University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The special education dilemma: collaboration between teachers and special education service providers

(USC Thesis Other)

The special education dilemma: collaboration between teachers and special education service providers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Special Education Dilemma: Collaboration Between
Teachers and Special Education Service Providers

by
William L. Satti Jr.

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by William Satti Jr. 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for William L. Satti Jr. certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Michael Escalante
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
According to Ronfeldt et al. (2015), schools that have developed collaboration networks have
better services and make content more understood to all students during the instructional day.
Classroom environments are vital to the success and amount of learning that can occur during a
given lesson and school year (Morgan, 2014).
This study explored the personal challenges and factors that lead to classroom content used by
teachers and special education providers working together in serving high-risk special education
students in high schools. By examining the perceptions and events at southern California high
schools, the departments can better align with one another to foster learning environments that
target special needs students.
The research questions used to guide the study were: what factors, based on educators’
perceptions, determine the success of instruction that is used for specific special education
students; how does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instruction benefit or limit the
success of special education students; what are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating
with RSP and content-specific teachers during a school day to instruct special education
students; and what type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to
access general education content and achieve academic success?
The methodology for this study was a mixed methods design. Quantitative and qualitative data
were collected and analyzed. Surveys were sent to 35 General Education teachers and Special
Education providers in southern California public high schools. From the surveys returned,
purposeful sampling was used to select three General Education teachers and two Special
Education providers from southern California public schools for one-on-one interviews.

v
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my older sister, Alicia, and younger brother, Wynne. They were
born into this world with unique needs but with smiles of joy and hearts of gold. They are a
major part of my “why,” and I owe them everything in this world. I also want to dedicate this
dissertation to my parents, Bill and Kathy, who continued to encourage me to keep working on
my dissertation and were always there to support me. Finally, this dissertation is also dedicated
to my students who have struggled, worked hard, and are successful today because of our
interactions. I will continue to develop my leadership skills to strive for academic success for
students with special needs in every school and I will continue to advocate for their full
involvement in our public education systems.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Rudy Castruita
(dissertation chair), Dr. David Cash, and Dr. Michael Escalante for their never-ending mentoring
and guidance throughout the entire dissertation process. I am also grateful for the support that I
received from my classmate, Steve Mejia, who continued to inspire me to keep on writing my
chapters.
I would like to thank my USC colleagues for their invaluable support during the entire
doctoral program. I want to especially acknowledge and thank my friends for their continued
support and motivation as I worked to the dissertation process.
Lastly, I would like to thank the teachers and special education providers that took the
time to allow me to interview them and to those who participated in my survey. Each and every
one of these educators continues to instruct while overcoming challenges to further strengthen
organizations to support and increase learning for special education children.

vii
Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 7
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 7
Assumptions of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ........................................................................ 8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 11
The History of Special Education in American Public Schools ....................................... 11
Case Study: Student Achievement and Collaboration ...................................................... 13
Influences on School Collaboration .................................................................................. 14
Culture................................................................................................................... 14
Teacher Pedagogy ................................................................................................. 15
Leadership ............................................................................................................. 17
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework ........................................................................... 18
Social Constructivism ........................................................................................... 19
Self-Efficacy Theory ............................................................................................. 20

viii
Transformational Leadership ................................................................................ 21
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 22
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 24
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 25
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 25
Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 26
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 27
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 28
Mixed Methods ..................................................................................................... 28
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 29
Qualitative Instrument .......................................................................................... 29
Quantitative Instrument ........................................................................................ 29
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 31
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 32
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 33
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 34
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 37
Background ....................................................................................................................... 37
Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants........................................................ 38
Teaching Career of General Education and Special Education Providers ............ 38
Professional Preparation ....................................................................................... 39
Career History and Development.......................................................................... 40
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 42
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 42

ix
Coding of Data .................................................................................................................. 42
Findings............................................................................................................................. 43
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 44
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................ 46
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................. 49
Research Question 4 ............................................................................................. 53
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications ................................................................................ 60
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 61
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 61
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 61
Results and Findings ......................................................................................................... 62
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 62
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 63
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................. 64
Research Question 4 ............................................................................................. 64
Ancillary Findings: Recommendations............................................................................. 65
Importance of Leadership ..................................................................................... 65
School Values and Culture.................................................................................... 66
Implications of the Study .................................................................................................. 66
Instructional Pedagogy.......................................................................................... 67
Accountability Systems ........................................................................................ 67
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 69
Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................... 70
References ..................................................................................................................................... 72

x
Appendix A: Interview Cover Sheet /Protocol ............................................................................. 81
Appendix B: Survey ...................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix C: General Recruitment Email Cover Letter ................................................................ 86

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Teachers and Provider Participants’ Teaching Experiences ............................................39
Table 2: Teachers and Provider Participants’ Educational Background .......................................39
Table 3: Teachers and Providers’ Career Setting ..........................................................................42
Table 4: Value Lesson Design .......................................................................................................45
Table 5: Push-In Instructional Modes ............................................................................................49
Table 6: Push-In Shared Responsibilities ......................................................................................50
Table 7: Least Restrictive Environment ........................................................................................51
Table 8: Pull-Out Mode of Instruction...........................................................................................53

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The involvement and instruction of special education students with their non-identified
peers prompts constant debate over whether they benefit or still need further intervention outside
of the content-specific classrooms (Thompkins & Deloney, 1995). In many cases, a special
education student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) can determine a mode of instruction that
will be best suited to assist and allow for a student to learn with their peers in a high school
setting. The case carrier, resource specialist teacher, and instructional aides/paraprofessionals
then provide these services in both a push-in and pull-out model of instruction. Many teachers
believe that special needs students can benefit from working alongside their non-identified peers
but believe that assistance should be provided inside the content classrooms as a push-in model
(Idol, 2006). Identifying challenges and factors that allow for these service modes are vital to the
success of students with special needs to pass their classes and graduate. The collaboration of
special education teachers and content-specific teachers is an equally essential aspect of special
needs students’ perceptions of being taught while at school (Wilson & Michaels, 2006).
When implementing and developing the instruction of special needs students based on
their IEP and service delivery model, there are numerous challenges and factors in place that
derive from the push-in versus pull-out mode. Often, the content itself can create a challenge for
the service provider to implement strategies or interventions that will be beneficial in a 1:1
setting. Content knowledge is factored in by new approaches and content standards that align to
grade level in high schools. Special needs students are often measured at two or more years
below the grade level at which their non-identified students are currently performing as it relates
to reading and math (Graham & Harris, 2013; Powell et al., 2013). Issues deriving from these
below-grade-level measures become apparent when a service provider is working to scaffold and
2

make sure content is readily accessible during a lesson and on any given school day. Historically,
special education teachers have been underqualified to service their student population and have
lacked experience as many entering the profession are first- and second-year teachers with little
or no support (Billingsley, 2004).
The challenges identified in individualized teacher content knowledge are related to the
classroom push-in service delivery model. McClure and Cahnmann-Taylor (2010) analyzed the
social factors that take place while two professionals attempt to collaborate in an environment
that is influenced as a result of ordered associations of authority and standing that persist in
educational settings across the country. When another adult is entering your classroom to provide
instruction, the mindset that the lead instructor might be not capable of teaching a special
education student takes place. In reverse, it can also be seen as those special needs students
warranting more instruction and that the lead instructor is not responsible for their learning while
a service provider has entered the classroom. According to Zigmond (2017), the push-in
collaboration of the content teacher and service provider should be a shared contribution to the
creation, instruction, and altering of lesson delivery and assignments for both the special
education students and their non-identified peers. The research of Shin et al. (2016) has shown
that co-teaching and having a service provider inside the classroom allows opportunities for a
more engineered lesson that could target each student within a given classroom subject. For a
push-in to occur productively, there needs to be a designed role and value to their position in the
classroom. The attitudes and relationships made inside the classroom and during co-planning
phases can enable a more fluid and inclusive environment (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016).
Alternatively, service providers might decide that the delivery mode of instruction to a
special education student will be more impactful if done outside of the classroom. This design is
3

