Glenford Academy was a full inclusion K-8 school that utilized various co-teaching
models to support students with a wide variety of needs. This study took place in a first grade
classroom. There was a general education and special education teacher in the classroom as well
as two paraprofessionals. There were 20 students, three of whom had IEPs and two of whom
were in the pipeline for receiving IEPs. Thirteen students were White, six students were
Hispanic, and one student was Asian.
Ms. Jackson: Special Education Teacher
At time of the data collection, Ms. Jackson was in her eighth year as a teacher. The first
year and a half of her tenure in the classroom was as a general education teacher and the
remaining six and a half years were as a special education teacher. She was a paraprofessional
for a year and half prior to becoming a teacher. Ms. Jackson has been working at Glenford
Academy for five years. Her first year at Glenford Academy, Ms. Jackson worked in middle
school. During her second year at this academy, she switched over to elementary and worked
with the first grade team. This was her first year co-teaching with Ms. Brown. They co-taught
together for another year and then worked with different co-teachers on the first grade team the
following year. The academic school year of the study was their third year co-teaching together
in first grade. Additionally, Ms. Jackson did not solely co-teach with Ms. Brown, she also co-
taught with a second grade teacher during the time of this study. Ms. Jackson stated that she
decided to become a special education teacher because:
I have a sister with a disability so I’ve been in this field for 28 years…I sort of always
knew I wanted to go into special education because of my family background…I always
wanted to be a special educator at a fully inclusive school.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

88
As mentioned above, Ms. Jackson started her tenure in the classroom as a general
education teacher. She said that this was because most of her experience with her family
background was from the disability side of inclusion and she felt like she could be the most
effective teacher in an inclusive model if she understood the general education and special
education piece. She also said, “I very purposely went into general education knowing that I
wouldn’t stay there forever. I don’t think I thought I would move out of it as quickly as I did.”
Ms. Jackson was a general education teacher at a bilingual school and her co-teacher was the
Spanish teacher, so she always had a co-teacher throughout her teaching experience.
Ms. Brown: General Education Teacher
At time of the data collection, Ms. Brown was in her eighth year as a teacher. The first
three years of her tenure in the classroom were as a general education teacher in a general
education classroom. Ms. Brown enrolled her own children at Glenford Academy before she
worked at this school. During her initial interview, she talked about her experience as a parent at
Glenford Academy. Ms. Brown said, “So I was familiar as a parent of what the school was and
none of my own children have disabilities. I just liked the school and the environment when I
chose it for my own children.” From the parent perspective, she liked the experience that
Glenford Academy was providing for her kids and her familiarity with the inclusion program
was enough for her to be a teacher at this academy.
Ms. Brown has been working at Glenford Academy for five years. She taught first grade
her first year at this academy, but she did not co-teach with Ms. Jackson. During her second year
at this academy, she continued teaching first grade and this was her first year co-teaching with
Ms. Jackson. They co-taught together for another year and then worked with different co-
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

89
teachers on the first grade team the following year. This academic school year is their third year
co-teaching together in first grade.
Ms. Staine: Principal
At the time of data collection, Ms. Staine was in her first year as a K-5 principal at
Glenford Academy. Prior to becoming the principal she had been the Director of Curriculum and
Instruction at the school for two years. During her initial interview, Ms. Staine described duties
of the Director of Curriculum as comparable to those of an assistant principal. Thus she felt as
though she was really in her third year as a principal rather than in her first year. Her
administrative team consists of the Executive Director and a 6-8 principal. Ms. Staine said that
having these individuals on her administrative team “allows us to be much more supportive to
teachers. I can really focus on the elementary school teachers.” She also said that her team was
high collaboratively and worked well together.
Ms. Staine was also one of the founding general education teachers at Glenford
Academy. As a founding teacher, Ms. Staine taught in a second and third grade combination
classroom for one year. After that she taught second grade for seven years. Ms. Staine enrolled
her daughter into Glenford Academy in kindergarten and she was in second grade at the time of
the study. Ms. Staine indicated that she would be enrolling her second daughter in kindergarten
next year. When Ms. Staine talked about her experience as a parent of students who attends
school with a full inclusion model, she said that she was beyond grateful that her kids were
learning acceptance and empathy.
A Return to the Conceptual Framework–Successful Co-teaching Partnership
Drawing on the works of Gerber and Popp (2000), Sileo (2001), Pugach (2011) and Cook
(2004), I define a successful co-teaching relationship as having the following qualities: both
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

90
teachers have an asset-oriented ideology and believe that students with disabilities can learn in an
inclusive setting, both teachers enact the role of instructional leaders, and both teachers instruct
coactively utilizing station teaching, parallel teaching, or team teaching models. In a successful
co-teaching relationship, I argue that both co-teachers have an asset-oriented ideology, which
will allow for the implementation of an asset-oriented pedagogy. Co-teachers believe that
although students with disabilities have some challenges in learning they have many assets that
can contribute to the classroom. These teachers believe that students with disabilities have funds
of knowledge that they can tap into. They also believe that students with disabilities can learn
alongside general education students in an inclusive setting. Co-teachers believe that the
knowledge base and skills that students with disabilities have are sufficient when developing a
learning environment where they can be successful. Observations of my participants common
planning time and teaching practice as well as one-on-one interviews and partnership interviews
provide insight in to Ms. Jackson’s and Ms. Brown’s relationship, the extent to which it aligned
with this definition, and how their beliefs and actions translated into learning opportunities for
their students.
In a successful co-teaching partnership, I also argue that both teachers enact the role of
instructional leader during their common planning time as well as when they are instructing
students. During their common planning session, co-teachers are maintaining joint responsibility
for instruction that is to take place in their inclusive classroom setting. Both of their ideas are
represented in their co-constructed lessons and decision-making process involves both of their
input. Thus, both teachers are playing an active role during their common planning time. During
instruction both general and special educators work in a coactive and coordinated fashion to
jointly teach academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups of students. Additionally, both
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

91
teachers are utilizing more collaborative co-teaching models such as parallel teaching, station
teaching, and team teaching. In parallel teaching, co-teachers divide their class into two equal
groups and each teacher simultaneously taught the same material to his or her small group (Sileo,
2011). In station teaching, co-teachers divide their class into three equal groups and the students
rotate through each of the instructional stations (Sileo, 2011). In team teaching, co-teachers both
lead large group instruction simultaneously (Sileo, 2011). All three models allow both teachers
to enact the role of an instructional leader where both teachers are equally interacting with
students.
Thorough analysis of the data from interviews and observations has demonstrated that the
qualities of a successful co-teaching relationship discussed above were present in Ms. Brown and
Ms. Jackson’s co-teaching relationship. In fact, if one were to take a superficial look at the data
one would come to the conclusion that Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson had a very successful
relationship, not only in the structure of what they were doing but also in their intent to meet the
needs of their students with disabilities. The challenge was that below the surface their beliefs
about the students with disabilities interfered with their ability to use the powerful relationship
they had with each other to the academic benefit of their students.
Research Question 1: How do Interpersonal Features Shape how Co-teaching is Enacted?
Within my conceptual framework I define a successful co-teaching relationship as having
certain qualities that shape how co-teaching is enacted. Some of these qualities are the
interpersonal features within the co-teaching relationship. This section will discuss how the co-
teaching relationship of the two teachers I observed was shaped as a result of teacher ideology,
role enactment, and compatibility. I discuss each of these elements in order. First I discuss how
the fact that they appeared to have an aligned set of beliefs (ideology) influenced their way of
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

92
working together in both limiting and productive ways. Specifically, their shared ideology led
both teachers to make instructional choices during their grade level planning that limited the
students’ learning opportunity. Also, both teachers did not consider the deployment of their
paraprofessionals during their grade level planning, which demonstrated that they did not see
these support providers as a resource they could tap into. Although limiting, these instructional
choices allowed both teachers to be productive during their grade level planning where they were
able to utilize collaborative co-teaching models and use their instructional time efficiently. I will
discuss the limitations and productivity of their co-teaching relationship in the context of
planning and instruction. Then I discuss role enactment and finally I turn my attention to
compatibility.
Teacher Ideology
Teachers’ attitudes and perspectives play an important role in how interpersonal features
shape how co-teaching is enacted. As Cook, Tankersley, Cook, and Landrum (2000) and others
(Cook 2001; Cook, 2004) suggested, teachers’ ideology about students with disabilities can
influence how they interact with their students and possibly how they interact with each other.
The philosophies about learning and teaching that co-teachers bring into their relationship
influence how they position themselves and their co-teacher during common planning time and
when working with students with disabilities (Gerber & Popp, 2003).
In the following section, I discuss the way that beliefs and attitudes of the co-teachers
were reflected in their interactions with each other, their students, and the paraprofessionals in
their classroom. Their ideology about their students with disabilities during their planning
session reflected a deficit perspective because they over-scaffolded activities that they felt were
too difficult for their students with disabilities. Thus, their attempts to “support” students with
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

93
disabilities when they engaged with complex problems resulted in a decrease in rigor, which
indicated that both teachers believed that these students were not capable of solving complex
problems. These scaffolds reflect lower quality pedagogy. On the other hand, Ms. Brown’s and
Ms. Jackson’s ideology about their students with disabilities during instruction reflected a mostly
asset ideology. The teachers’ actions demonstrated that both teachers believed that their students
with disabilities were able to stay focused during whole group instruction and work
independently after the lesson. This ideology was reflected in the teachers’ use of team teaching,
which is a more collaborative co-teaching model (Friend et al., 2010). They also had high
expectations for what they wanted students to accomplish during independent time.
In addition, Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s ideology about their paraprofessionals
during their planning sessions and class time reflected a deficit perspective towards them. First,
Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson did not consider their paraprofessionals when planning instructional
activities for their students with disabilities. Their failure to consider how to deploy their
paraprofessionals during instructional time indicated that they did not see these individuals as
vital support providers who needed to be a part of the dialogue around scaffolded activities.
Furthermore, Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s failure to include their paraprofessionals also
suggested that they did not think that these individuals would be able to provide thoughtful input
about the students’ needs and appropriate scaffolds. During instructional time, Ms. Brown’s and
Ms. Jackson’s ideology about their paraprofessionals reflected a mixed ideology. They believed
that their paraprofessionals were competent enough to support students with disabilities with
instructional activities during independent time and created a support system based on their
shared belief. However, there were many instances where the paraprofessional was supporting a
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

94
student and the teacher would interject and directly support that student because the
paraprofessional was not providing what they believed to be appropriate supports.
Both teachers’ shared ideology played out in the way they constructed their lessons
during planning time, talked about their students during planning time, worked together but did
not rely on their paraprofessionals or include them in their planning or thinking process, set
expectations for students during independent time and interacted with the paraprofessionals to
meet these expectations. The following section presents evidence from interviews and
observations that demonstrate both teachers’ shared ideology about their students with
disabilities and their paraprofessionals in the context of their grade level planning and classroom
instruction.
Planning: Students with disabilities. Teachers’ ideology about their students with
disabilities could influence how they interact with each other (Cook, Tankersley, Cook, &
Landrum (2000). Observations of their planning time revealed that Ms. Jackson’s and Ms.
Brown’s shared ideology about their students with disabilities made planning sessions more
productive because they appeared to be on the same page when making instructional choices.
Since both teachers believed that their students with disabilities would struggle with certain
instructional activities, they immediately created scaffolds or an easy worksheet for their
students to complete.
Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s decisions made their planning session more productive
because they were able to discuss more instructional activities. For example, during one planning
session the grade level was discussing an activity for one of the math centers. In this context, Ms.
Jackson and Ms. Brown brought up the language challenges that they believed existed for their
students in a math lesson. The grade level team was discussing an activity for one of the math
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

95
centers. The activity was about indirect measurement. Teacher 1 started to read the word
problem out loud and Ms. Jackson interjected and said, “Oh Lord” in a negative tone and shook
her head side to side. Teacher 1 continued to read the word problem and said, “Use the clues …
Clue 1, a red line is shorter than a blue line. Clue 2, the blue line is shorter than the purple line.
So the red line is blank than the purple line.” As teacher 1 was reading the problem Ms. Jackson
continued to shake her head side to side. Excerpt 1 represents the rest of their conversation.
Excerpt 1
Ms. Brown: This is going to be so hard for kids with language.
Ms. Jackson: It would need to start with draw a blue line…draw a yellow string that is
shorter than the blue string…draw a red string that is longer than the blue
string.
Teacher 1: That would be a good scaffold.
Ms. Jackson: I don’t like this. I’ll make a math fact page that is easier. Same skill but
easier.
Ms. Brown: Gosh! Poor Karen. Poor Robert.
Ms. Jackson: Yeah, this is beastly.
Ms. Brown: Oh my God. No way. Jake will not be able to process that at all.
Ms. Jackson: No.
The grade level team continued to talk about the complexity of the problem and the multiple
steps kids would need to process. Ms. Jackson mentioned that the kids would have a hard time
just using the right manipulatives. Ms. Brown suggested that they skip the lesson and Teacher 2
replied, “What’s the point of skipping it? Because it is too hard?” Ms. Brown replied, “Yeah,
what’s the point of it?” Teacher 1 reminded the team that they said that they would do all the
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