called the pull-out mode and can take on two approaches. In the first approach, the special
education student is taken out of the class being taught in order to work on skills that relate to
that day’s lesson or receive further intervention on content skills. The second approach involves
enrollment in a specific class known as a learning center. A learning center is a class where
students gain small-group instruction, gain support from modeled practice and activities, and
develop executive function skills engagement in learning (Murai et al., 2019). These learning
centers usually incorporate multiple students across grade levels that receive support during a
single classroom period to improve their learning outside of the content-specific classroom.
Intervention and supports both inside the learning center classroom or in a small pull-out
framework are done so based on the design of a special needs student’s Individualized Education
Plan.
Classroom environments are vital to the success and amount of learning that can occur
during a given lesson and school year (Morgan, 2014). Often, the relationships between the
teachers, service providers, and students become the main area of concern while navigating the
process in which students are being instructed. This occurs, specifically, with regard to when and
by whom things are altered to make accommodations or re-directions for both special needs and
non-identified special needs students. Vannest and Hagan-Burke (2010) attempted to label the
many roles that emerge and ponder the question of whether a special education teacher is a
teacher at all. Through their research, Vannest and Hagan-Burke (2010) sought to account for the
time used by special education teachers on a given day and found that 15.6% of their time was
devoted to actual instruction while 14.6% was listed as instructional support. A research study
conducted by Eisenman et al. (2011) found that the classroom environments in which the service
providers and general education teachers worked had to have both shared responsibility and
4

accountability for the content. In doing this, students acknowledge the presence of multiple
adults in a classroom as being a point of reference and had confidence in their ability to answer
and help them with challenging portions of a given lesson. This classroom environment model is
one that many high school special education teachers struggle to develop as they collaborate and
work with content-specific teachers.
The most important aspect to consider while analyzing the challenges and factors faced
by general education and special education teachers is the level of student progress. According to
Goodman et al. (2011), special need students identified with mild learning disabilities have
shown slight improvement in graduation rates but are still measured at below 30%, compared to
their non-identified peer groups. Before 1960, it was not mandated that students with special
needs be accommodated and educated differently than their non-identified peers. They were
taught in separate classes and schools, otherwise they dropped out of school altogether (Kim et
al., 2019). Progress for students with special needs has been directly linked to classroom and
school protocols. In many situations, the formats in which students progress are correlated to
court decisions that center on a student’s placement. In many situations, the formats in which
students progress are correlated to court decisions that center on a student’s placement,
specifically as it relates to their instruction in the least restrictive environment. Alquraini (2013)
found that many districts were not offering the least restrictive environment to students as
evidenced by numerous court cases and by further limiting their exposure and ability to access
the general education curriculum.
Background of the Problem
The problem in this study relates to historical and cultural issues that pre-date the
environments and classrooms in which special education students learn and have attempted to be
5

a part of for decades. Before the 1960s civil rights legislation, many special education students
were taught in separate schools or classrooms away from their non-identified peers (Kim et al.,
2019). The cultural problems that ensued were not limited to society alone but the educational
framework that was designed and enable all American citizens the access and ability to learn in
public school settings. Content-specific teachers were initially hesitant when legislation was
passed, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, to develop schools and classrooms more
inclusive of special needs students. According to a study by Popovich et al. (2003), educators
were more likely to attribute disability to physical impairments rather than psychological
conditions (Popovich et al., 2003).
Moreover, are the skills that are attributed to the problem of both content-specific
teachers and special education providers ultimately associated to them working together.
Traditionally, teachers were taught to be the captains of their classrooms and command them in
such a way. Popkewitz (1994) argued that teachers are not meant to be producers of prior
knowledge but the catalyst for ideas for student achievement. Many classroom teachers are
experts at their content, while special education teachers and providers are trained to aid the
student in accessing and understanding more challenging content. According to Griffin et al.
(2008), the trouble that most special education teachers have as they attempt to collaborate with
the general relationship teachers was in the area of support. This further detailed the challenges
and factors in place that are attributed to the skills needed to serve special education students.
Finally, there are the roles taking place and the collaboration process of individuals who
must form positive relationships. Collaboration is the ability to feed off one another’s instruction
and teaching style while co-existing in the same classroom to serve all students (Polhemus,
2010). The behaviors displayed are then acknowledged by the students who are being served and
6

interacting with multiple teachers in one classroom setting. A study by Stephen Hernandez
(2013) summed up the challenges presented by individuals’ attitudes, skills, competence, and
confidence as they relate to the shared responsibility of instructing students cohesively.
Statement of the Problem
The focus of this study is to describe the personal challenges of teachers and special
education providers working together in serving high risk special education students in high
school. It is vital to identify strains on teacher relationships and instruction to further the
collaboration model of teaching. It must include practices both inside and outside of the
classroom that will allow student achievement to increase in all grade levels.
Research by Rigelman and Ruben (2012) identified the need for and provided a better
understanding of teacher collaboration within the classroom and across departments and entire
school sites. According to Ronfeldt et al. (2015), schools that have developed collaboration
networks have better services and make content more understood by all students during the
instructional day. As teachers learn to collaborate, school leaders and districts must make a
continuous effort to better identify the factors that limit this framework through inquiry and
reflective practices (Neumerski, 2013). In a study conducted during the spring of 2000, Griffin et
al. (2008) found that teachers who promoted a positive school culture based on relationships of
trust had more significant student achievement. Furthermore, there was an overall positive
perspective on the profession of teaching at these specific school sites (Griffin et al., 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges and factors that limit student
achievement in high schools due to the relationships between general education teachers and
special education service providers. By examining the perceptions and events at southern
7

California high schools, departments can better align with one another to foster learning
environments that target special needs students. This study will explore the creation and
development of accountability and responsibility based on real-life scenarios that can transfer
between school sites and among districts in high school settings.
Research Questions
The following research questions will help guide this study:
1. What factors, based on educators’ perceptions, determine the success of instruction that is
used for specific special education students?
2. How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instruction benefit or limit the
success of special education students?
3. What are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with RSP and content-specific
teachers during a school day to instruct special education students?
4. What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to access
general education content and achieve academic success?
Significance of the Study
The research conducted is significant to the study of challenges and factors that are in
place that limit the overall success of school sites. In detailing the information of prior research
and this study, teachers and special education providers can better examine the barriers to their
working relationships and the success of their special needs students. The research conducted
will allow for an exceptional understanding of the root causes that limit school collaboration.
Based on a study by Ronfeldt et al. (2015), the more effort a school puts into collaboration
among teachers, the higher student achievement is in both math and reading. This study is meant
first to identify what is keeping teachers at a school site from becoming immersed in the ability
8

to communicate. When teachers can communicate with one another, their ability to instruct,
develop interests, and navigate student behaviors becomes more efficient and leads to greater
student achievement (Mazer, 2013).
High school graduation requirements have become more rigorous with the push for
students to enroll in two- and four-year colleges. These increased requirements are closely
related to the dropout and failure rates of many high school students across the country
(McCallumore & Sparapani, 2010). As these requirements have increased, it has become a major
responsibility of classroom teachers to ensure that students are receiving the proper instruction
and accommodations needed to graduate.
Assumptions of the Study
The researcher in this study assumes that general education content teachers, special
education teachers, and service providers believe that challenges exist and factors are in place
that are holding students back at their high school site. Through the process of interviews and
surveys, the researcher assumes that many of these challenges and factors will further emphasize
the need for direct actions by those involved in the study as well as school leaders to ensure
correct learning environments for students are being both created and monitored. Research
assumes that participants in the study will incorporate their own implicit bias but be honest when
responding and acting throughout the process of the study.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
The limitations that were present in the study primarily rested upon the one high school
that was observed and participants’ responses. As the study only analyzed one school site
specifically, the generalizability to all high schools in the state or nationwide is limited.
9