96
math lessons. The team decided to have students practice the same skill in the original word
problem but Ms. Jackson would create an easier math fact worksheet.
This evidence is an example of both teachers’ aligned deficit beliefs about their students
with disabilities that led to quick solutions that increased their productivity during their planning
session. Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson both believed that students like Karen, Robert, and Jack
would struggle with the language in the word problem. Karen and Jake had IEPs and Robert
went through the SST (Student Success Team) process, which served as a pipeline for students
who might qualify for an IEP. Karen and Robert were English Language Learners (ELLs). Both
teachers did not even consider that these students might be able to perform the task at hand. In
fact, they offered comments like “Poor Robert! Poor Karen!” and “Yeah, this is beastly,”
suggesting that they did not believe these children capable, even with support, of accomplishing
the task at hand. Ms. Brown also said that, “Jake will not be able to process that at all,” which
demonstrated that she believed that his learning disability would make it challenging for him to
understand the problem. These comments clearly reflected low expectations of both of these
children.
Moreover, Ms. Jackson already started to think about scaffolds for the students without
even thinking about whether the students with disabilities would be able to solve the problem.
Ms. Brown suggested skipping the lesson because she thought it would be too challenging for
these students. Her intentions were to make things easier for her students with disabilities but in
reality her low expectations were limiting their access to the core curriculum. Ms. Jackson
suggested an easier math fact worksheet, which decreased the level of rigor for these students but
also for the whole grade level. The one of the two other teachers in the room initially considered
Ms. Jackson’s first idea, to have the children draw the different colored lines, as a “good
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

97
scaffold” but then expressed concern that Ms. Jackson and Ms. Brown were inclined to remove
the lesson altogether. They resisted the idea of skipping the lesson and also reminded the two
teachers that they had agreed to do all the lessons. Eventually, the grade level team agreed to
keep the lesson and supplement it with an easier worksheet that decreased the level of rigor for
all the students. Ms. Jackson Ms. Brown shared low expectations about their students’ processing
and language challenges were not only limiting for their students with disabilities but for the
entire grade level.
While Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s shared deficit ideology influenced the way they
worked with each other during their grade level planning in productive ways, their shared beliefs
also created limitations for their students with disabilities. Researchers have suggested that a
teacher’s ideological orientation is often reflected in his or her beliefs and attitudes and in the
way he or she instructs his or her students (Bartolomé, 1994; Bartolomé, 2004; Milner, 2010).
The instructional activities that they created for these students were less rigorous because of the
immediate accommodations and scaffolds that were suggested and created by them.
A second example of the co-teachers’ deficit ideology can be seen during one of the
grade level planning session as Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson were starting to plan a math lesson
that they would be doing in the following weeks. The lesson that they were planning was about
making models to compare numbers. Ms. Brown started to read the math problem to the grade
level team. Excerpt 2 is their conversation about this math problem.
Excerpt 2
Ms. Brown: Tony has these number cards. He gives away the cards with numbers less
than 16 and greater than 19. Which number cards does Tony have now?
Wow! This is going to be hard.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

98
Teacher 1: Oh that’s fun!
Ms. Jackson: Carol has these number cards and she keeps the cards with numbers
greater than 98 and less than 95.
Teacher 1: Oh that’s such good thinking.
Ms. Jackson: This is a lot of language.
Ms. Brown: This is so much language. How are we going to...?
Teacher 1: Well this isn’t in our teacher center…we just need to make sure that our
centers are practicing comparing numbers. I don’t think the centers need to
practice the same skill…. I have another idea. What if we did a number
riddle that was way simpler than this…
Ms. Jackson: This is so much language.
Ms. Brown: I know.
Ms. Jackson: Conceptually [inaudible] Karen is not going to have any ability to
demonstrate this.
Ms. Brown: Ms. Jackson makes a good point though…it’s about our kids who struggle
with language. How are we making this remotely accessible?
Ms. Jackson: Karen can understand conceptually place value but this is not at all
presented in a way where she can understand the language.
Ms. Brown: It’s just all these words. All these words.
Teacher 1: Even on the carpet?
Ms. Jackson: If I’m sitting with her one-on-one, reading the problem out loud to her it’s
still the language…just the comparative words and it’s a lot of linguistic
concepts.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

99
Teacher 2: She just needs to tell you which one is bigger and smaller.
Teacher 1: I think this is why this visual is here…
Ms. Jackson: I know but even the word “gives away” and “keeps.” Like that alone is a
whole linguistic concept.
Ms. Brown: Yeah.
Teacher 1: Yeah. You can use gestures or you can draw a picture.
Teacher 2: The cards just might need to be on post-its and have her manipulate them.
I’m gonna keep this right here, I’m gonna hold on to the ones that are over
there.
Ms. Jackson: It’s just a lot of language.
Ms. Brown: Yeah.
The grade level team suggested other supports that would help Karen, like using a “cheat sheet”
for the vocabulary words that they anticipate may be difficult for her or using a hundreds
chart/number line to support her understanding of greater than and less than. Ms. Jackson replied
with the following:
I know that Karen is a different kid and she has an IEP…It’s not our ability to teach her
more and less. In order to understand problem number 1 she needs to understand the
difference between keep and give away. And she needs to understand that there is more
than one answer. And she needs to understand the numerical concept of greater than and
she needs to understand the numerical concept of less than. I have confidence in both of
our ability to teach those concepts separately, it’s just that four linguistic concepts that
she needs to balance to get an answer.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

100
The rest of the teachers reiterated their previous suggestions that would support Karen
with this lesson. Ms. Brown suggested that they use symbols sticks and the alligator mouth to
help support her understanding of greater than and less than. Ms. Jackson said that all these
supports would help and that she could teach these concepts in isolation but it was going to be
challenging to teach all four linguistic concepts together. Teacher 3 said that the supports that
were being suggested could be helpful to other students in their classroom and Ms. Brown
agreed. Ms. Jackson finally agreed with the suggestions and started creating a scaffold for Karen
and other students who could benefit from it.
In this example, there was some tension between members of this grade level team. Ms.
Jackson and Ms. Brown were concerned about the amount of language in the word problem.
They were concerned about the level of difficulty for Karen and how they were going to address
all four linguistic concepts in one problem. Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 did not share the same
concern as Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson. After the word problem was read aloud to the team,
Teacher 1 said “Oh that’s fun! …Oh that’s such good thinking.” Teacher 1 did not see what was
so difficult about the word problem. After Ms. Jackson explained why the problem would be
difficult for Karen Teacher 2 replied, “She just needs to tell you which one is bigger and
smaller.” Ms. Jackson and Ms. Brown still believed that the problem would be too challenging
for Karen. Both Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 suggested some adjustments that Ms. Brown and Ms.
Jackson could make to support Karen. Teacher 1 said, “You can use gestures or you can draw a
picture.” And Teacher 2 said, “The cards just might need to be on post-its and have her
manipulate them. I’m gonna keep this right here, I’m gonna hold on to the ones that are over
there.” Evidence from their conversation about this math problem showed that Teacher 1 and
Teacher 2 did not share the same concerns that Ms. Jackson and Ms. Brown had about the math
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

101
problem. They made several suggestions for accommodations and scaffolds that could support
Karen, which eventually convinced Ms. Jackson to create some scaffolds instead of dwelling on
the challenging aspects of the math problem and possibly taking it out of the lesson.
Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson both believed that Karen would struggle with the word
problem because of the heavy emphasis on language. Although Karen is an English Language
Learner (ELL), there were other students who had this language classification but did not have
an IEP or were not in the SST process. These other students were not brought up when both
teachers were discussing this word problem. When Ms. Jackson repeated to her grade level team
that the language was too difficult, Ms. Brown supported her statement by stating that Ms.
Jackson was making a good point. This led the grade level team to talk about additional supports
that they could provide for Karen and other students who have similar needs. These supports
would have not been suggested because the grade level team, except Ms. Jackson and Ms.
Brown, initially believed that the word problems were not too challenging for Karen. Ms.
Jackson ended up creating a “cheat sheet” for Karen in addition to the other suggested scaffolds
such as the symbols sticks and the alligator mouth. Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’ limiting belief
about Karen’s ability to solve the math problems resulted in creation of a “cheat sheet” and the
implementation of other supports that decreased the rigor of the word problems. Their decision
not only decreased the rigor of the activity for Karen but also for other students who might not
have needed these supports. Evidence from their grade level planning shows that Ms. Jackson,
Ms. Brown and the rest of their grade level team attempted to support their students with
disabilities the best way they could by suggesting accommodations and scaffolds but their
intentions were limiting their students’ ability to complete an activity without supports in place.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

102
Planning: Paraprofessional. While both teachers’ deficit perspective about their
students with disabilities’ capabilities made their planning time more productive and
simultaneously decreased the rigor of classroom activities, their beliefs also influenced their
approach to deploying their paraprofessionals during their planning time. Ms. Brown and Ms.
Jackson also had a shared deficit ideology about their paraprofessionals and did not consider
their deployment when planning instructional activities for their students. They did not see their
paraprofessionals as part of the approach to creating scaffolds for students. Furthermore, both
teachers did not consider their paraprofessionals in the construction of their approach to
instructional time even though they were dependent on them to support the students who struggle
the most in the classroom. Their failure to consider how to deploy their paraprofessionals
actively during planning made instruction less smooth because they had not contemplated the
ways in which their paraprofessionals were going to need to work with students with disabilities.
Also, both teachers did not consider how they would need to support their paraprofessionals to
work effectively with these students. Thus, Ms. Brown’s and Jackson’s ideology about their
paraprofessionals reflected a deficit perspective because they did not involve them in the
planning process or consider their deployment during instructional time.
The deficit ideology about their paraprofessionals that both teachers conveyed during
their planning time was furthered expressed in some of their interviews. The data from their
interviews informed my understanding of the way both teachers viewed their paraprofessionals
and why they were not considered during their planning time. During one of the interviews with
Ms. Jackson, she talked about how she thought about the paraprofessionals while she was
creating lessons or activities. She said:
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

103
[I don’t think about them] too much when we’re in there and I think that is also kind of
why Ms. Brown and I use the same teaching models at the same times of day. We’ve
figured out what that looks like…how the paraprofessionals are being used so when
we’re in there we’re planning what happens in Language Arts. When we’re in the
classroom Ms. Brown and I know that one paraprofessional needs to be directly
supporting Jake if he is at this center but if he’s at that center then they’re going and help
Karen, Robert, and Melissa.
Here Ms. Jackson described the paraprofessionals as “being used” by Ms. Jackson and Ms.
Brown. They were supports for the students, describing their actions as needing to be “directly
supporting” students. This example clearly showed that both teachers did not consider or involve
their paraprofessionals during their grade level planning. Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson used the
same teaching models at the same times of the day so they had an idea of what the lesson would
look like, which was enough information for them to plan on their own without considering their
paraprofessionals. These teachers relied heavily on the support structures in the classroom so
every student who needed extra support would have someone check-in with them during the
lesson. Furthermore, when Ms. Jackson talked about how the paraprofessionals were included in
decision-making she said:
So if it’s like a new system we’ll have a meeting … and say, “Okay we’re gonna do
Language Arts differently now. We’re going to move you guys around a little bit more.”
That’s also a lot of the beginning of the year stuff ... So I think it’s more of like when the
teaching model looks like this, this is the paraprofessionals role and when the teaching
model looks like this, then this is the paraprofessionals role. So when we’re in there
[grade level planning] and we’re talking about the teaching model, the paraprofessionals
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

104
fitting into that is just kind of an assumed. [In class] Ms. Brown and I just have to be like,
hey it looks like Isabel is independent, go get the binder.
Here Ms. Jackson described the paraprofessionals as tools to be deployed instead of as partners
in the instructional decision-making. They were expected to fit into the teaching model as the
two teachers had designed and deployed it and the paraprofessionals “fitting into that is just kind
of an assumed.” Additionally, this example demonstrated that the only way that the
paraprofessionals were involved in the conversation around supporting students with disabilities
was when Ms. Jackson explained that if new systems were added to the classroom structure then
they would have a meeting with their paraprofessionals. The structure of the dialogue between
both teachers and the paraprofessionals was more of a lecture than a collaborative conversation
between teachers and support providers. Their conversation was structured in a way where the
teachers held the knowledge and the meeting was a means to dispense that knowledge to the
paraprofessionals. Thus, their conversation with the paraprofessionals stemmed from a deficit
perspective because the teachers actions and words demonstrated that they did not believe that
their paraprofessionals could contribute to the conversation.
During the latter part of Ms. Jackson’s response to the question, she referenced a black
binder. In a subsequent interview with Ms. Jackson, she explained the binder was a means to
remind the paraprofessionals that they needed to support multiple students. So when the
paraprofessionals were not supporting their focus students they would reference the binder,
which outlined other students that they needed to support as well. The creation of this binder by
both teachers showed that they did not believe that their paraprofessionals could figure out when
the students with disabilities could work independently so they could work with other students
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

105
who typically needed more support in the classroom. Moreover, When Ms. Jackson talked about
how she would define the responsibility of the paraprofessionals she said:
Yeah, they’re the, they’re the follow though people. And they’re the ones who come back
and say this piece isn’t working. There are paraprofessionals I’ve worked with before
who’ve had a much more active role in creating stuff for kids ... And like if the kid’s
absent I’ll put them in front of the computer and say like okay ... So like let’s create a
math activity. But those are the paraprofessionals who have a lot of experience ... and are
in this for the long haul. Like I’ve had paraprofessionals sit with me and write the IEP for
a student before ... because they’re invested in that. Um, these guys are working on other
stuff.
Here Ms. Jackson described the role the paraprofessionals as “the follow though people …
they’re the ones who come back and say this piece isn’t working.” Ms. Jackson saw her current
paraprofessionals as individuals who were supposed to take directions from her, follow through,
and report back to her about what was and what was working not so she could make adjustments.
These paraprofessionals were not seen as individuals who were capable of co-creating supports
for students with disabilities and making adjustments as needed on their own. Ms. Jackson
further explained that she had paraprofessionals in the past who were more experienced and in it
for the long haul because they were invested. When she described her current paraprofessionals
she said, “Um, these guys are working on other stuff.” Ms. Jackson response seemed to allude to
the fact that she thought that her paraprofessionals were not yet capable of doing the work in
which her old paraprofessionals engaged. She not only had a deficit ideology about her current
paraprofessionals, she also thought that they were not committed to their work.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

106
Instruction: Students with disabilities. As discussed in the previous section, Ms.
Brown and Ms. Jackson appeared to share a deficit ideology about their students with disabilities
when planning instructional activities. Their shared ideology made their planning session more
productive but decreased the rigor of their instructional activities and also resulted in a lack of
consideration of their paraprofessionals during their planning time because they did not see these
individuals as resources or as partners. Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s shared ideology also had
implications for how co-teaching was enacted during instruction. They exhibited a mixture of
asset and deficit ideology about their students with disabilities.
An example of both teachers’ asset ideology of their students with disabilities was the co-
teaching models that they utilized during instruction. When providing instruction whole group,
both teacher believed that their students with disabilities were able to access the content being
taught in a whole group setting instead of receiving isolated instruction in a small group or one-
on-one setting. They opted out of using the one teach, one assist co-teaching model where one
teacher lead whole group instruction and the other teacher assisted individual students (Friend et
al., 2010). Both teachers mostly utilized team teaching model where both co-teachers lead large
group instruction simultaneously (Friend et al., 2010). Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson also utilized
station teaching where co-teachers divided their class into equal groups (e.g., two teacher led
groups and one independent group) and the students rotated through each of the instructional
stations (Friend et al., 2010). Both teachers utilized this co-teaching model because they believed
that all students would be able to work independently in one of the stations. Additionally,
instruction seemed to run smoothly and both teachers held students accountable to similar
expectations.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

107
Although both teachers exhibited an asset ideology about their students with disabilities
when utilizing certain co-teaching models during instructional time, they also exhibited a deficit
ideology. During whole group reading instruction, students were not always given the
opportunity to read the text in their Language Arts reader. In one lesson, Ms. Jackson and Ms.
Brown were utilizing a team teaching model to instruct students. At the beginning of the lesson,
both teachers were circulating around the room, gave students instructions, and checked that they
were ready. Ms. Jackson told students to, “Turn to page 78 and point to the starting place.” Ms.
Brown asked students about the genre of the text they were about to read and the majority of the
class was able to identify that the text was non-fiction. Ms. Jackson read the directions while
students followed with their finger. Ms. Jackson then said, “Let’s read our text focus box…Let’s
all read it together.” Ms. Brown, Ms. Jackson, and the students started to read the information in
the focus box together. Both teachers voice were louder than the students’ voices and they read a
little faster at times. For example, Ms. Brown was reading the text and accidentally said, “What
do you?” instead of “What does?” and quickly corrected her mistake. Students made the same
mistake and quickly corrected themselves after she corrected her mistake. This showed that
students were following her lead and read the words right after her, which did not allow them the
opportunity to practice their decoding and problem-solving skills. In fact they might not have
even been reading because they were just mimicking her. As the lesson continued Ms. Brown
then said to the class, “All right, let’s continue reading.” Ms. Jackson asked Ms. Brown whether
she wanted them to listen to the text or to read the text out loud. Ms. Brown said, “Just listen, this
is too hard for them.” Ms. Jackson said okay and then told students, “Okay, fingers following
along, we are going to start with the title.” The students started to read the text and Ms. Brown
reminded them that they were just to listen to the text and follow with their fingers. Ms. Jackson
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

108
reads the title out loud and some students read it after her. Ms. Brown interjected and said, “Ms.
Jackson I am confused. Are we supposed to be echo reading or follow along?” Ms. Jackson
responded, “I think we are listening and following with our finger.” Ms. Jackson continued to
read the text out loud and some students followed along with their fingers while others played
with the book.
Evidence from this observation demonstrated that both teachers’ ideology about their
students’ abilities in reading reflected a deficit ideology. Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jacksons’ shared
deficit ideology created limitations for their students. During reading instruction, students did not
get to practice decoding the text. They either mimicked their teacher during echo reading or they
just followed along with their fingers as their teachers read the text out loud. Additionally, when
Ms. Jackson asked Ms. Brown if she wanted the students to read the text or listen, Ms. Brown
said, “Just listen, this is too hard for them.” Ms. Brown automatically assumed that the whole
class would struggle with decoding this text and Ms. Jackson supported Ms. Brown’s decision by
reminding students that they were just listening to the text and following along with their fingers.
The choices made by both teachers decreased the level of rigor of the lesson because the teachers
were doing the heavy lifting and the students were the passive participants. Although the
intentions of both teachers to create a universal scaffold for all students came from a supportive
place, it decreased the rigor of the lesson and created limitations for their students.
A teacher’s ideological orientation is often reflected in his or her beliefs and attitudes and
in the way he or she instructs his or her students (Bartolomé, 1994; Bartolomé, 2004; Milner,
2010). Additionally, a teachers’ ideologies about both immigrant and minority students and
students with disabilities can play themselves out in the context of an inclusive classroom setting
(Ahram, Fergus, & Noguera 2011). Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson expressed a deficit ideology that
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

109
translated into low expectations for all their students, irrespective of race/ethnicity and/or
language classification.
Instruction: Paraprofessionals. As stated above, Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s
ideology about their paraprofessionals during their planning time reflected a deficit perspective
because they did not consider their deployment or see them as resources that have the ability to
implement the scaffolds created for students. Both teachers had a similar ideology about their
paraprofessionals during instructional time. Although both teachers believed that the
paraprofessionals were capable enough to support the students with disabilities during
independent time, they sometimes communicated that they thought that the paraprofessionals
were not implementing the students’ program effectively. When both teachers saw this
happening in the classroom they would interject and fix the error that the paraprofessional made.
An example took place during math instruction when one of the paraprofessionals (Para 1)
helped a student with a severe disability (Isabel) complete a modified worksheet. Para 1 brought
the completed worksheet to Ms. Jackson to check the student’s work. Ms. Jackson looked at the
worksheet and as Para 1 tried to explain what Isabel did Ms. Jackson looked over at Isabel and
said, “This does not show 7, you need to try again…you needed to draw seven circles, you did
too many.” Ms. Jackson erased Isabel’s work and told her to draw seven circles. The student
drew seven circles and Para 1 gave her a high five. Ms. Jackson went through the same process
with Isabel for the next problem until the worksheet was completed correctly.
When the whole class was done with math both teachers dismissed them to recess. The
paraprofessionals left as well to do supervision. Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson checked in with
each other about how the lesson went. When they discussed how math went with Isabel and Para
1 they had the following conversation.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

110
Excerpt 4
Ms. Jackson: It was both their fault that Isabel missed that center.
Ms. Brown: Do you mean Isabel or Para 1?
Ms. Jackson: Both. Para 1 had her draw out the seven circles incorrectly and Isabella did
not know what she drew. I erased it and had her do it again. Then she
wrote it correctly. I don’t think Para 1 could see that her work was not
correct. Para 1 needs to hear this from the both of us.
Ms. Brown: Yes. I think so too.
Evidence from this conversation showed that Ms. Jackson had a deficit ideology about
Para1’s ability to work with Isabel and fix the errors on her worksheet. When Ms. Jackson saw
the worksheet she did not allow Para 1 to fully explain what Isabel was able to accomplish. She
immediately told Isabel what she did wrong and what she needed to do to fix it. She proceed to
erase Isabel’s work instead of building on what she had already done. During this interaction Ms.
Jackson did not try to talk to Para 1 about the work that Isabel did. Para 1 just stood there and
watched. When Isabel corrected her mistake Para 1 gave her a high five and Isabel had a smile
on her face. When Isabel fixed the second mistake Ms. Jackson drew a star on her worksheet and
Isabel smiled. This interaction seemed to end positively for Isabel because she was able to
complete the worksheet and she received some positive praises from Ms. Jackson and Para 1.
The interaction between Ms. Jackson and Para 1 was not as positive because Ms. Jackson was
dismissive towards Para 1 and did not want to have a conversation with her. After the
paraprofessionals and students left for recess Ms. Jackson expressed how she felt about math
with Ms. Brown. She blamed Para 1 and Isabel for taking a break and missing the explanation of
the activity that Isabel was working on. Ms. Jackson pointed out the mistake Para 1 made to Ms.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

111
Brown and she blamed Para1 for allowing Isabel to make that mistake. Ms. Jackson believed that
the paraprofessional role was a “follow-through” role where they were supposed to reinforce
instructional expectations and provide students with disabilities enough support to accomplish
the task at hand. Ms. Jackson did not think that Para 1 was competent enough to see the error that
Isabel made. She said, “I don’t think Para 1 could see that her work was not correct.” Ms.
Jackson indicated that both of them needed to tell Para 1 about the error she made with Isabel
even though Para 1 was there to see the mistake and watch Ms. Jackson fix the mistake with
Isabel. Ms. Jackson felt like they both needed to talk to Para 1 because there are other issues that
they have had with her such as making constant mistakes despite direct feedback, slacking on her
responsibilities, and not being reliable. The interaction between Para 1, Isabel, and Ms. Jackson
and the conversation between Ms. Jackson and Ms. Brown showed that Ms. Jackson was
functioning under a deficit ideology than an asset ideology about Para 1. Additionally since both
teachers had a shared ideology about their paraprofessionals and Ms. Brown did not seem to
object when Ms. Jackson was venting about Para 1’s performance, this interaction and
conversation suggest that it would not have been that different if Ms. Brown had been the teacher
who interacted with the Para 1.
Role Enactment
Drawing on the works of Friend et al. (2010) and Scruggs et al. (2007), I argue that in a
successful co-teaching partnership both teachers enact the role of instructional leader during their
common planning time as well as when they are instructing students. During their common
planning session, co-teachers are maintaining joint responsibility for instruction that is to take
place in their inclusive classroom setting. Both of their ideas are represented in their co-
constructed lessons and decision-making process involves both of their input. Thus, both
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

112
teachers are playing an active role during their common planning time. During instruction both
general and special educators work in a coactive and coordinated fashion to jointly teach
academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups of students. Additionally, both teachers are
utilizing more collaborative co-teaching models such as parallel teaching, station teaching, and
team teaching.
In the following section, I will discuss the roles that both teachers enacted during
planning and instructional time and how this influenced their co-teaching relationship. Evidence
from observations revealed that Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson both enacted the role of
instructional leaders during their grade level planning time. However, during instructional time
Ms. Brown enacted more of an instructional leader role because she was the main teacher in the
classroom. Ms. Jackson supported more than one grade level and had to travel from one
classroom to another so she only spent a limited amount of time in each classroom. Additionally,
Ms. Jackson had outside responsibilities, such as training other paraprofessionals that took her
out of the classroom or had her enact a trainer role in the classroom instead of an instructional
leader role. Although I observed this on many occasions, when these outside factors were not
affecting their co-teaching relationship, both Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson played an instructional
leadership role through the collaborative co-teaching models that they utilized during
instructional time.
Planning. As suggested in the evidence provided previously about Ms. Brown’s and Ms.
Jackson’s ideology about their students with disabilities during their planning time, they were
very vocal about the instructional choices that they wanted their grade level team to consider. In
some instances they convinced their grade level team to implement scaffolds for the whole grade
level even when some students did not need it. Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s shared beliefs
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

113
about what their students with disabilities were capable of influenced their decision-making and
that of the rest of their grade level team. Their shared beliefs decreased the rigor of instructional
activities for all students. Additionally, both of the voices were equally heard throughout their
conversations with their grade level team during planning.
Another example of Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson enacting instructional leadership roles
during their grade level planning was when they were planning a math lesson for using models to
add. Teacher 1 started reading the directions and an example of a problem. Excerpt 5 is their
conversation about how they were going to scaffold this activity for their students.
Excerpt 5
Teacher 1: Thirteen plus 50. Add ones to a two-digit number. Add tens to a two-digit
number. I guess sometimes they are circling the ones and sometimes they
are circling the tens.
Teacher 2: Because the tens are going to change and not the ones? If it is 25 plus 30
the tens are going to change and not the ones. Is that what they are saying?
If you have 25 plus 2 the ones would change. Is that what it means?
Teacher 1: Yeah. 32 plus 4 the ones are changing. Thirty-two plus 40 the tens are
changing.
Ms. Brown: So how do you explain that? What language are we going to use to help
them know this?
Teacher 2: [We can tell them that] we are going to ignore this part of the page.
Ms. Jackson: That’s confusing because when we add we are supposed to do the ones,
then the tens, then the hundreds. So we are telling them ignore the ones
and do the tens?
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