Delimitations of the study were identified in three areas: the teachers who participated
were all high school teachers, the special education providers who took part were all resource
specialist program (RSP) teachers and the number of participants who were interviewed and
surveyed during the study was relatively low.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are used in this study:
Resource specialist: a special education teacher that manages the implementation of a
special education student and provides instructional intervention (Polhemus, 2010).
Push-in: a service delivery model in which a special education teacher/provider works
inside a general education classroom to instruct/scaffold material for special needs students
(Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016).
Pull-out: a service delivery model in which a special education teacher/provider removes
a special education student from a general education classroom to instruct/scaffold material in a
small group or 1:1 (McClure & Cahnmann-Taylor, 2010).
Least restrictive environment: legal placement for a student identified with special needs
ranging from general education taught alongside non-identified peers to special education
programs taught in smaller classrooms with only special needs students (Alquraini, 2013).
Inclusion: placement of special education students with their non-identified peers in a
classroom and school setting (Aldabas, 2015).
Co-teaching: when a special education teacher and a general education content specific
teacher develop, implement, and alter daily lessons to instruct all students within a class subject
(Shin et al., 2016)
10

Collaboration: the process in which teachers, departments, and schools foster social
networks in which a common process for instructing and developing lessons is embedded into a
school culture (Rigelman & Ruben, 2012).
Organization of the Study
A review of literature follows in Chapter Two as a way to make sense of the research
questions and highlight the need for further studies and analysis of the problem. The researcher
will use scholarly, peer-edited, and reviewed references that relate to the questions posed by this
study. Then, chapter three is the methods section, where the study's purpose and research
questions are reiterated. The reasoning for the type of method used, both quantitative and
qualitative, will be discussed. Next, chapter four is an examination of the data collected from the
surveys and interviews. Lastly, chapter five concludes the study by discussing the findings,
implications, and recommendations for future research on the study of challenges between
teachers and special education providers.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The issues faced by students due to the lack of collaboration on and inclusion of special
education services is related to the achievement gaps in U.S. public schools (Cole, 2006). These
issues should be studied so that school sites can target areas in which they can change their
practices to benefit both students and teachers at the high school level. In this chapter, historical
events, acts, and laws will be analyzed to highlight the current educational framework seen in
public high school settings across the country as it relates to special education. In this section,
reform efforts and new theories and practices will highlight the modes in which students with
disabilities transition into public schools and their overall involvement in classroom settings.
This will be followed by a scholarly review that directly relates to practices for instructional
approaches to special education services and collaboration. Finally, an investigation of school
culture, teacher pedagogy, and leadership in the context of school sites and how they relate to
instruction and communication among teachers will be presented. Then, the preceding portion
will connect the theoretical and conceptual framework of social constructivism, self-efficacy
theory, and transformational leadership. The inclusionary practices of collaboration and its
challenges are faced daily in schools across America, as the process of implementing
“teamwork” with teachers and high school sites leaders is critical to student outcomes.
The History of Special Education in American Public Schools
The instruction of students identified with special education needs has been a civil rights
battle that dates back to 1971. In the court decision of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971), they ruled that students with special needs
had a right to public education. This overruled current laws that had been in place that did not
allow it. Two years later, the federal government enacted The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This
12

act determined that public schools would grant services to individuals with the most severe
needs. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 also outlined the duty of the federal government to be
accountable, conduct investigations, and provide programs to train staff to properly serve
students with disabilities in schools across America (The Rehabilitation Act of 1973). Two years
later, in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act passed. This act directly outlined
the role of public schools that receive federal resources to provide an equivalent education to
students identified with both physical and mental disabilities enrolled in their schools (Education
for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975). It took another 15 years before further legislation
was created to advocate for the rights of students with special needs. In 1990, the federal
government passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This act clearly stated that
individuals who identified with special needs or disabilities cannot be discriminated in schools,
jobs, modes of transportation, and access to public places that were open to the general public
(Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990). Seven years later, the most essential piece of legislation
to date for special needs students was passed. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
described a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) for students with special needs in public
schools (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 1997). IDEA required that students
receive equal opportunities and access to the least restrictive classroom environments in which
they could be self-sufficient in American public schools. Finally, the No Child Left Behind Act
passed in 2001 and provided language that encompassed a larger population of public-school
students that previously were not covered under IDEA (No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB],
2002). NCLB described the services and supports for disabled student needs under 504 or ADA,
which made the needs of these students a priority that were not previously. Students across the
country identified with special needs have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), as outlined
13

under the IDEA. These plans are implemented by schools, districts, and states to provide special
needs students with equal access to public education. According to Tejeda-Delgado (2009),
minority students in socioeconomically disadvantaged urban schools lack access to the resources
needed to properly service and identify their needs. The current state of special education in
America continues to lack equal access and equitable remedies that have been defined and
neglected by federal law.
Case Study: Student Achievement and Collaboration
The challenges faced by individual students are directly related and a byproduct of the
classroom and school environment in which they are instructed (Pianta et al., 2012). In 2010-
2012, a study was conducted in the Miami-Dade County Public School System, which is the
third-largest school district in the country (Ronfeldt et al., 2015). The researchers attempted to
determine if collaboration resulted in student achievement and what types of cooperation
produced such results. Ronfeldt et al. (2015) found that teacher collaboration resulted in student
achievement in both reading and math. In the survey, 90% of respondents found team
collaboration increased their ability to instruct all students in their classrooms together. The
inclusion of “teams” at the school resulted in better student outcomes and improved teacher
quality, with more significant gains in schools that further emphasized the collaboration model
(Ronfeldt et al., 2015). Although positive student outcomes and overall teacher quality were
found in the case study, concerns persist as they related to teacher and school characteristics as
potentially being a cause for student achievement and not collaboration solely (Ronfeldt et al.,
2015).

14

Influences on School Collaboration
Culture
Buli-Holmberg and Jeyaprathaban (2016) attempted to research the instructional factors
that determined effective methods in a school. Inclusive practices within classrooms and schools
foster effective special education instruction. Based on observations in over 80 classrooms, they
determined that a culture based on interaction was vital to the success and development of
inclusive classrooms for special education students and educators. The inclusive practices listed
interactions, supports, and adaptations made by instructors that developed collaboration in and
out of the school (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016). Still, the specific facilities designed
for particular teaching materials and instructional purposes were limited in its scope to explain
further the culture that created positive outcomes for special needs students.
A study by Strogilos et al. (2012) of 20 new special education teachers and their roles in
general education classrooms highlighted the personal issues that derive from a lack of
collaboration within a school culture and how that leads to individualism by teaching staffs. The
issues these teachers experienced were observed by the researchers through qualitative
methodology practices such as reflective journals and phone interviews, which revealed direct
concerns related to supporting and instructing special education students in these general
education classrooms (Strogilos et al., 2012). The lack of school culture derived from this study
emphasized the assistance needed through collaboration; however, it was limited in its ability to
state how a collaborative culture could be created and specifically who would facilitate the
creation of such an environment.
Waldron and McLeskey (2010) attempted to study what led to school improvements and
how these improvements could then lead to student achievement. In their study, they noted that a
15

culture of collaboration could not exist without a school leader who fully understands and acts by
personally modeling it to the teaching staff (Waldron and McLeskey, 2010). Although Waldon
and McLeskey (2010) describe schools that are improving with a shift in collaborative cultures,
there is still a need to determine how these culture shifts are developed and sustained over time
to preserve school improvement. Also missing from Waldon and McLeskey’s study are the
impact of school-wide communities and the influence of districts with regard to inclusion and
how it grows within these schools.
Teacher Pedagogy
Teachers must have the ability to control their behavior and employ instructional
practices that are grounded in theory in order to influence student outcomes (Korthagen, 2010).
Teacher pedagogy is derived from their educational experiences and from knowledge developed
through the transferred understanding of colleagues in the working environments (Korthagen,
2010). Korthagen describes this as being peer-supported learning, which leads to exchanges and
the creation of collaboration that is both reflective and centered on the students who are the
receivers of their work. This pedagogy must be both systematized and coordinated to influence
the success of students and the environments in which they learn.
In 2017, Da Fonte and Barton-Arwood described the responsibilities of general education
and special education teachers that led to teaching practices that increased the outcomes and
addressed the gaps of students with disabilities. The pedagogy of “teamwork” and collaboration
must be a priority of teacher preparation programs, due to the troubles and time needed to take
place due to a lack of knowledge or perception (Da Fonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017). The
researchers found that the practices needed by teachers to achieve positive outcomes in schools
were having time to collaborate, being partners in communication, and having experiences that
16