114
Teacher 2: We are telling them that the ones are not changing.
Ms. Jackson: That is a beast.
Teacher 1: Do we even care if they circle it? Can’t they just add?
Teacher 1 checks to see if this strategy for adding comes up in future lessons and it does. The
following is the rest of their conversation about how to approach this activity.
Teacher 1: How about we do grab bag?
Teacher 2: It’s like you have a number and I am your partner and I am going to add a
number to it. So if you have 13 and I have 50, where am I going to put
them? Oh I am going to put them in the bags…
Ms. Brown: Hold on though there is a problem with that because if Ashley grabs 28
and Ester wants to add ones to it and she grabs 9 ones, now we are
regrouping.
Teacher 2: Bad idea.
Ms. Brown: We can’t do that…
Ms. Jackson: What if there were only 9 ones in the bag and then Teacher 1 pulls out 19
and then Teacher 2 does not have the option of pulling out ones. She has
to pull tens out of the bag.
Ms. Brown: Oh, we pull out from the same bag. I thought we were pulling from a
different bag. Oh there you go. Good fix!
Evidence from this conversation during their grade level planning demonstrated that Ms.
Jackson and Ms. Brown both enacted the role of instructional leadership. Both teachers were
playing an active role during their grade level planning time. For example, Ms. Brown was vocal
about how they were going to approach this lesson since it was confusing to them. She asked the
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

115
following questions, “So how do you explain that? What language are we going to use to help
them know this?,” which prompted the grade level team to really consider how they were going
to teach a new strategy for adding to their students when they did not understand the strategy
themselves. Ms. Jackson responded to Ms. Brown’s question and said, “That’s confusing
because when we add we are supposed to do the ones, then the tens, then the hundreds. So we are
telling them ignore the ones and do the tens?” Ms. Jackson was also vocal about how this new
strategy contradicted the way they taught students to add. She posed a question to her grade level
team that promoted them decide whether they should teach this new strategy to their students.
Since the strategy was going to come up again in future lessons, they came up with a scaffold
that would support students with using this new strategy. Teacher 1 suggested that they should
do the grab bag activity. Ms. Brown was vocal about an issue with this activity. She said, “Hold
on though there is a problem with that because if Ashley grabs 28 and Ester wants to add ones to
it and she grabs 9 ones, now we are regrouping.” Her statement almost lead the grade level team
to discard the scaffold that Teacher 1 suggested. Ms. Jackson made a suggestion that helped Ms.
Brown see that the scaffold could be utilized for this lesson. Ms. Jackson said that, “What if there
were only 9 ones in the bag and then Teacher 1 pulls out 19 and then Teacher 2 does not have the
option of pulling out ones. She has to pull tens out of the bag.” As a result of Ms. Jackson’s
suggestion the grade level team utilized the scaffold to teach a new addition strategy to their
students. This evidence showed that Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson were part of the decision-
making process during their grade level planning. They were vocal with their opinions and asked
questions when they were not clear on the direction the team was heading. Both teachers were
also vocal with suggestions and supported each other’s decisions. They were a driving force in
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

116
the decision-making process of their grade level team. As a result, they were instructional leaders
during their grade level planning.
Instruction. Friend et al. (2010) asserted that within a co-teaching relationship each
individual plays a role. In this classroom, the general educator held the expertise in content
knowledge while the special education teacher held the expertise related to the process of
learning to meet the individualized needs of students with disabilities. The special education
teacher tended to enact the role of helper rather than the co-teacher, partly due to his/her lack of
content knowledge. However, in a successful co-teaching relationship I argue that during
instruction both general and special educators work in a coactive and coordinated fashion to
jointly teach academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups of students. Additionally, both
teachers are utilizing more collaborative co-teaching models such as parallel teaching, station
teaching, and team teaching.
As stated previously, during instructional time Ms. Brown enacted more of an
instructional leader role because she was the main teacher in the classroom because Ms. Jackson
had outside responsibilities that took her out of the classroom or had her enact another role while
in the classroom. For example, since Ms. Jackson was one of the reading intervention
coordinators she had to assess all the students who participated in this program in preparation for
the second round of intervention. During an interview Ms. Jackson mentioned that the only way
she could get all the assessments completed given her schedule and additional responsibilities
was during class time. During a few classroom observations Ms. Jackson would pull students to
assess them. There were times where Ms. Jackson was assessing students and would miss the
whole lesson and part of the students’ independent work time. Additionally, Ms. Jackson also
had other responsibilities, like training paraprofessionals, that prevented her from enacted an
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

117
instructional leader role in the classroom. During some observations, Ms. Jackson was training a
new paraprofessional who would be working with Jake. In order to build a positive relationship
between Jake and this new paraprofessional Ms. Jackson said that she needed to model how to
work with Jake and debrief with the paraprofessional to explain her thought process. Ms. Jackson
demonstrated, through her support of the paraprofessionals who worked with students on her
caseload, she was a hands-on case manager. This oftentimes had Ms. Jackson play the role of a
trainer rather than an instructional leader in the classroom.
However, when these outside factors were not affecting their co-teaching relationship,
both Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson enacted an instructional leadership role through the
collaborative co-teaching models they utilized during instructional time. During whole group
instruction, both teachers were in front of the classroom team teaching the lesson. Ms. Brown
was usually by the laptop if technology was involved in the lesson while Ms. Jackson was by the
board writing down notes for the students to follow along. During the lesson, there was an equal
balance of both teachers’ voices. Their teaching style was mainly conversational where they
talked to each other and used a think out loud to model for students how they could approach the
lesson or try out a new strategy. Thus, during instruction both teachers enacted in a coactive and
coordinated fashion and utilized more collaborative co-teaching models such as team teaching.
Compatibility
Based on the works of Gerber and Popp (2003), Pugach (2011), and Sruggs et al. (2007),
I argue that compatibility plays an important role in the success of a co-teaching partnership.
Moreover, I believe that the teachers’ philosophies about education should be aligned or their
philosophies should complement each other. The personality traits of each individual should be
considered when selecting co-teaching partnerships. Additionally, the personality traits of each
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

118
co-teacher should complement each other so the relationship between the two teachers will not
be as cumbersome.
Evidence from interviews and observations, showed that although both teachers did not
volunteer to co-teach with each other, they managed to build a trusting relationship over the
course of their two and a half year partnership. Additionally, evidence from previous sections
about both teachers’ ideology about their students with disabilities and paraprofessionals
demonstrated that they had a shared deficit and asset ideology during their grade level planning
and classroom instruction. As a result, Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson had a productive relationship
both in the classroom and during their grade level planning. In the following section, I will
discuss Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s perspectives on their compatibility as a team.
In describing her relationship with Ms. Brown Ms. Jackson said:
Um, I think my co-teaching relationship with Ms. Brown is one of the strongest ones that
I have [had] …We are part of a really strong team and all of the relationships between the
six people on that team whether they’re co-teaching or not is a very strong relationship
and, um, and then Ms. Brown and I just work really well together. The kids laugh at how
often they, they jinx us because we just say the same thing at the same moment … we
have the same sense of humor and we can look at each other across the room when
something’s happening and know what we are thinking … Um, so we get along really,
really well, um, professionally and, I mean, at this point it’s a personal relationship.
Evidence from Ms. Jackson’s response demonstrated that she believed she had a strong co-
teaching relationship with Ms. Brown and their grade level team. She believed that they had
similar personality traits that allowed them to get along really well on a professional and
personal level. Ms. Jackson also believed that they were aligned in their thoughts and their word
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

119
choice in the classroom. The shared the same humor, which aided in the alignment of their
personality and their presence in the classroom.
When Ms. Brown described her co-teaching relationship with Ms. Jackson, she said:
I mean I would say that we’re partners here at school. I do feel like we have a really... at
this stage I feel like we're really having an easy relationship for the most part … I feel
like it’s a good partnership … The co-teaching came very easily quickly where we are
able to co-teach together, where we parallel teach and it’s really... I think it’s one of the
things we enjoy most about working together is where we are feeding off of each other in
front of the classroom. We’re really good about... if she’s giving directions then I might
play the student who you can think about all the things that a kid might not do correctly
through this and we played that out really well. It’s such a good way to show the kids
what we don’t want and what we do want and that comes very easily with her very
quickly.
Evidence from Ms. Jackson’s response demonstrated that she believed that she had a good
partnership with Ms. Brown. The evidence also showed that Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson also
had an easy co-teaching relationship that was not challenging for both of them to start or to
maintain. Ms. Brown liked working with Ms. Jackson, particularly when they were able to feed
off each other’s energy. In the classroom, they liked to role-play to model their expectations for
students. Their role-play usually happens in the moment, which showed that they have similar
expectations for their lessons. Their actions during their lessons also complemented each other,
which supported the notion that they had an aligned philosophy about their students and how
they instructed them.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

120
A Return to the Conceptual Framework–Inclusive Special Education Leader and School
Climate with Structural Features
Within my conceptual framework I argue that in order for a successful co-teaching
partnership to exist between a general education and special education teacher there are some
essential components that are required. The first component is having an administrator whose
attitudes and perceptions about co-teaching and students with disabilities reflect an inclusive
ideology. The second component is that the administrator is supportive of existing co-teaching
relationships and when arranging new co-teaching partnerships, I argue that the administrator
takes into consideration teachers’ compatibility (i.e., personality and philosophy about
education) and whether they volunteered or not. The third component is that the administrator
provides co-teachers with common planning time for planning and relationship building. I speak
to each of these components in more detail below.
Inclusive Special Education Leader
Drawing on the works of Goor et al. (1997), Cook (1999), Villa et al. (1996), Horrocks
(2008), and Praisner (2003), I define an inclusive special education leader as a leader who adopts
an inclusive paradigm and believes that all students can learn and all teachers can teach a wide
range of students in an inclusive setting. This type of leader believes that inclusion is beneficial
for all students and supports the general efficacy and academic outcomes of this educational
setting. She/he believes that general education teachers have the instructional skills to support
students with disabilities in an inclusive setting and that the collaboration with a general
education teacher can significantly improve the learning environment in which general and
special education students are exposed to. An effective special education leader also believes that
the achievement levels of students with disabilities and general education students would not
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

121
decrease in an inclusive classroom setting. This individual has positive experiences with
inclusion and believed in less restrictive placement of students with disabilities.
School Climate with Structural Features
An inclusive special education leader creates a school climate that values a thorough
selection and development process as it relates to co-teaching partnerships. Based on the works
of Gerber and Popp (2003), Pugach (2011), and Sruggs et al. (2007), inclusive special education
leaders select co-teaching partnerships based on compatibility. The personality traits of each
individual considered for a co-teaching partnership will be factored in when selecting co-
teaching partnership. Additionally, the personality trait of each co-teacher should compliment
each other so the relationship between the two teachers will not be as cumbersome. An inclusive
administrator also factors in each teacher’s philosophy about education to assure that there is
alignment or that their philosophy compliments each other. Moreover, during the selection
process of co-teachers the administrator also collaborates with teachers who volunteer to co-
teach and listens to their opinion and utilizes it when creating partnerships. These teachers are
thought partners for the administrator and the school climate is one in which collaboration is
valued.
In addition to being intentional in his/her approach to selecting teachers to work together
as co-teachers, using the work of Bacharach et al. (2008), Hang and Rabren (2009), Howard and
Potts (2009), and Scruggs et al. (2007), I argue that the inclusive administrator provides co-
teachers with common time for instruction and relationship building, which shapes the school
climate because these structures are valued and are a part of the teachers’ daily schedule. Co-
teachers will use this time to foster a foundation for successful co-teaching. They will discuss
lessons and plan out various components so they are prepared to teach together. Co-teachers are
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

122
also able to talk about their philosophies on education and also reflect on the status of their
relationship throughout the year and make adjustments to improve the effectiveness of their
partnership and their instruction. Co-teachers will also build upon their relationship as they meet
consistently to talk about instruction and their partnership. As stated previously, Ms. Brown and
Ms. Jackson used their common time together to plan with their grade level team. They met once
a week afterschool to plan lessons for the following week and were very efficient with their time.
With this information in mind I turn to the findings for research question 2.
Research Question 2: How do contextual features shape how co-teaching is enacted?
I define a successful co-teaching relationship as having certain qualities that shape how
co-teaching is enacted. Some of these qualities are the contextual features within the co-teaching
relationship. This section will discuss how the ideology of Ms. Staine about inclusion and
students with disabilities shaped the way co-teaching was enacted in the classroom for these two
teachers. I will also discuss how the ideology of Ms. Staine influenced the selection process of
co-teaching partnership and the common planning time allotted to each partnership. First I
discuss how Ms. Staine appeared to have an inclusive ideology, which positively influenced Ms.
Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s co-teaching partnership. Then I will discuss how she did not factor
compatibility when selecting co-teaching partnerships. Her decision not to consider compatibility
did not matter in this context because teachers already self-selected to co-teach when they
decided to teach at Glenford Academy. Ms. Staine did not provide co-teachers with additional
support with their partnership until there was a problem. Thus, her leadership style did not allow
her to provide teachers all of the things they needed in order to meet their needs as partners and
in extension meet their students’ needs. Lastly, I will discuss how Ms. Staine provided co-
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