allowed them to observe and gain new working skills together during professional development
(Da Fonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017). A lingering question that emerged from the study
concerned the candidate’s perceptions and how they let their fears guide areas of concern (Da
Fonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017). More successful approaches include fewer scare tactics and
more emphasis on successful collaboration pedagogy.
The perceptions of individuals often leads to the actions that take place in the classroom
and at school sites. Zagona et al. (2017) studied general education and special education teachers
to gather the information that associated their skills with inclusive education practices and
overall collaboration. The interviews provided further evidence of teacher pedagogy as it related
to full inclusive cooperation and preparedness. A persistent concern which surfaced through the
study was a need for support in general education courses (Zagona et al., 2017). The continued
consensus of their findings resulted in future areas of study as it relates to the collaboration and
strategies needed to benefit special education student outcomes.
The pedagogy of teacher collaboration is a crucial factor in determining positive student
outcomes. Sehgal et al. (2017) conducted a study to discover how teacher effectiveness related to
collaboration and the role of teacher identities. The identity of teachers was a result of their
instruction, interactions with students, and regulating of classroom learning outcomes. Each of
these areas was directly related to a teacher’s prior preparation and personal perception as it
referred to collaboration. One area of concern involved who is facilitating collaboration and
building the capacity while monitoring for such practices. Low teacher motivation, which can
further the influence or lack thereof in schools, was not addressed in their study (Sehgal et al.,
2017).

17

Leadership
In a 2015 ’meta-analysis research study by Cam Cobb, there are specific roles that school
leadership facilitates as it relates to collaboration and the challenges faced by teaching staff.
According to the study, principals taking on the roles of special education leaders is a significant
issue (Cobb, 2015). It is the responsibility of leaders to foster collaboration and take on critical
roles such as coach and organizer to make sure that this model of inclusionary practices is being
implemented among teachers and in schools (Cobb, 2015). Even though the study was able to
identify the roles a leader should possess, it does not explain or analyze the monitored progress
or the actionable steps a leader must take to gain the inclusionary practices mentioned above.
Sehgal et al. (2017) were able to identify both collaboration and principal leadership as
crucial aspects of a learning environment that affected both personal beliefs and student
outcomes. They found that a principal who was supportive and had positive influences on
learning communities in schools was able to alter the perceptions of the teaching staff, although
it was not clear how schools can actively make teacher collaboration and principal leadership
result in successful outcomes based on their limited data (Sehgal et al., 2017). Still, a significant
conclusion of their research, and one which is of increasing importance, is the time needed to
find and work with both teachers and leaders in a meaningful way during school hours (Sehgal et
al., 2017). The continued need for capacity building centered on goal setting and teacher training
should be studied as a way to pinpoint how a leader can facilitate collaboration in challenging
situations.
The inclusionary practices of special education, from a leadership standpoint, are “social
justice” related actions that should be requirements in K-12 schools in America (Pazey & Cole,
2013). Just like pedagogy, school leaders must be prepared to both monitor and facilitate support
18

services for teachers and students in special education. Time becomes a factor but is not an
excuse and as Pazey and Cole (2013) describe, school leadership must be critically aware and
mindful of the responsibility needed on their part to comply with existing legislation. Still, there
is limited research on the construct of challenges when a school leader does or does not attempt
to integrate special education students into their schools and classrooms by supporting the
teachers who are instructing and working with them regularly.
The literature is limited with regard to how leaders become more aware and reactive to
special education law on the local, state, and federal level. Pazey and Cole (2013) specifically
noted that even if the leadership curriculum and preparedness were in place, no current
information can address how schools will become more socially just for special education
students.
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
The increase in professional learning communities in American public schools
continues, but there is a growing issue as it relates to teacher perceptions that they are in need of
support in specific areas to create more inclusionary practices, but they are limited in their ability
to do so. Also, the context in which students with special needs continue to receive instruction
has shown minimal gains in closing the achievement gap, and it shows an even more significant
relationship to the “school to prison” pipeline that constrains disadvantaged student groups
(Annamma et al., 2014). Three theories that call attention to and correlate the challenges in place
for special education and general education teachers as they relate to collaboration are social
constructivism, self-efficacy theory, and transformational leadership theory.

19

Social Constructivism
According to social constructivism, establishing inclusionary practices results in positive
ways to interact and gain understating by socializing. Social constructivism relates the personal
learning experiences as being meaningful and community-based implemented strategies that
allow teachers to collaborate. The emotions of instructors then become the catalyst for achieving
the support needed for students with disabilities. According to Veen and Lasky (2005), a
teacher’s identity, along with the context in which they work, can further dictate the outcomes as
they relate to the purpose of serving special needs students in schools and classroom settings.
Veen and Lasky (2005) examined the emotions of teachers as a way of making broad
assumptions about an individual’s social life to display how their teaching strategies related.
Historically, teachers’ perceptions are related to culture in that they attempt to disassociate from
the vast array of differences to implement a pure school culture (Atkinson, 1997). Teacher
perceptions are directly related to their identity, which emphasizes their overall ability to instruct
and provide support through collaboration to students with special needs.
Research by Clark and Estes (2008) shows that once the identity of a teacher is examined,
the factors related to outcomes or production of a lesson can be aligned to their overall
motivation. Clark and Estes (2008) describe motivation as a factor that leads to both successes
and gaps in the learning process. Lack of motivation becomes a major cause of a teacher’s
inability to correctly observe the need to foster environments that engage, interact, and allow for
collaboration within the classroom and school setting. Teachers who instruct special needs
students displayed a higher level of motivation and positive attitudes as it related to the outcomes
of this at-risk student group. These teachers also revealed a growth mindset and not a
performance mindset.
20

Self-Efficacy Theory
In 1977, Bandura presented the self-efficacy theory as our perceived abilities and actions
at all levels. The theory relates to individual motivation, ability to understand, general
accomplishments, and especially self-regulation (Bandura et al., 1999). According to Schunk and
Dibenedetto (2016), the emotional state of individuals gives rise to perceptions that can foster
both negative and positive outlooks as it relates to learning and attaining new understanding.
Self-efficacy theory relates to teacher collaborations in which they are asking one another to find
common ground, and perceptions as they relate to the challenges teachers face and how they
should address them.
A study conducted by Woodcock et al. (2019) of 122 secondary teachers examined the
relationship between self-efficacy and individual beliefs towards special education students and
those who do not identify with such needs. The results indicated that those with higher levels of
self-efficacy and beliefs towards students with special needs were additionally less bothered by,
and more likely to ignore, failures as a simple determining factor while instructing them in the
classroom (Woodcock et al., 2019). The findings of Woodcock et al. (2019) and the self-efficacy
theory specifically relate to the challenges teachers face during collaboration to address the needs
and gather personal feelings [of who? Teachers or students?] to better assist special education
students or allow the continued achievement gap to persist.
A more critical type of self-efficacy, for this study, is collective teacher self-efficacy. It
occurs when a common goal is developing, and mutual perceptions aim to attain positive student
outcomes through collaboration and instructional design (Schunk & Dibenedetto, 2016). This
research study, and the surrounding literature, demonstrate the self-efficacy theory which must
21

be understood and acted upon with intention in order to break through the challenges that are in
place at school and in classrooms.
Transformational Leadership
Dionne et al. (2004) describe transformational leadership through a study based on
teamwork that is initially influenced by school leaders who empower by communicating and
creating a shared vision. The role of the leader is vital to the inclusionary practices of
collaboration that are needed to change not only perceptions but actions. Special education
legislation and requirements, as Pazey and Cole (2013) explain, are aspects of leaders to then
transcend and create a structure in schools that all stakeholders implicate. Transformational
leadership works in cohesion with own pedagogy and cultural environments that align to address
goals with specific outcomes in place.
In a study of New York City public schools, Berkovich and Eyal (2017) found
transformational leadership characteristics had a positive direct relationship to student test
scores. Transformational leaders can inspire and create a system of trust with their teaching staff
which, in turn, results in individuals willing to try new approaches to instruction in the classroom
(Berkovich & Eyal, 2017). However, characteristics of transformational leadership should not be
limited to person-to-person transfer but implemented throughout the entire organization.
The transformational leadership theory was studied by Beverborg et al. (2017) who
discovered a causal relationship between a leader’s ability to influence self-reflection strategies
in order to alter teacher’s self-efficacy and foster teachers’ learning while continuing to instruct
students in school. Facilitating perceptions and developing the practices of teachers to adapt
collaboration processes links the leader and their aptitude to put in motion a process of reflection
and cohesiveness (Beverborg et al., 2017). In their study, Beverborg et al. (2017) explained that
22

further investigation must be conducted to determine what generates a solution to challenges
during some leaders’ processes to transform practices at their school.
Conclusion
The challenges are faced by special education and general education teachers include
individual perceptions, team actions, and unshared vision for inclusionary practices. In the
literature review and accompanying studies, there emerges a need to investigate further why
collaborative relationships and skills are not a part of every teacher and school leader, as they are
necessary for student outcomes (Bavonese et al., 2017). Moreover, the literature highlights that
relationships between teachers and school leaders are critical to improving the quality of
instruction in classrooms for special education students. The most prevalent challenges noted
were school culture, teacher pedagogy, and leadership. According to Leithwood et al. (2008), the
leaders of the school are very influential in fostering school cultures that relate directly back to
the pedagogy of teachers and their ability to alter their current instruction to be more
collaborative. In examining prior literature and studies, there are still many unanswered
questions related to the challenges of collaboration, such as personal areas of teacher
engagement, which may increase the impact or lack of influence in schools (Sehgal et al., 2017).
The collaborative school culture must be observed from an area of struggle, as the
research design of this paper aims to correct and alter those areas which lead to the school
improvements described above (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). Mutual relationships among
participants form the foundation of a successful organization (Fullan, 2008), which requires the
continued efforts of researchers devoted to studying how relationships can be strengthened, and
what weakens them, in a school site setting.
23

Finally, the concepts and theories of social constructivism, self-efficacy theory, and
transformational leadership theory generalize a need to study how they intersect from a human
behavior standpoint. The assertion of Beverborg et al. (2017) that a leader’s ability to influence
self-reflection strategies alters a teacher’s self-efficacy and can foster a teacher’s learning is
limited because it does not consider the personal conflict that world views and bias create to
work against cohesiveness. Korthagen (2010) noted in his study that the pedagogy that develops
from teacher preparation programs is a significant area of concern as it relates to past, present,
and future teachers at schools. Teachers develop understandings and practices which fit their
worldview as it relates to becoming more collaborative or facilitating a transformational
leadership style that values social justice, as described by Pazey and Cole (2013. In summary,
consideration ought to be given to the relationship dynamics between special education teachers,
general education teachers, and school leaders, as it is evident that their collaboration affects
special education student outcomes in American public-school environments.

24

Chapter Three: Methodology

Many teachers believe that special needs students can benefit from working alongside
their non-identified peers but believe that assistance should be provided inside the content
classrooms as a push-in model (Idol, 2006). Identifying challenges and factors that allow for
these service modes are vital to students with special needs to pass their classes and graduate.
The collaboration of special education teachers and content-specific teachers is an equally
essential aspect to individual special needs students’ perceptions of being taught while at school
(Wilson & Michaels, 2006). For a push-in to occur productively, there needs to be a designed
role and value to the classroom’s service provider position. The attitudes and relationships made
inside the classroom and during co-planning phases can allow for a more fluid and inclusive
environment (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016). Classroom environments are vital to the success and
amount of learning that can occur during a given lesson and school year (Morgan, 2014). Often,
the relationship between the teachers, service providers, and students becomes the central area of
concern when navigating the process in which students learn.
Statement of the Problem
The focus of this study is to describe the personal challenges and factors that lead to
classroom content used by teachers and special education providers working together in serving
high-risk special education students in high school. It is vital to identify strains on teacher
relationships and instruction to further the collaboration model of teaching. This model must
include both inside and outside of the classroom practices that will allow student achievement to
increase in all grade levels.
Research by Rigelman and Ruben (2012) identified the need for better understanding of
teacher collaboration within the classroom and across departments and entire school sites.
25

According to Ronfeldt et al. (2015), schools that have developed collaboration networks have
better services and make content more understood to all students during the instructional day. As
teachers learn to collaborate, school leaders and a district must make a continuous effort to better
identify the factors that limit this framework through inquiry and reflective practices
(Neumerski, 2013). In the Spring of 2000, Griffin et al. (2008) found that teachers who promoted
a positive school culture based on relationships of trust had more significant student
achievement. Furthermore, there was an overall positive perspective on the profession of
teaching at these specific school sites (Griffin et al., 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges and factors in place that limit
student achievement at a high school between the general education teachers and the special
education service providers. By examining the perceptions and events at southern California high
schools, the departments can better align with one another to foster learning environments that
target special needs students. This study will identify the creation and development of
accountability and responsibility based on real-life scenarios that can transfer to other school
sites and districts in high school settings.
Research Questions
The following research questions will help guide this study:
1. What factors, based on educators’ perceptions, determine the success of instruction that is
used for specific special education students?
2. How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instruction benefit or limit the
success of special education students?
26

3. What are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with RSP and content-specific
teachers during a school day to instruct special education students?
4. What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to access
general education content and achieve academic success?
Selection of the Population
Homogeneous sampling was used in this study due to the nature of these school-site-
specific study. According to Johnson and Christensen (2014), homogeneous sampling
purposively selects a small set of participants or events related to the study itself. Both content
teachers and special education providers working at high school sites were selected to answer the
research questions. With more time and resources, comprehensive sampling would have been
conducted to include every high school case available in southern California during the study of
the research questions.
The research questions are related to the concepts of teachers’ perceptions and
understanding when supporting students with disabilities in the general education setting. The
participants sampled were from three southern California public high schools. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) would further describe the sampling conducted in this study as non-probability
sampling because the interview questions asked and surveys conducted related to a purpose
focused on content and special education teachers specifically and their overall experiences in
school settings.
The setting used to observe the teacher participants was the classroom. The sampling was
dependent upon teachers’ challenges as they relate to supporting and implementing support for
students with disabilities both in and out of the classroom. The majority of information gleaned
from this research is based on teacher interviews alone and not obtained through observations.
27