123
teaching partnerships time to collaboration and allowed them to decide how they wanted to use
that time effectively.
Ideology
Goor, Schween, and Boyer (1997) argue that, “beliefs influence the way we perceive the
world and guide our behavior” (p. 133). A principal’s beliefs could influence the climate,
instructional practices, and the effectiveness of his/her school (Goor et al., 1997). For principals
to be effective special education leaders, they must examine their beliefs to determine whether
they are capable of adopting inclusive paradigms. Goor et al. (1997) offer five core beliefs that
provide the framework underlying an accepting inclusive paradigm. First, effective school
leaders believe that all children can learn. Second, effective principals accept all children as part
of their school community. Third, principals believe that teachers can teach a wide range of
students. Fourth, principals believe teachers are responsible for all students’ learning. Fifth,
principals believe that they are responsible for the education of all children in their building.
Thus, a principal with all of these beliefs is more likely to adopt an inclusive paradigm.
From its inception, Glenford Academy was a full inclusion school. Ms. Staine was a
founding teacher at the school. When Ms. Staine describing her tenure at Glenford Academy she
said:
So I’ve been at Glenford Academy since 2001 and then, I had my daughter in 2007 ...
and then, I did 1 more year here … and then, after that, because I commute over an hour
away, I went and found a job closer to where I live and I taught out there for 2 years ...
and that was not inclusive at all. In fact, I reached out to the special ed teacher saying,
“Hey this is my background, this is what I do, like let’s co-teach, let’s have those kids
included.” … and it never happened um … and then, I came back here and then, I taught
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

124
here for a couple of more years and then, I moved into that [Director of Curriculum and
Instruction] role.
Evidence from this text showed that Ms. Staine has been working at Glenford Academy for over
10 years and had many roles throughout her tenure at this full inclusion school. She was a
founding general education teacher, the Director of Curriculum and Instruction, and the
elementary principal. Her tenure at Glenford Academy demonstrated that she liked to work at a
full inclusion school and is willing to commute over an hour to work at this school. Even after
leaving for 2 years, Ms. Staine decided to come back and continued teaching at Glenford
Academy. She left to make life more convenient for herself but in the long run she not only
returned but she has stayed to graduate from job to job increasing her responsibilities at the
school. Her choices suggest that she believed that full-inclusion was the right model, that she
was a supporter of it, and wanted to be in a place where it was the model.
Additionally, during her 2-year hiatus from Glenford Academy, she tried to co-teach with
the special education teacher so the students with disabilities would be included in the general
education classroom setting. Although she was not successful at her attempt, the fact that she
wanted to start a co-teaching partnership with the special education teacher showed that she had
an inclusive ideology and was willing to teach a wide range of students with varying disabilities.
In addition to believing in this model, Ms. Staine believed that working with students
with disabilities at Glenford Academy was a reward experience. She said:
I think for me, a lot of the rewards just seemed … I mean, for anyone seeing their
progress really … As a teacher you wanna see all your kids achieve the goals. Um, but
there’s just, there’s just something about working with the kids with disabilities that is
rewarding. It’s rewarding with all of them, so I hate to like separate it but um, I guess for
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

125
me, growing up, I had a friend that had a disability, and we were never together because
she was over here in this class, you know, in this building ... at the same school, but in
totally different building. I never saw her. I only saw her after school or on a playdate or
whatever, so for me, it’s rewarding because they get to see those natural friendships.
My daughter … one of her best friends. You know, she has a lot of friends, but one of
her best friends is a child who she would have never met if she wasn’t at Glenford
Academy because this child you know uses an iPad to communicate, has a lot of
behaviors. You know, she came home from kindergarten, always getting her hair pulled,
but she tolerated it because that was her friend and she was just, you know, she would tell
her she didn’t like it, so she's helping to shape that behavior ... but at the same time, she
knew that she wasn’t doing it to be malicious.
Ms. Staine’s response showed that she believed that working with students with disabilities was
rewarding and that seeing her students’ progress was even more rewarding for her. As a former
general education teacher, having students with disabilities in her class was something that she
welcomed because she believed that they could thrive academically in an inclusive setting. Ms.
Staine also talked about her experience as a student in a non-inclusive school and how she did
not get to interact with one of her friends who had a disability. As she reflected back on how
being separated from her friend influenced their relationship at school, she did not believe that
this experience should be something that her students should be exposed to. She wanted her
students, both general education and special education, to form natural relationships in an
inclusive setting. She did not believe that separating students during the school day based on
their ability was appropriate because it limited students to who they could form relationships
with. Her strong belief in inclusion for her students also translated to her kids. She willingly
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

126
enrolled her daughter into Glenford Academy to expose her to children with varying disabilities
so she could form natural relationships with them. Even though her daughter had a friend with a
disability that was being physically aggressive with her, Ms. Staine did not intervene because she
wanted her daughter to build tolerance for the behaviors that may not be socially acceptable but
also not malicious. These examples demonstrated that Ms. Staine saw the importance in having
all students and teachers experience full inclusion and that it was essential to create opportunities
for them to experience this setting. Ms. Staine had a positive ideology about inclusion and was
supportive of co-teaching partnerships that believed in this setting and wanted to create
classroom environments where students could thrive socially and academically.
Volunteering and Compatibility
As stated previously, a principal’s beliefs could influence the climate, instructional
practices, and the effectiveness of their school (Goor et al., 1997). When selecting co-teaching
partnerships studies have shown that voluntary participation and compatibility are important
factors for principals to consider (Gerber & Popp, 2003; Pugach, 2011; Scruggs et al., 2007).
Since Glenford Academy was a full inclusion school all the teachers who worked at this school
knew that they would have to co-teach and needed to keep an open mind about having different
co-teaching partners. Ms. Staine described the structure of the co-teaching partnerships at
Glenford Academy when she said:
We have more special education teachers and we’ve kinda grouped them. So we have
kind of a group of three special education teachers that co-teach in K, 1, 2 ... and that’s
their kind of group. So, they, they, know, I mean unless they randomly decide I will teach
in seventh grade now. That’s kind of where they stay. So, they rotate, so they might get
kinder and rotate up the next year at first grade and then, second grade and then, they
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

127
kinda move back down. So, that’s a new thing that, recently in the last couple of years,
but it’s very successful.
This evidence showed that the special education teachers worked with grade level spans and
might loop with their students, which means that there might be new co-teaching partnerships
every academic school year. However, looking closely at the co-teaching partnership between
Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson there was some flexibility with the selection of partnerships. Ms.
Brown and Ms. Jackson worked together for at least two consecutive years and Ms. Jackson co-
taught with more than one grade level in her span.
Ms. Staine indicated that partnerships were selected based on caseload. Compatibility
was not really emphasized because all the teachers were aware that they had to co-teach during
their tenure at Glenford Academy because it was a full inclusion school. During some of the
interviews with Ms. Staine, she described situations where co-teaching partnerships were
struggling and she had to intervene and provide support. Ms. Staine first discussed what she
compared a co-teaching partnership to and how a relationship could play out. Then she described
a challenging situation in a co-teaching partnership and her role in supporting that partnership.
She said:
I refer to it as the co-teaching marriage and there’s some years that you love your co-
teacher and you wanna go out to dinner and hang out and do things together and then,
there’s other years that it’s not the best match and it’s not a great marriage and it’s hard
and there’s tears and frustration and um … when that happens, a part of my role is also
helping them through that and saying, you know, it doesn’t have to be the best marriage,
but it needs to be an effective marriage for these kids. It needs to be … it needs to work
for the kids. So you don’t have to be best friends, you don’t have to hang out after school
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

128
and I think that when it’s the hardest is when teachers have had that and then, they go it
again with the new co-teacher and so, then they feel like it’s a horrible relationship, when
it’s not, it’s not just as great as the one where they really clicked, but that also happens in
grade levels and that’s happening in one grade level … So we have, you know, certain
grade levels that have worked out for years. It’s always getting great and amazing and
then, there’s a shift because somebody has a baby or moved or something happens and
trying to make it work again in that grade level and it’s not gonna be the same because
it's a completely different person. So that’s when it’s hard because you do work so
intimately and collaboratively with other people and people depend on you, you depend
on other people.
Ms. Staine compared a co-teaching partnership to a marriage similar to how Scruggs et
al. (2007) defined co-teaching. As mentioned previously, in some cases both partners were
forced into the marriage. In a perfect world, the beginning stage would be similar to the ideal
honeymoon stage of a marriage where both partners (i.e., general and special education teacher)
are blissful and happy. As time goes by, however, the evolving relationship needs to be nurtured
to create a stronger union. Ms. Staine also understood that there were ups and down in a co-
teaching partnership when she referenced that there were times in the relationship when both
teachers loved each other and there were other times when they were frustrated with each other.
Within a professional marriage, Ms. Staine believed that both partners in the marriage were not
always going to get along but when that happened she was there to provide some support to that
struggling partnership. Ms. Staine understood that challenges of a co-teaching relationship but
setting up the perfect partnership based on compatibility was not essential at her school because
her role entailed supporting struggling partnerships. She also did not expect teachers to have a
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

129
perfect marriage but she expected them to have an effective marriage for the students in the
classroom. Thus her priority was to make sure that students had two teachers who were
effectively co-teaching together regardless of whether they were compatible and got along with
each other. Ms. Staine’s beliefs about considering compatibility during the selection process of
co-teachers differed from what was discussed in the following studies: Gerber and Popp (2003),
Pugach (2011), and Scruggs, et al. (2007). Results from these studies showed that compatibility
was an important factor that principals should consider during the selection process. Ms. Staine’s
experiences with successful and unsuccessful co-teaching relationships were consistent with this
literature. Her choice to keep certain teachers together in spite of the fact that they were not
compatible and to step in and provide support instead of changing the partnerships when
compatibility was clearly missing lead to her having to provide additional support to
unsuccessful relationships. Ms. Staine’s decisions were based on her limited knowledge of co-
teaching and inclusion.
In spite of the fact that she herself had previously had experiences with unsuccessful
partnerships that were based on a lack of compatibility, Ms. Staine still selected co-teachers
without considering compatibility. She said:
[Depending on other people] has caused a lot of frustration even for me when I was in the
teaching role. I have a high expectation of myself, so if I say I’m gonna get something
done, I’ll get it done 3 days before I said I was gonna get it done. I’ll stay up at night and
do it. When you’re having to work with somebody that says they’re going to get it done
before 8 you know, and it’s 8:29 and they’re rushing it to me, I’m like that’s anxiety,
right. So there’s a lot of that balance that is necessary. And so, I’ve done a lot of coaching
with teachers that have had that issue, they come to vent to me because their colleague is
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

130
doing things last minute and they can’t handle it that way and you know, they’d rather do
it themselves because they can’t handle having it handed to them last minute, you know.
So there’s those kind of challenges, you know, as well.
When Ms. Staine reflected back on her tenure in the classroom she identified one challenging
factor about co-teaching with another teacher, which was a lack of compatibility with
expectations and follow-through. She understood the anxiety and frustration that resulted from a
co-teaching partnership that was not based on compatibility. Although she understood the
importance of compatibility in a co-teaching relationship, it was not enough to be the primary
driver in selecting partnerships. Her only recourse for a struggling relationship was to provide
coaching support for those partnerships. Ms. Staine’s ideology about the role compatibility
played in the selection process of co-teaching partnership shaped the way co-teachers worked
together in the classroom. Because she did not consider compatibility when delegating
partnerships, teachers were left to figure it out themselves and when the relationship started to
deteriorate, she provided coaching support to get them through it. Thus the fact that Ms. Brown
and Ms. Jackson were compatible and sought each other out was not the result of the principal’s
approach to co-teaching but based on luck as much as anything else.
Common Planning
As stated previously, in a successful co-teaching partnership there are certain qualities
that shape how co-teaching is enacted. One of those qualities is whether co-teachers are provided
common planning time for planning and relationship building. Drawing on the works of Sileo
(2001), Howard and Potts (2009), and Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2008) common planning
time is an essential element of a successful co-teaching relationship. During an interview Ms.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

131
Staine started talking about the structure of Ms. Jackson’s planning time and what her team does
during that time:
So she goes to two planning sessions. She goes to a kindergarten planning and first grade
planning. The expectation is um that she teaches in four classrooms, not seven. Um, so,
you know, and we’ve learned through the years of what’s working, what’s not, and where
we needed to kinda change the system, um and that seems to be helpful and then, an
additional thing that we did this year, is because we do have a lot of needs for
modifications and combinations to be created and when teachers sit down as a grade level
to plan ... that’s when they decide on what modifications or combinations need to be
created ... and they kinda divide that up. So if I’m gonna take math for the week, I’m
going to be in charge of making sure even if I get parent volunteers to make the copies ...
I’m responsible for getting the copies made and distributed to all my peers or my
colleagues ... but I might also say, I’ll make the mild accommodated version of that test
because I’m already creating the typical one. I can very easily make, you know, less
problems or whatnot, but that’s what they decided.
Ms. Staine believed that co-teachers should have a common planning time and allotted time for
co-teachers to meet. However, her idea of what that time should be used for differs from what
Bacharach et al. (2008), Hang and Rabren (2009), Howard and Potts (2009), Sileo (2001), and
Scruggs et al. (2007) said this common time should be used for. Results from these studies
showed that common time between co-teachers should be used not just for planning but also for
relationship building. Ms. Staine did not talk about co-teachers using their common planning
time to discuss their relationship. She only discussed them using this time efficiently to plan
lessons for their classroom so all the accommodations and modifications are created. Thus, she
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