The sampling in this study directly relates to the social constructivism conceptual framework in
that it helped the researcher to determine which participants to interview and observe based on
the theory of human interaction. Classroom teachers’ have displayed a reluctant perception of the
“least restrictive environment” for special needs student populations while learning alongside
their non-identified student peers (D’Alonzo et al., 1996). Teacher perceptions are still
outweighed by research which proves that having students with disabilities in classrooms
improves instruction due to the added scaffolds and curriculum modifications that make the
material being studied more retainable for all students (Jones et al., 2013). Based on the concept
of social construct theory relating to human interaction and the ability to understand and gain
knowledge, it was beneficial for the study to specifically analyze teachers and special education
providers who work in general education content specific classrooms to discover their truths as
they relate to support and intervention for special education students through collaboration.
Design Summary
The researcher will engage in a qualitative and quantitative study in order to interact with
the participants in their school environmental setting and interpret how the participants made
sense of their interactions and their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, the mixed
methods approach that was utilized also enabled the researcher to produce results and support
evidence to verify the findings (Maxwell, 2013).
Steps outlined by both Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Creswell (2018) on how to
conduct a research study were used to guiding the researcher’s attempts to answer the research
questions. The research problem and purpose of the study in Chapter One guided the overall
study, and a review of the literature in Chapter Two aided in gathering prior research and
28

information related to the research questions. In this chapter, the researcher will address both
how the data was collected and the rationale employed.
Methodology
The methodology included quantitative data from surveys using a questionnaire and
qualitative data from open-ended interview questions obtained from high school content and
special education service providers at a southern California public high school. The interview
protocol used a semi-structured format to enable the researcher to apply flexibility while asking
questions depending upon how the interviewees responded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In
addition to understanding the challenges that high school content and special education service
providers may encounter, it was necessary to interview participants to understand how they
collaborated while instructing special education students. Further, high school content and
special education service providers were interviewed and surveyed to understand the influence of
collaborative social networks and how they aided in supporting special education students. Each
of the four research questions was addressed in the study, which, as stated previously, used
qualitative and quantitative structures.
Mixed Methods
The researcher ensured that there was internal validity in the research study, a mixed
methods approach of triangulating checks for consistency of findings between the interview data,
survey data, and the literature review. Also, to employ these three areas of findings, social capital
theory was used to interface the discoveries inside these bigger points of view.

29

Instrumentation and Protocols
Qualitative Instrument
The qualitative data was obtained through the participants’ interviews and the interview
questions were related to the targeted research questions. The interview protocol consisted of 10
questions (see Appendix A). Within the 10 questions, additional follow-up questions were asked
as part of two items. The structured interview questions, probes, or follow-up questions were
incorporated in the interview process when information needed to be clarified or further
information obtained, as it related to the research questions, to ensure detailed responses
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher used the interviews to capture the data by conducting
telephone or online Zoom interviews due to the global pandemic. Each interview conducted was
open-ended and semi-structured, and interview notes were taken during the process (Creswell,
2018).
Quantitative Instrument
The quantitative data in this study was obtained using a survey. The survey had four parts,
with a total of 20 questions (see Appendix B). Each of the survey questions focused on the four
research questions. The first part of the survey centered on the teacher participant’s educational
background information, the second and third parts focused on research questions 1 and 4, and
the fourth part targeted research questions 2 and 3. Each of the survey questions were closed
questions. The researcher made sure that the questions would be meaningful to the teachers and
special education providers, and both general education and special education language were
incorporated to align with the study. The survey was also designed to incorporate a 10-point
Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” The survey instrument
was accessible to more than 35 teachers and special education providers at three southern
30

California public high schools by utilizing SurveyMonkey. The study’s intended investigation
was made to give the specialist a numeric portrayal of the mentalities and assessments of the
teachers and special education providers (Creswell, 2018).
Robert Weiss (1994) describes study protocols and provides an essential interview guide
to novice researchers when conducting interviews for the very first time. The interview guide
allows for the researcher to have predetermined questions that relate directly to research
questions and concepts being applied to the entire qualitative research study; the interview guide
related to the research questions on supports and interventions in place through the teacher
participants. In asking specific questions, the researcher was able to probe the teachers’
perceptions and how they relate to their instructional practices and overall feelings towards
collaboration and its challenges. Each interview lasted just over an hour, which Weiss (1994)
describes as the average length of time before saturation or repetitiveness emerges in an
interview.
The interview protocol related to the research questions specifically, as the structured
design required to mention “if at all” when drawing on the interviewee’s assumptions related to
teacher practices. This specific questioning tactic was related directly to Patton’s (2015) phrases:
“if any; if anything; and if at all.”
The surveys are structured so as not to center or alienate the participant’s vantage point
related to the environment, interactions, and events taking place. The survey is based on personal
and professional experiences related to the position of the content teacher, special education
provider, and students. Finally, after the survey responses were collected, the researcher analyzed
the individuals’ positionality and reflections based on their responses and overall influence as it
related to the larger themes or similarities. This last step was outlined as essential (Merriam &
31

Tisdell, 2016). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), taking into account what participants
say and perceive while in the environment develops the scene further.
Data Collection
’’The data gathering stages of Creswell (2018) and Merriam (2009) were followed when
conducting the research for this study: first, locate the participants and/or specific site. Second,
ethically gain access and generate a rapport with study subjects. Third, purposefully sample as it
relates to research questions. Fourth, collect the data and report the information. Fifth, both
identify and solve any field problems that may have arisen. Finally, store the data. To collect the
quantitative data, surveys were accessible to more than 35 teachers and special education
providers at a southern California public high school using the selection criteria previously
described. A cover letter stating the purpose of the study accompanied the survey (see Appendix
C).
The data collection approach includes selecting a physical setting that was familiar to and
comfortable for participants. Participants met with the researcher after school hours or during a
lunch period in the interviewee’s classroom or online via Zoom. Although Weiss (1994) stated
that conducting interviews at a participant’s place of employment was questioning with
relationship to the work they do there, for convenience, a one agreed upon location was used per
participants’ discretion at the high school site. The school location was free from distraction,
with only the interviewer and participant present in the classroom setting. Also, comfort and
choice were considered as the researcher never mandated the location and provided flexible
timelines as to when the two parties could meet to conduct the interview. Due to the global
COVID-19 pandemic, participants were given the option to meet online via Zoom. This allowed
for safe social distancing and a familiar and comfortable setting.
32

Based on initial protocols, the participants granted permission for their interviews to be
recorded, which allows for a higher level of accuracy and higher capabilities of the interviewer to
ask questions and probe freely. With the participants’ permission notes were taken during the
interviews as they related to words stated or areas causing concern or needing further
clarification. The data collection was reflective of a novice researcher using free subjectivity to
best answer research questions and best relay the experiences and events of the participants.
The interview notes taken by the researcher were narrative in nature and included both
descriptive and reflective aspects of what was gathered during the hour-long interview in which
the data was collected. Biklen and Bogdan (2007) referred to these notes as being not only what
was gathered through what was seen and heard, but what was gleaned though the researcher’s
role as an observer and comments made aligned to our truths based on stated events and how we
are interpreting it during this time.
Data Analysis
This study used a blended mixed methods approach, fusing both the quantitative
information from the surveys and the qualitative information from the interviews. Both the
survey and interview were precisely connected to the research questions. The data analysis for
this study directly correlated with the four research questions.
Harding (2018) outlined the levels of theory used in research, and stated that qualitative
research is micro theory. Micro theory is when a researcher uses concepts to identify common
aspects of phenomena in the environment and events. Both the interview and surveys were used
in a simultaneous process that Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described as open coding. Open
coding aims for themes, categories, and findings related and of interest to the researcher and the
research questions. Second, the patterns are found between the interview and survey, which form
33

leads and suggest important variables. During the interviews, the researcher highlighted
keywords and interactions that reflected teacher perceptions related to student outcomes and
actions inside the classroom; these were then reflected or used as probes during the interview
portion of participant’s responses to form clarity and draw assertions.
As coding was done collectively through the process, a codebook was then formulated to
center the researcher’s focus and analyze the most reoccurring themes and concepts found during
the study’s data analysis. A codebook allowed the researcher to utilize teachers’ perceptions
related to the responsibilities of themselves and other stakeholders in the interviews and surveys.
Subcategories were established based on how participants supported, and were a part of, the
collaboration process of instructing special education students at a high school through an
interview and surveys. One specific tool that was used during the data analysis process were data
memos. According to Harding (2018), data memos are informal notes of record that allow a
researcher to think aloud and could be defined as a self-assessment to use our positionality to use
a metacognitive approach in recognizing our perception or bias. At the end of each interview the
researcher reverted to what caused a certain question or response to resonate with the participant
and how this response correlated to the research questions and concepts. Through this process,
the researcher often altered or reframed his initial feelings regarding what was said by the
participants and what he heard at the time the comments were made by participants.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
A major aspect of this study using mixed methods research was triangulation.
Triangulation is when interviews, surveys, and past research and documents align or draw
connections to make sense of phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In order to accomplish
this, there must be concrete findings that present our conclusions as researchers by answering
34