132
wanted them to work efficiently to meet the needs of the students and put their relationship on
the back burner.
The choices Ms. Staine made about compatibility and common planning time were
driven by her need for partnerships to be efficient, which influenced the partnership between Ms.
Brown and Ms. Jackson. For example, Ms. Jackson had to co-plan and work with more than one
grade level, which meant she was pulled out of the classroom and was not able to be there all the
time. Additionally, Ms. Staine made the choice that the special education teachers would train
paraprofessionals. The special education teachers had to plan and execute weekly trainings for
paraprofessionals. Although these trainings were before school, Ms. Jackson did express that it
was a time-consuming role. Ms. Jackson also had to train paraprofessionals in the classroom and
could not co-teach with Ms. Brown or the other teacher she supported. Additionally, when a
paraprofessional called out sick or was running late Ms. Jackson would sometimes have to cover
and miss out on instructional time. Although Glenford Academy had a paraprofessional
coordinator to help alleviate some of the duties of the special education teacher, the
responsibilities that they had still limited the amount of time they were teaching with their co-
teacher. Ms. Staine articulated that the role of the paraprofessional coordinator was to:
His role, basically, he along with the special Ed teachers … kind of creates the schedules.
He works closely with the, with the special Ed teachers … in the interview process. So if
somebody quits, or, um, their schedule changes … or it's just not working out … um,
then the special Ed teachers come to him, and he looks at, first, the different options of
moving people … um, but then also if there's nobody to move, because it disrupts too
many programs… and we actually just decide that we need to hire an additional person…
he, he'll, they'll just do applications, sets up the, um, interview times … and invites the
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

133
special Ed teachers to those interviews. If they're not available because they're co-
teaching, sometimes he does the initial interview and then might ask them to come back
for a second interview ... depending on what's going on. Um, he also has a direct line, so
if somebody's out sick … they call his line. And so when he gets here at 7:15 in the
morning, he checks the messages … makes a list of who's out … and works with
movement, if he's going to move this person where, to, to cover anybody who's out sick.
He also schedules, um, the paraprofessionals' breaks. Um, so, and the paraprofessionals
all work within the same grade-level team, so that kind of helps with the breaks … and
movement of, of the paraprofessionals covering other paraprofessionals when they're on
their break.
Ms. Staine believed that the paraprofessional coordinator was solely responsible for
hiring and scheduling paraprofessionals. She did not see this individual as a supervisor that could
also provide training or coaching support to paraprofessionals to aid their work in the classroom.
Instead she believed that the training and coaching support was the responsibility of the special
education teacher, which limits the amount of time that they are in the classroom. Ms. Staine’s
decision to split these responsibilities stemmed from her belief that the special education teacher
had more knowledge and could provide direct support to paraprofessionals since they were in the
classroom together. As a result, Ms. Jackson was not able to dedicate more time to co-teaching
with Ms. Brown. Both teachers mentioned that they were co-teaching less because of all the
responsibilities that Ms. Jackson takes on.
Conclusion
A successful co-teaching partnership should have the following qualities: both teachers
have an asset-oriented ideology and believe that students with disabilities can learn in an
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

134
inclusive setting, both teachers have an asset-oriented ideology about their paraprofessionals,
both teachers enact the role of instructional leaders, and both teachers instruct coactively
utilizing station teaching, parallel teaching, or team teaching models. However, these qualities
were not reflected in Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s relationship beyond superficial efficiency.
Findings from this study revealed that Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson had a mostly deficit ideology
about their students with disabilities and some of the paraprofessionals that supported them.
Their deficit ideology allowed them to be efficient but decreased the rigor of the lesson they
created. Both teachers were well-intentioned in creating learning opportunities that had adequate
support for their students with disabilities. Findings also emphasized the importance of role
enactment and compatibility in a successful co-teaching partnership. Additionally, this study
revealed the importance of an inclusive leader who values compatibility while selecting co-
teaching partnerships and allotting common time for relationship building and planning.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

135
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study examined the ways in which interpersonal features and contextual features,
which includes structural features and leadership and climate, influenced the relationship
between a general education and a special education teacher who co-teach together in an
inclusive setting. Interpersonal features were teacher ideology about students with disabilities
and their paraprofessionals, co-teaching, inclusion, compatibility, and role enactment. Contextual
features are structural features and the leadership and climate of a school influence the success of
a co-teaching partnership.
A qualitative case study methodology was employed to answer the following two
research questions: (1) How do interpersonal features shape how co-teaching is enacted? and (2)
How do contextual features influence how co-teaching is enacted? To answer these questions,
observations and interviews were conducted and artifacts were collected at Glenford Academy.
Pseudonyms for the school site, the principal, the teachers, the students, the paraprofessionals,
and the paraprofessionals were created to ensure anonymity. All observation data was scripted
and all interview data was transcribed and analyzed using an inductive approach. This final
chapter is a culmination of insights gained as a result of this study. This chapter is organized as
follows: summary of findings RQ #1, summary of findings RQ #2, implications for practice, and
recommendations for future research.
Summary of Findings RQ #1
How do Interpersonal Features Shape how Co-teaching is Enacted?
Teachers’ attitudes and perspectives play an important role in how interpersonal features
shape how co-teaching is enacted. As Cook, Tankersley, Cook, and Landrum (2000) and others
(Cook 2001; Cook, 2004) suggested, teachers’ ideology about students with disabilities can
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

136
influence how they interact with their students and possibly how they interact with each other.
The philosophies about learning and teaching that co-teachers bring into their relationship
influence how they position themselves and their co-teacher during common planning time and
when working with students with disabilities (Gerber & Popp, 2003).
Findings from RQ1 revealed the ways in which Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s ideology
about their students and their paraprofessionals shaped the way co-teaching was enacted. I
briefly discuss the findings in the context of planning and instruction. During their common
planning time, Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson had a deficit ideology about their students with
disabilities. Observations of their planning time revealed that Ms. Jackson’s and Ms. Brown’s
shared ideology about their students with disabilities made planning sessions more productive
because they appeared to be on the same page when making instructional choices. Since both
teachers believed that their students with disabilities would struggle with certain instructional
activities, they immediately created scaffolds or an easy worksheet for their students to complete.
While both teachers’ deficit perspective about their students with disabilities’ capabilities
made their planning time more productive and simultaneously decreased the rigor of classroom
activities, their beliefs also influenced their approach to deploying their paraprofessionals during
their planning time. Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson also had a shared deficit ideology about their
paraprofessionals and did not consider their deployment when planning instructional activities
for their students. They did not see their paraprofessionals as part of the approach to creating
scaffolds for students. Furthermore, both teachers did not consider their paraprofessionals in the
construction of their approach to instructional time even though they were dependent on them to
support the students who struggle the most in the classroom. Their failure to consider how to
deploy their paraprofessionals actively during planning made instruction less smooth because
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

137
they had not contemplated the ways in which their paraprofessionals were going to need to work
with students with disabilities. Also, both teachers did not consider how they would need to
support their paraprofessionals to work effectively with these students.
During instructional time Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson exhibited a mixture of asset and
deficit ideology about their students with disabilities. They had an asset ideology about their
students with disabilities with regards to behavioral expectations but had a deficit ideology about
them with regards to academic expectations. Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson had a deficit ideology
about their paraprofessionals during instructional time. They thought that their paraprofessionals
were not implementing the students program effectively and would interject and fix the error that
the paraprofessional made.
Another essential component of interpersonal features was role enactment. Evidence
from observations revealed that Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson both enacted the role of
instructional leaders during their grade level planning time. However, during instructional time
Ms. Brown enacted more of an instructional leader role because she was the main teacher in the
classroom. Ms. Jackson supported more than one grade level and had to travel from one
classroom to another so she only spent a limited amount of time in each classroom. Additionally,
Ms. Jackson had outside responsibilities, such as training other paraprofessionals, which took her
out of the classroom or had her enact a trainer role in the classroom instead of an instructional
leader role. Although I observed this on many occasions, when these outside factors were not
affecting their co-teaching relationship, both Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson played an instructional
leadership role through the collaborative co-teaching models that they utilized during
instructional time.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

138
Lastly, another component of interpersonal features was compatibility. Based on the
works of Gerber and Popp (2003), Pugach (2011), and Sruggs et al. (2007), compatibility plays
an important role in the success of a co-teaching partnership. Evidence from interviews and
observations, showed that although both teachers did not volunteer to co-teach with each other,
they managed to build a trusting relationship over the course of their two and a half year
partnership and appeared to have sought each other out. Additionally, evidence from previous
sections about both teachers’ ideology about their students with disabilities and paraprofessionals
demonstrated that they had a shared deficit and asset ideology during their grade level planning
and classroom instruction. As a result, Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson had a productive relationship
both in the classroom and during their grade level planning. In the following section, I will
discuss Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s perspectives on their compatibility as a team.
Summary of Findings RQ #2
How do Contextual Features Shape how Co-teaching is Enacted?
Goor, Schween, and Boyer (1997) argued that, “beliefs influence the way we perceive the
world and guide our behavior” (p. 133). A principal’s beliefs could influence the climate,
instructional practices, and the effectiveness of his/her school (Goor et al., 1997). Findings from
research question #2 revealed that Ms. Staine appeared to have an inclusive ideology, which
positively influenced Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s co-teaching partnership. However, Ms.
Staine did not factor compatibility during the selection of co-teaching partnerships because she
was not looking to create perfect partnerships, she just want to create effective partnerships to
meet students’ needs. When co-teaching partnerships had challenges within their relationship,
Ms. Staine provided coaching support to them. Her leadership style did not allow her to provide
teacher’s all of the things they needed in order to meet their needs as partners and in extension
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

139
meet their students’ needs. Ms. Staine also provided co-teaching partnerships time to
collaboration and allowed them to decide how they wanted to use that time effectively.
The choices Ms. Staine made about compatibility and common planning time were
driven by her need for partnerships to be efficient, which influenced the partnership between Ms.
Brown and Ms. Jackson. Ms. Jackson had to co-plan with more than one grade level, which
meant she was pulled out of the classroom and was not able to be there all the time. Ms. Staine
also believed that the special education teachers were responsible to train paraprofessionals. As a
result, Ms. Jackson missed instructional time and could not co-teach with Ms. Brown, which
forced Ms. Brown to take on more of an instructional leadership role because she was the main
classroom teacher. Additionally, although Glenford Academy has a paraprofessional coordinator
to help alleviate some of the duties of the special education teacher, the responsibilities that they
had still limited the amount of time they were teaching with their co-teacher. Despite Ms.
Staine’s choices, Ms. Brown and Ms. Jackson were lucky because they liked working with each
other and were able to build a strong partnership. They found a way to continue to work together
in spite of the principal’s approach to co-teaching. And although Ms. Staine’s philosophy or
approach to selecting co-teaching partnerships was not consistent with the research, because they
liked working with each other, they did not need for her to have a different approach.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored the interpersonal and contextual features within a co-teaching
partnership with positive attributes at a full inclusion elementary school. Findings from the study
revealed that teachers had a deficit ideology about their students with disabilities and some of the
paraprofessionals that worked with their students. Both teachers were well-intentioned in their
approach to creating rigorous assignments for their students with disabilities and the support that
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

140
they provided their paraprofessionals. Findings from the study also revealed the importance of
an inclusive principal and compatibility during the selection of co-teaching partnerships. There is
much that can be drawn from this study’s findings and used to inform our approach to practice,
policy, and research. In this section, I present both implications and recommendations in relation
to each area (practice, policy, and research).
Practice
There are essential components of a successful co-teaching partnership and one of them
is common planning time. Howard and Potts (2009) asserted that there were ways to use
common planning time to support the necessary foundation for co-teaching success. Teachers
should utilize this time to go through a step-by-step process in order to achieve success. Sileo
(2001) presented key components she argued were essential for successful relationships between
co-teachers. In this theoretical piece, she proposed a step-by-step process that co-teachers needed
to experience in order to have successful partnerships. Some of these components include
understanding the meaning of co-teaching, discussing their philosophy about education, parity,
instruction, and how to address issues when they arrive. Principals need to understand the
importance of common planning time and provide co-teachers this essential component with
structures about how to utilize this time for both planning and relationship building. When left to
decide on their own, co-teachers usually utilize this time to lesson plan, just like Ms. Brown and
Ms. Jackson. I recommend that co-teachers should have common time together before the start of
their co-teachers partnership to build their relationship. Resources should be provided to co-
teachers to help them go through the step-by-step process discussed above. Principals should
provide coverage for teachers to engage in this work. They should also be hands-on initially to
explain the purpose and set expectations for this relationship building process. During the school
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

141
year, I also recommend that co-teachers are given more than one period of common planning
time per week to lesson plan and check-in about their co-teaching partnership.
In addition to common planning time, teacher ideology is another essential component to
analyze in a successful co-teaching partnership. The ideologies that teachers bring into their
relationship could determine the success of their partnership. The dominant ideologies that exist
in our society are oftentimes unconscious and prevent educators from accurately identifying and
analyzing current challenges in educating subordinated and marginalized populations
(Bartolomé, 2008). Researchers suggested that a teacher’s ideological orientation is often
reflected in his or her beliefs and attitudes and in the way he or she instructs his or her students
(Bartolomé, 1994, 2004; Milner, 2010). Therefore if a teacher has a deficit ideology about her
students with disabilities then the way they instruct their students will be aligned with their
beliefs. In order for teachers to discard their deficit views, they need to learn how to recognize,
value, and build upon students’ previously acquired knowledge and skills (Bartolomé, 1994). By
employing a variety of teaching methods (e.g., culturally responsive education and strategic
teaching), teachers are able to interact with their students in meaningful ways (Bartolomé, 1994).
Administrators supporting co-teaching partnerships should understand how teacher
ideology manifests in inclusive classroom settings. These individuals also need to provide on-
going professional development for co-teaching partnerships about ideology and instructional
teaching methods such as culturally responsive education and strategic teaching. Administrators
also need to understand that in order for these methods to be effective teachers need to be
conscious of their ideologies about students and, if necessary, be willing to change their
ideologies to align with these teaching methods. Co-teachers should also have an asset ideology
about their students with disabilities so that they can create rigorous yet instructionally
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