research questions with substantial descriptions of events and the participants’ responses. An
example of this would be a participant’s response related to the role a special education provider
played in a class and their feelings based on actions or lack thereof. Then in surveys, the
researcher would relay back to what are concrete measurable responses to support students and
collaborate in a classroom setting. Finalizing this process would involve looking for previous
literature that explained how teachers’ perceptions related to the environment and actions of
collaboration and the staff’s support. Tracy (2019) explains that meaningful coherence results
from the connections made between past literature, conducted research, interview questions, data
findings, and overall interpretation with one another.
The data analysis phase used protocols and concrete data that made sense of the
researcher’s understanding. For example, as the interviews were conducted, the researcher made
reflective notes based on responses. Those responses were then gathered at the end to develop a
data memo as it correlated to assumptions regarding why something may or may not have been
said by a participant. Maxwell (2013) notes that validity is relative, and each person makes sense
of their world and internalized feelings differently. In clearly stating why an assumption that
could develop into an assertion was made, the researcher was inputs themselves into the
conducted data analysis phase while creating credibility. Along with data memos, rich data was
used to conclude findings. This rich data would be described as the interviews, transcripts, and
surveys used by researchers to emphasize our research methods.
Ethics
The first and most critical aspect of the entire study related to ethics and gaining
informed consent from school districts to interview and survey participants. Rubin and Rubin
(2012) detailed the idea that participants need to understand and feel that the nature of the
35

research itself will be done in an academic way that allows for full transparency. The school
administrator is a gatekeeper who must first grant initial consent; participants would then
cooperate and notify school administrators of their involvement.
A major area of concern for research study participants is having the interview be
recorded and their names identified in the study report. All participants were assured that their
names would not appear on any part of their report, and that notes would be taken only during
the interview portion of the data collection. During the entire process, the school, teachers, and
quotes referenced were only identified by a pseudonym in order to not cause any harm to the
study participants. Also, many of the teachers’ perceptions expressed truthful feelings, and the
participants’ anonymity gave the researcher the ability to identify major negative feelings that
would not otherwise be expressed, specifically as it related to the interviews.
Summary
This study used qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data from surveys. Due
to the global COVID-19 pandemic, participants were given the option to be interviewed via the
online platform, Zoom. This allowed for safe social distancing and a familiar and comfortable
setting as schools across the country were engaged in distance learning at the time of the
research. The data collected from teachers and special education providers in a California public
high school were analyzed to target the four research questions: (1) What factors, based on
educators’ perceptions, determine the success of instruction that is used for specific special
education students? (2) How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instruction benefit or
limit the success of special education students? (3) What are the biggest challenges faced while
collaborating with RSP and content-specific teachers during a school day to instruct special
education students? and (4) What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education
36

students to access general education content and achieve academic success? These findings are
presented in Chapter Four, followed by a discussion of the findings in Chapter Five.

37

Chapter Four: Findings
Background
This chapter presents the data collected in this study, which focuses on the challenges of
collaboration between general education teachers and special education providers within high
school instructional settings in Southern California. When high school teachers and special
education providers can co-plan and foster a level of collaboration, it is believed that students,
specifically students with disabilities, will have higher achievement and close learning gaps
(Morgan, 2014). The lack of collaboration and inclusion of special education services is related
to the achievement gap in U.S. public schools (Cole, 2006). The information presented in this
chapter aids in the studied opinions of general education and special education teachers that
associated their skills with inclusive education practices and overall collaboration (Zagona et al.,
2017).
Quantitative data was collected from a survey using electronic questionnaires distributed
to 22 general education teachers and 13 special education providers in Southern California public
high schools with student populations ranging from 1,500 to 3,500. The respondent’s teaching
careers ranged from a minimum of 3 years to more than 10 years. Of the 159 surveys distributed,
35 were answered, providing a response rate of 20.7%.
Qualitative data was gathered using one-on-one interviews via Zoom with three general
education teachers and two special education providers in southern California public high
schools with the same criteria as the surveyed quantitative data. Of the respondents from the 35
survey responses, five were selected and interviewed. The five interviewed have been referred to
as General Education Teacher 1, 2, and 3, and Special Education Provider 1 and 2. The
38

researcher made sure that the privacy of each respondent was safeguarded during the entire
procedure.
A semi-structured approach was used during the interviews, which consisted of 20
questions on the interview protocol created by the researcher. The semi-structured approach
enabled the researcher to add probes then additional questions when further details were
warranted from a participant being interviewed. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), an
interview protocol creates an environment that captures the behavior and feelings during a study.
The researcher ensured internal validity in the research study by utilizing a mixed
methods approach of triangulating, which checks for consistency of findings between the
interview data, survey data, and the literature review to focus on collaboration challenges. To
employ these three areas of findings, social capital theory was used to interface the discoveries
inside these larger views based on the researcher’s conceptual framework.
Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants
Teaching Career of General Education and Special Education Providers
Based on the 35 respondents’ electronic surveys, 71.43% had 10-plus years of experience
teaching in education. Five out of 35 had 5-9 years of teaching experience (14.29%). The data
strongly suggested that participants had sufficient experience to enable them to provide strong
opinions and to detail lived instructional moments based on the challenges of collaboration
study. Veen and Lasky (2005) describe teachers’ identity, along with the context in which they
work, as outcomes as they relate to the purpose of serving special needs students in schools and
classroom settings. As shown in Table 1, very few teachers have between 0 and 5 years of
teaching experience, and most of the participants in this study had 5 or more years of teaching.

39

Table 1
Teachers and Provider Participants ’ Teaching Experiences
Years of Experience Frequency Percent
Less than 3 2 5.71%
3-5 3 8.57%
5-9 5 14.29%
10+ 25 71.43%

Note. n = 35

Professional Preparation
Teacher candidates in content and special education areas have continued to improve
programs through collaboration targeting planning, instruction, and assessing students in the
classroom (Bavonese et al., 2017). Pedagogical practices lack “insider perspective,” however,
because theory and methods do not account for learned interactions from the field that are vital
when attempting to understand teaching practices (Korthagen, 2010). Presented in Table 2
presents the educational background of the study participants. Of the 35 teachers and special
education providers surveyed, two (6.1%) of the participants hold a doctorate degree while 18
(54.5%) have a master’s degree, and five have a bachelor’s degree (15.2%). Among the 35
participants surveyed, eight received alternate credentialing to become a teacher or special
education provider.

40

Table 2
Teachers and Provider Participants ’ Educational Background
Degree Frequency Percent
BA or BS 5 15.2%
Master’s 18 54.5%
Doctorate 2 6.1%
Alternative Credential 8 24.2%

Note. n = 35

Career History and Development
The pedagogy of teacher experiences, specifically based on what they want to develop
guided by reflection, aims to develop adequate schemata. (Korthagen, 2010). The five
participants who were interviewed via Zoom began their career in a variety of educational
settings and developed in these positions through learned experiences:
General Education Teacher 1: I have been a math teacher for 12 years, and I started in a
master’s teaching program.
General Education Teacher 2: I have taught science in public schools for 28 years as a
classroom teacher in high school and Alternative Education settings. I was first exposed to
teaching in upstate New York in a juvenile correctional facility.
General Education Teacher 3: I have been a classroom social studies teacher for 15
years. I went to high school here then returned here to teach after receiving my master’s degree.
41

Special Education Provider 1: I was a long-term substitute then was asked to get an
emergency teaching credential with the state of California. I have worked in two local high
schools for 13 years.
Special Education Provider 2: I started teaching middle school for six years, then
switched to high school, and I have been here for 9 years.

As shown in Table 3, the majority of the 35 participants surveyed, 26 out of 35 (74.28%),
had spent the majority of their time teaching at the high school level, while 29 respondents
reported that they came from the secondary level (6-12), and 6 respondents started in elementary
settings. Teacher pedagogy is derived from educational experiences and knowledge developed
through the transferred understanding of colleagues in the working environments (Korthagen,
2010). The interviewed participants had extensive learning backgrounds and lived experiences in
education that would enable them to detail the challenges of collaboration.

Table 3

Teachers and Providers ’ Career Setting
Setting Frequency Percent
Early Education 0 0%
Elementary 6 17.14%
Middle School 3 8.6%
High School 26 74.3%
Other 0 0%

Note. n = 35

42

Research Questions
The following research questions helped guide this research study:
1. What factors, based on educators’ perceptions, determine the success of instruction that is
used for specific special education students?
2. How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instruction benefit or limit the
success of special education students?
3. What are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with RSP and content-specific
teachers during a school day to instruct special education students?
4. What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to access
general education content and achieve academic success?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges and factors that limit student
achievement in a high school setting between the general education teachers and the special
education service providers. By examining the perceptions and events at a southern California
high schools, the departments can better align to foster learning environments that target special
needs students. This study will identify the creation and development of accountability and
responsibility based on real-life scenarios that can transfer to school sites and districts in high
school settings.
Coding of Data
Harding (2018) outlined the levels of theory used in research, and stated that qualitative
research is micro theory. Micro theory is when a researcher uses concepts to identify common
aspects of phenomena in the environment and events. Both the interview and surveys were used
in a simultaneous process that Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described as open coding. Open
43

coding aims for themes, categories, and findings related and of interest to the researcher and the
research questions. Second, the patterns are found between the interview and survey, which form
leads and suggest important variables. During the interviews, the researcher highlighted
keywords and interactions that reflected teacher perceptions related to student outcomes and
actions inside the classroom; these were then reflected or used as probes during the interview
portion of participant’s responses to form clarity and draw assertions.
As coding was done collectively through the process, a codebook was then formulated to
center the researcher’s focus and analyze the most reoccurring themes and concepts found during
the study’s data analysis. A codebook allowed the researcher to utilize teachers’ perceptions
related to the responsibilities of themselves and other stakeholders in the interviews and surveys.
Subcategories were established based on how participants supported, and were a part of, the
collaboration process of instructing special education students at a high school through an
interview and surveys. One specific tool that was used during the data analysis process were data
memos. According to Harding (2013), data memos are informal notes of record that allow a
researcher to think aloud and could be defined as a self-assessment to use our positionality to use
a metacognitive approach in recognizing our perception or bias. At the end of each interview the
researcher reverted to what caused a certain question or response to resonate with the participant
and how this response correlated to the research questions and concepts. Through this process,
the researcher often altered or reframed his initial feelings regarding what was said by the
participants and what he heard at the time the comments were made by participants.
Findings
The data collected from the 35 general education teachers and special education providers
who participated in this research was studied by the researcher. Once a researcher creates
44

categories and codes data, it is vital to detail relationships to create an explanation of the data’s
meaning as it centers on the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study’s data
analysis targeted the challenges faced when general education and special education providers
collaborate within a high school setting.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: What factors, based on educators’ perceptions, determine the
success of instruction that is used for specific special education students?
Push-In Pedagogy
The research of Shin et al. (2016) has shown that co-teaching and having a service
provider inside the classroom allows for opportunities for a more engineered lesson that could
target each student within a given classroom subject. The 35 participants surveyed answered
questions on a 1 to 10 Likert scale that described instructional practices and perceptions focused
on collaboration models within a classroom and high school setting. The five interviewed
respondents also described collaboration and success in a classroom for students with special
needs.
As Table 4 indicates, the perceptions and value of lesson design were a key component in
special education students’ overall success. Of the 35 participants survey, 29 (82.86%) rated their
input and value within a lesson design for specific special education students on the Likert scale
of 5 or higher. General Education Teacher 2 stated that the simple value of daily lesson design
and instruction was the key to success for students with disabilities:
The special need students that were the most engaged, no matter their limitations or
struggles, are the students that the special education provider and I planned our lesson
around. We always asked, “How can we teach Student A what all the other students need
45

to know without having to re-teach or pull them aside for 1:1 rather than a whole group
instruction?”

Table 4

Value Lesson Design
Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree
0-10
Frequency Percent
0 1 2.86%
1 1 2.86%
2 1 2.86%
3 1 2.86%
4 2 5.71%
5 4 11.43%
6 5 14.29%
7 5 14.29%
8 6 17.14%
9 3 8.57%
10 6 17.14%

Note. n = 35

46

According to Da Fonte and Barton-Arwood (2017), when the responsibilities of general
education and special education are described, improved student outcomes are achieved that
address the gaps of students with disabilities. This direct finding relates to the majority of those
surveyed and interviewed in this study. Sehgal et al. (2017) found that teachers’ identity is
reflected in their instruction, their interactions with students, and in regulating classroom
learning outcomes. These areas were directly related to a teacher’s prior preparation and personal
perception as it referred to collaboration, specifically in lesson design.
General Education Teachers 1 and 2, along with Special Education Provider 1, found that
lesson design within a classroom led to student success but was challenging to execute
efficiently. Special Education Teacher 2 stated that she had past collaboration experiences that
were effective for students, but when she started working at the high school, these encounters
became more strenuous:
No matter how hard I tried, I realized that my input within a lesson or even my ability to
meet with the content teacher was ignored. Collaborating on a lesson was enjoyable, but
it became a tireless effort that was not worth forcing because of individual perceptions.

Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked: How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP
instruction benefit or limit the success of special education students? The participants surveyed
and interviewed were asked multiple questions about their overall perceptions of push-in versus
pull-out instruction modes and how that targeted special education students.
Conflicting Mode of Instruction Perceptions
The push-in and pull-out modes of instruction are largely based on the collaboration
abilities of and understanding between the content teacher and special education provider. The
47

five participants surveyed had different opinions and feelings towards the mode of instruction for
students with special needs:
General Education Teacher 1: I first started better understanding these modes of
instruction when I had well-versed special education providers assigned to my class or
had students on their caseloads. The relationships matter, but I feel that push-in is the best
mode for kids to feel welcomed and want to learn.

General Education Teacher 2: In my 28 years of teaching, I have found that every
student with special needs is different. My classes are challenging, and I often feel like I
lack the ability to get students to where they need to be in my lesson. However, I have
students that have been very successful in my classroom. The context of the situation
really drives the best mode, in my opinion.

Special Education Teacher 1: The students on my caseload prefer to be in the classroom,
and I worked with them in that environment. But it is a double-edged sword, as I know
that they will benefit from 1:1, but they do not want me to be on top of them in the
classroom. I strongly believe in the push-in mode, but there has to be a balance to it.

Special Education Teacher 2: The middle school was an easier site to follow special
education students because they traveled as one class. Now, in high school, the students
are all over, and I find that unless I pull them out, then I cannot really work with them in
the general education classroom. Sure, there is the student’s overall preference, but when
it comes to mode of instruction, there is more success, for me, in the pull-out mode.
Of the 35 participants, 22 (62.86%) fell within the average to just below or above average
range when responding to the survey question about whether the best environment to instruct
48

students with disabilities is push-in as displayed in Table 5. According to Schunk and
Dibenedetto (2016), an individual’s emotional state gives rise to perceptions that can foster both
negative and positive outlooks related to learning and attaining new understandings. Self-
efficacy theory relates to teacher collaborations as a way to find common ground and shared
perceptions of the challenges they face and how they should address them. Based on this theory
and this study’s data, there is a lack of common ground and shared perceptions related to
instruction.

Table 5

Push-In Instructional Modes
Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree
0-10
Frequency Percent
0 1 2.86%
1 2 5.71%
2 2 5.71%
3 3 8.57%
4 3 8.57%
5 8 22.85%
6 8 22.85%
7 3 8.57%
8 