142
appropriate lesson for their students. They should also have an asset ideology about the
paraprofessionals so that they can consider their deployment during planning time and provide
constructive support during instruction. Co-teachers should also enact the role of instructional
leader both during planning and instruction so that there is a balance of ideas and decision-
making by both individuals. Administrators should be aware of these essential characteristics
when selecting a co-teaching partnership. Also, it is important that administrators understand that
the success of a co-teaching partnership should not be characterized by efficiency. Ms. Staine
believed that success equated to efficiency when selecting co-teaching partnership and it resulted
in students’ needs not being met in the classroom.
In addition to these recommendations for co-teachers and administrators to consider, I
would also recommend structural changes to the inclusive program. First, I would suggest that
compatibility is weighted more when selecting co-teaching partnership. Although this was not a
factor that influenced Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Jackson’s relationship, it has the potential to make a
co-teaching partnership difficult for both teachers. Second, I would recommend analyzing how
special education resources are allocated. Administrators should be more thoughtful about how
they can use the resources better at their school to increase the amount of time that co-teachers
can be in the classroom together and have common planning time. Third, I would recommend
that the special education teacher does not solely train paraprofessionals. The paraprofessional
coordinator or another administrator should absorb this responsibility. The special education
teacher should spend the majority of her time with her co-teachers, either co-teaching or co-
planning together.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

143
Policy
A number of key legislature (IDEA and NCLB) mandates that students with disabilities
access the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (Brinkmann &
Twiford, 2012; Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). While federal
regulations to mainstream students with disabilities in general education and increase their
proficiency rates has led to increased inclusion in mainstream classrooms, the achievement gap
between general and special education students still persists (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012). The
percentage of special education students being mainstreamed in the general education setting has
risen, yet performance for students with disabilities continues to lag (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2012). Additionally, the disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic
minority groups and linguistic minority groups (i.e., those speaking native languages other than
their mainstream White peers) in special education is a long-standing issue (Sullivan, 2011). This
on-going disproportionality strongly indicates systemic problems of inequity, prejudice, and
marginalization within the education system (Sullivan, 2011). The systemic problems within the
education system are perpetuated by the ideologies of teachers who work with students with
disabilities in inclusive settings.
A multitude of attitudinal studies (e.g., Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000; Cook
2001; Cook, 2004; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCulley, 2012) have examined teachers’
attitudes towards students with disabilities, inclusion, and co-teaching. The results from these
studies were mixed where some teachers had positive perspectives towards students with
disabilities, inclusion, and co-teaching while others had negative perspectives. Although both
perspectives have implications for student achievement, the latter perspective leads to teachers
having a deficit ideology about instructing students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Cook
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

144
et al., 2000; Cook 2001). As such, there are deficit-minded teachers instructing student with
disabilities in inclusive settings, which has implications for the quality of instruction that
students receive in this educational setting. These deficit views do not allow teachers to
recognize, value, and build upon students’ previously acquired knowledge and skills (Bartolomé,
1994), thus making learning challenging for students. A deficit mind-set can also harm the
relationship between the general education teacher and the special education teacher, thus
making it difficult for them to meet the needs of all students in their classroom (Solis et al.,
2012).
Additionally, the ideology of a school leader plays an essential role in fostering a school
climate where co-teaching can thrive (Goor et al., 1997). For a principal to be an effective
special education leader she or he needs to have certain attributes. She/he needs to be able to
examine her or his beliefs about adopting an inclusive paradigm, collaborate effectively with
stakeholders, reflect on her or his actions, and have the capacity to improve the quality of
instructional practice (Elmore, 2000; Goor et al., 1997). This type of principal also needs to have
certain qualities that characterize an effective change leader (Fullan, 2002). Five essential
components that characterize a change leader are: moral purpose, an understanding of the change
process, the ability to improve relationships, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence
making (Fullan, 2002). Effective special education leaders also need to have a comprehensive
knowledge base and formal training about special education and how to support students with
disabilities (Goor, et al., 1997; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Pugach, 2011; Wakeman et al., 2006). This
type of principal must also have a positive attitude towards and perceptions of inclusion (Cook et
al., 1999; Horrocks et al., 2008; Praisner, 2003; Villa et al., 1996).
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

145
There are existing efforts to improve regulations that address special education placement
but these efforts needs to be bolstered. These regulations need to place an emphasis on building
capacity for educators and school leaders. The findings from this study provide a number of
implications for policymakers. The choices and actions undertaken by Ms. Brown, Ms. Jackson,
and Ms. Staine were a result of their ideology about inclusion and students with disabilities.
Policymakers should consider restructuring pre-service education for general education and
special education teachers and emphasize an awareness around ideology and it’s influence on
pedagogical practices in inclusive classrooms. Additionally, there should be an emphasis on rigor
in an inclusive classroom setting. Policymakers should also emphasize these essential elements
in the administrative credential program. These programs should not only build capacity in
teachers and school leaders but should also create alignment around how we foster successful
inclusive settings.
Research
Given the findings revealed in this study, I will present recommendations for future
research but first I will discuss the limitations of this study. First, time restrictions placed
limitations on the volume of data collection. Having more time in the field would have provided
additional data from which to draw more decisive findings. Next, the value of data gathered from
paraprofessionals was limited by their quantity. Since the paraprofessionals were not a part of
my unit of study I did not conduct follow-up interviews with them. Finally, the presence of one
novice field researcher placed limits on the depth and breadth of data that could be captured
during classroom observations. The presence of at least one additional researcher in a study that
sought to gain insights into a successful co-teaching relationship would have been necessary to
capture the entire scope of data that was available as it happened.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

146
Future researchers who attempt to examine the dynamic of a successful co-teaching
relationship should also give consideration to simultaneously focusing on teacher ideology about
support providers (i.e., paraprofessionals and teacher’s assistants) that directly work with
students with disabilities. Obtaining knowledge about the types of ideology that co-teachers have
about their support providers and potential reasons why, could provide insight on how these
factors influences their relationship. Researchers should explore pre-service and administrative
credentialing programs and how they are preparing future co-teachers and administration to
foster highly inclusive schools with successful co-teaching partnerships. Researchers should also
explore pedagogy as an essential factor in a successful co-teaching partnership. Additionally,
given that the population I studied was atypical in that the participants had more resources and
still lowered the rigor of their activities, future research should be conducted in urban settings.
Researchers should also explore inclusive classroom settings with general education teachers
who are dually certified and are meeting the needs of their students with disabilities. Lastly,
further research should be conducted about in-service professional development such as a
professional learning community that provides growth opportunities for co-teachers and
administrators in an inclusive setting. Conducting research in these areas would build on the
existing work in this field.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

147
References
Ahram, R., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2011). Addressing Racial/Ethnic disproportionality in
special education: Case studies of suburban school districts. Teachers College Record,
113(10), 2233-2266.
Bacharach, N. L., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. R. (2008). What makes co-teaching work?
identifying the essential elements. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(3), 43-
48.
Bartolomé, L. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Towards a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard
Education Review 64(2), 173–194.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Introduction: Beyond the fog of ideology. In L. Bartolomé (Ed.)
Ideologies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher neutrality (pp. ix-xxi). New
York: Peter Lang.
Brandes, J. A., & Crowson, M. H. (2009). Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of students
with disabilities: The role of conservative ideology and discomfort with disability. Social
Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 271-289.
Brinkmann, J., & Twiford, T. (2012). Voices from the field: Skill sets needed for effective
collaboration and co-teaching. International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 7(3), 1-13.
Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild
and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203-213.
Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service

general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 262-277.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

148
Cook, B. G. (2004). Inclusive teachers’ attitudes toward their students with disabilities:
A replication and extension. Elementary School Journal, 104, 307-320.
Cook, B. G., Semmel, M. I., & Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special
education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 20(4), 199-207.
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2000). Teachers' attitudes toward their
included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 115-135.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Elmore, R. F. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. 1-28.
Friend, M. (2008). Co-teach! A handbook for creating and sustaining effective classroom
partnerships in inclusive schools. Greensboro: Marilyn Friend, Inc.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Gerber, P. J., & Popp, P. A. (2000). Making collaborative teaching more effective for
academically able students: Recommendations for implementation and training. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 23(3), 229-236.
Goor, M. B., Schwenn, J. O., & Boyer, L. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership in special
education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(3), 133-141.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

149
Guarino, C. M., Buddin, R., Pham, C., & Cho, M. (2010). Demographic factors associated with

the early identification of children with special needs. Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education, 30(3), 162-175.
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy
indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259-268.
Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals' attitudes regarding inclusion of
children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 38(8), 1462-1473.
Howard, L., & Potts, E. A. (2009). Using co-planning time: Strategies for a successful co-
teaching marriage. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(4), 1-12.
Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (2006). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities: Experience
and confidence of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(1), 19-36.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milner, R. H. IV. (2010). Start where you are but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classroom.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). The Condition of Education: Children and

Youth with Disabilities. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012045

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

150
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students
with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.
Pugach, M. C., & Winn, J. A. (2011). Research on co-teaching and teaming: An untapped
resource for induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(1), 36-46.
Roache, M., Shore, J., Gouleta, E., & de Obaldia Butkevich, E. (2003). An investigation of

collaboration among school professionals in serving culturally and linguistically diverse

students with exceptionalities. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 117-136.
Scheeler, M. C., Congdon, M., & Stansbery, S. (2010). Providing immediate feedback to co-
teachers through bug-in-ear technology: An effective method of peer coaching in
inclusion classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 83-96.
Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 43(5), 32-38.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-
416.
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of
English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317-334.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H. & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator
perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 29-45.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2004). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for
facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

151
Wakeman, S. Y., Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principals'
knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. NASSP Bulletin,
90(2), 153-174.

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

152
APPENDIX A: Special Education Teacher Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________
Name of Person Interviewed: _____________________________________________________
Position: _____________________________________________________________________
Time Started: ______________ Time Completed: ___________ Total Time: _______
Researcher: ___________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Hello, My name is Juliet Anyanwu and I am a Doctoral Candidate at USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a study on the relationship between a general education and special
education teacher who co-teach together in an inclusive setting.

During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your experience thus far with your co-
teacher. Specifically, I’d like to speak to you about your thoughts about working with students
with disabilities, inclusion, and your work with your co-teacher. I’d also want to talk about the
way the school culture and climate influence your relationship with your co-teacher. Lastly, I’d
like to talk about the structural features you believe support your relationship with your co-
teacher.

The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. Do I have your consent to start the
interview? Do you have any questions before we begin?

Interview Questions

I. Background

1. How long have you worked with students with disabilities?
a. Can you talk about your experience working with this population of students?
b. What do you find to be the most rewarding part of working with students with
disabilities?
c. What do you find the most challenging part of working with students with
disabilities?
2. Why did you decide to become a special education teacher?
3. How long have you been co-teaching?
4. How did you decide to co-teach vs. using the RSP model or the Special Day Class
model?
5. Had you done it before your current position at your school?
6. How did your partnership come about?
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

153
7. Would you describe the demographics of your classroom?
a. Students with disability
b. Ethnicity

II. Roles and Relationships

“Now I would like to turn to your relationship with your co-teacher. I am interested in
understanding both the different roles you play and the way you work together. To get us started,

1. Can you describe your relationship with your co-teacher?
a. Would you say you were partners, colleagues, two people who just happened to
work in the same classroom, like an old married couple, something else?
2. Would you explain why you chose this description?
3. Would you talk about the way the relationship has evolved? How is it different from
the beginning? Give me an example (something that recently occurred and how it is
different from what happened on a similar occasion at the beginning).
4. Give me an example of when you have been the person you want to be for your co-
teacher.
5. Given me an example of when you have not been the person you want to be for your
co-teacher.
6. What do you do when you have problems or challenges in your relationship?
a. Could you describe a recent example (if one exists)?
7. Can you describe a typical co-planning meeting with your co-teacher?
a. What would be a recent example?
b. What might I expect to see when I come to observe you in the classroom?
8. How would you describe your approach to co-teaching?
a. Can you give a specific example from a recent class time?
9. How are responsibilities divided during class time?
10. How would you describe yourself and the role you play in your partnership?
11. What are some challenges in teaching in an inclusion settings with respect to working
with general education students and students with disabilities?

III. Structural Features

“Now I would like to turn to the structural features of your relationship with your co-teacher. I
am interested in understanding what components allow you to co-teach with your partner
teacher. To get us started, can you tell me…
1. What would you point to as essential in helping you be successful with your co-
teacher? Trust, organization, compatibility with your partner teacher, communication,
a combination of these things, or something else?
2. What is in place at your school that helps you do your work? PD’s on co-teaching and
inclusion, common planning time, coach, or something else.
3. What would you like to see in place that either makes your work harder or just
doesn’t make your work easier?
4. What should I expect to see when I observe you during your common planning time?
5. What do you think you are doing right in your work?
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

154
a. Where do you think you can improve?

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

155
APPENDIX B: General Education Teacher Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________
Name of Person Interviewed: _____________________________________________________
Position: _____________________________________________________________________
Time Started: ______________ Time Completed: ___________ Total Time: _______
Researcher: ___________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Hello, My name is Juliet Anyanwu and I am a Doctoral Candidate at USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a study on the relationship between a general education and special
education teacher who co-teach together in an inclusive setting.

During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your experience thus far with your co-
teacher. Specifically, I’d like to speak to you about your thoughts about working with students
with disabilities, inclusion, and your work with your co-teacher. I’d also want to talk about the
way the school culture and climate influence your relationship with your co-teacher. Lastly, I’d
like to talk about the structural features you believe support your relationship with your co-
teacher.

The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. Do I have your consent to start the
interview? Do you have any questions before we begin?

Interview Questions

I. Background

1. How long have you worked with students with disabilities?
a. Can you talk about your experience working with this population of students?
b. What do you find to be the most rewarding part of working with students with
disabilities?
c. What do you find the most challenging part of working with students with
disabilities?
2. Why did you decide to work with students with disabilities?
3. How long have you been co-teaching?
4. How did you decide to co-teach?
5. Had you done it before your current position at your school?
6. How did your partnership come about?
7. Would you describe the demographics of your classroom?
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

156
a. Students with disability
b. Ethnicity

II. Roles and Relationships

“Now I would like to turn to your relationship with your co-teacher. I am interested in
understanding both the different roles you play and the way you work together. To get us started,

1. Can you describe your relationship with your co-teacher?
a. Would you say you were partners, colleagues, two people who just happened to
work in the same classroom, like an old married couple, something else?
2. Would you explain why you chose this description?
3. Would you talk about the way the relationship has evolved? How is it different from
the beginning? Give me an example (something that recently occurred and how it is
different from what happened on a similar occasion at the beginning).
4. Give me an example of when you have been the person you want to be for your co-
teacher.
5. Given me an example of when you have not been the person you want to be for your
co-teacher.
6. What do you do when you have problems or challenges in your relationship?
a. Could you describe a recent example (if one exists)?
7. Can you describe a typical co-planning meeting with your co-teacher?
a. What would be a recent example?
b. What might I expect to see when I come to observe you in the classroom?
8. How would you describe your approach to co-teaching?
a. Can you give a specific example from a recent class time?
9. How are responsibilities divided during class time?
10. How would you describe yourself and the role you play in your partnership?
11. What are some challenges in teaching in an inclusion settings with respect to working
with general education students and students with disabilities?

III. Structural Features

“Now I would like to turn to the structural features of your relationship with your co-teacher. I
am interested in understanding what components allow you to co-teach with your partner
teacher. To get us started, can you tell me…

1. What would you point to as essential in helping you be successful with your co-
teacher? Trust, organization, compatibility with your partner teacher, communication,
a combination of these things, or something else?
2. What is in place at your school that helps you do your work? PD’s on co-teaching and
inclusion, common planning time, coach, or something else.
3. What would you like to see in place that either makes your work harder or just
doesn’t make your work easier?
4. What should I expect to see when I observe you during your common planning time?
5. What do you think you are doing right in your work?
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

157
a. Where do you think you can improve?

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

158
APPENDIX C: Principal Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________
Name of Person Interviewed: _____________________________________________________
Position: _____________________________________________________________________
Time Started: ______________ Time Completed: ___________ Total Time: _______
Researcher: ___________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Hello, My name is Juliet Anyanwu and I am a Doctoral Candidate at USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a study on the relationship between a general education and special
education teacher who co-teach together in an inclusive setting.

During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your experience supporting your
inclusion program. Specifically, I’d like to speak to you about your ideology about students with
disabilities, inclusion, and co-teaching. I’d like to also discuss the role you play in supporting
this model. Lastly, I’d like to talk about the structural features you believe supports the
relationship between co-teachers.

The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. Do I have your consent to start the
interview? Do you have any questions before we begin?

Interview Questions

I. Background and Ideology

1. When did you start working at this school?
2. In what capacity did you join the school?
3. How long have you been in your current position?
4. Was the inclusion program here when you got here?
a. How has it evolved over the years?
5. How would you describe your role and responsibilities in relation to the inclusion
program?
6. How do you approach your work with respect to the inclusion program?
7. How do you spend your time in relation to the inclusion program?
8. Can you talk about your experience working with this program?
a. What were/are some rewards?
b. What were/are some challenges?
9. Have you worked with students with disabilities?
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

159
a. Can you talk about your experience working with this population of students?
b. What were/are some rewards?
c. What were/are some challenges?
10. How would you describe your inclusion program?
11. How would you define students with disabilities to a first year general education
teacher?

II. Structural Features

1. What structures are in place that supports the inclusion program?
2. Are there any structures that impede the progression of the inclusion program?
3. How do you support the relationship between co-teachers?
a. Do you provide coaching for them or facilitate any PD’s?
4. How does the school climate support the relationship between co-teachers?
5. What structures are in place that supports the relationship between co-teachers? Ex.
Common co-planning time, professional development, or coaching.
6. If you could choose additional supports for your program and your teachers, what
would you choose?
7. How would you describe an “ideal” co-teaching relationship?
a. What are the components that make it “ideal”?
8. Can you provide me with the following resources: PD documents, specials schedule,
SPED related resources?
9. What resources would you recommend I print out from your website?

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

160
APPENDIX D: Paraprofessional Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________
Name of Person Interviewed: _____________________________________________________
Position: _____________________________________________________________________
Time Started: ______________ Time Completed: ___________ Total Time: _______
Researcher: ___________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Hello, My name is Juliet Anyanwu and I am a Doctoral Candidate at USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a study on the relationship between a general education and special
education teacher who co-teach together in an inclusive setting.

During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your experience thus far as a
paraprofessional. Specifically, I’d like to speak to you about your thoughts about working with
students with disabilities and your work at Chime. I’d also want to talk about the way the school
culture and climate influence your work as a paraprofessional. Lastly, I’d like to talk about the
structural features you believe support your work with students with disabilities.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes. Do I have your consent to start the
interview? Do you have any questions before we begin?

Interview Questions

I. Background

8. How long have you worked as a paraprofessional? At Chime?
a. Can you talk about your experience working with this population of students?
b. What do you find to be the most rewarding part of working with students with
disabilities?
c. What do you find the most challenging part of working with students with
disabilities?
9. Why did you decide to become a paraprofessional?

II. Roles and Relationships

“Now I would like to turn to your relationship with the co-teachers in this classroom. I am
interested in understanding both the different roles you play and the way you work together. To
get us started, can you tell me…”
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

161

1. How
do
see
yourself
in
relation
to
the
co-‐teachers
in
the
classroom?

2. How
are
you
a
part
of
the
team?

3. What
part
of
the
planning
process
are
you
a
part
of?

4. How
do
you
know
what
is
expected
of
you
when
you
are
in
the
classroom?

5. How
do
you
work
with
the
teachers
in
the
classroom
to
meet
the
needs
of
the

students?

6. How
do
you
decide
to
spend
your
time
in
the
classroom?

7. What
kind
of
feedback
do
you
give
to
the
co-‐teachers
in
the
classroom
about
the

work
you
do
with
the
students
they
support?

III. Structural Features
“Now I would like to turn to the structural features of your work as a paraprofessional. I am
interested in understanding what components allow you to support students. To get us started,
can you tell me…”

1. How
do
you
get
placed
in
classrooms
with
students?

a. Who
makes
this
decision?

b. How
often
do
you
rotate
or
change
classrooms?

2. What
kinds
of
supports
do
you
get
from
the
special
education
and
general
education

teacher?

a. Does
their
support
give
you
enough
guidance?

3. Is there anything I haven't asked about that would help me understand your role and
responsibilities in relation to the primary teachers in the classroom and the students with
disabilities with whom you work with?

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

162
APPENDIX E: Special Education Coordinator Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________
Name of Person Interviewed: _____________________________________________________
Position: _____________________________________________________________________
Time Started: ______________ Time Completed: ___________ Total Time: _______
Researcher: ___________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Hello, My name is Juliet Anyanwu and I am a Doctoral Candidate at USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a study on the relationship between a general education and special
education teacher who co-teach together in an inclusive setting.

During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your experience thus far as a
paraprofessional coordinator. Specifically, I’d like to speak to you about your thoughts about
your work at Chime. I’d also like to talk about the structural features you believe support your
work with teachers and paraprofessionals.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes. Do I have your consent to start the
interview? Do you have any questions before we begin?

Interview Questions

I. Background

1. How long have you worked as a paraprofessional coordinator?
2. How long have you worked as a paraprofessional?
a. Can you talk about your experience working with this population of students?
b. What do you find to be the most rewarding part of working with students with
disabilities?
c. What do you find the most challenging part of working with students with
disabilities?
3. Can you talk about the trainings you have received to support your work as a
paraprofessional coordinator?

II. Roles and Relationships

“Now I would like to turn to your perceptions of the paraprofessionals role in the classroom. To
get us started, I would like to know…”
IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

163

1. How
do
you
see
the
paraprofessionals
as
part
of
the
team
that
supports
the

students
with
disabilities?

2. How
would
you
describe
their
position?

3. How
do
you
expect
them
to
work
with
the
special
education
and
general

education
teacher?

4. What
do
you
expect
the
special
education
and
general
education
teacher
to
do
to

support
the
paraprofessionals?

5. What
is
your
role
in
supporting
the
paraprofessionals?

6. What
is
your
role
in
supporting
the
special
education
and
general
education

teacher?

7. Have
you
ever
had
to
bring
a
paraprofessional,
the
special
education,
and

general
education
teacher
together
to
talk
about
their
work
together?

III. Structural Features
“Now I would like to turn to the structural features of your work as a paraprofessional
coordinator. I am interested in understanding what components allow you to support them. To
get us started, can you tell me about…”

1. What
kinds
of
support
(e.g.,
PD
and
trainings)
do
paraprofessionals
get
to
ensure

that
they
know
how
to
do
their
job?

2. How
do
you
decide
when
to
rotate
the
paraprofessionals?

3. How
do
you
match
paraprofessionals
with
classrooms,
teachers,
or
students?

a. What
do
you
take
into
account
when
making
these
decisions?

b. Do
you
think
about
the
personalities
of
the
teachers
and
paraprofessionals

when
you
make
the
match?

4. Is
there
anything
I
haven't
asked
about
that
would
help
me
understand
your
role

and
responsibilities
in
relation
to
the
paraprofessionals?

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

164
APPENDIX F: Classroom/Lesson Planning Observation Protocol

School Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________
Type of Class Observed: _____________________________________________________
Participants: ___________________________________________________________________
Time Started: ______________ Time Completed: ___________ Total Time: _______
Researcher: ___________________________________________________________________

Time
Field Notes

IF IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

165

APPENDIX G: Classroom Observation Protocol (Classroom Map)

Describe the room. Note the seating arrangements of the teachers and the students with
disabilities. Document other physical materials in the classroom, especially around the teachers’
workspace

Front

Back

Abstract (if available)

Abstract There are certain elements that must be in place for a co-teaching partnership to be successful. All of these elements must be in place to a sufficient degree for the partnership to lead to powerful learning opportunities for both special and general education students. These elements can be organized into two interacting categories: 1) the interpersonal features that each member of the co-teaching partnership bring to and enact in the relationship and 2) the contextual features that are created by the school leadership that support or impede the partners’ ability to be successful. With respect to the interpersonal features, both teachers have an asset-oriented ideology and believe that students with disabilities can learn in an inclusive setting, both teachers have an asset-oriented ideology about their paraprofessionals, both teachers enact the role of instructional leaders, and both teachers instruct coactively utilizing station teaching, parallel teaching, or team teaching models. With respect to the leadership that must exist for the partnership to be successful, the administrator should have an inclusive paradigm, a knowledge base around special education and inclusion, values compatibility when selecting co-teaching partnership, and provides common time for planning and relationship building. This study examined 1) the ways in which interpersonal features and leadership enacted by the principal shaped the way co-teaching was enacted by one general education and one special education teacher in a first grade classroom. Data collection from this study included eight interviews with both teachers

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

PDF

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

Towards ideological clarity: an action research project on the role of a teacher in unearthing unconscious bias to embrace culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Influence of teacher recruitment, retention, training, and improvement on district support of 21st-century teaching and learning

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

Ka mana o loko: examining the ways in which a culture-based education community makes meaning of accountability

PDF

Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

Coaching to transform: an action research study on utilizing critical reflection to enact change towards incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching

Asset Metadata

Creator Anyanwu, Juliet Chinyere (author)

Core Title If it takes two to tango then teach both to dance: examining the influence of interpersonal and contextual features on a co-teaching partnership

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/09/2015

Defense Date 08/10/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag asset-oriented ideology,co-teaching,deficit-oriented ideology,inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,Special Education,teacher ideology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond John (Pat) (committee member), Pugach, Marleen (committee member)

Creator Email janyanwu@ucla.edu,janyanwu@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-195424

Unique identifier UC11277087

Identifier etd-AnyanwuJul-4021.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-195424 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AnyanwuJul-4021.pdf

Dmrecord 195424

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Anyanwu, Juliet Chinyere

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA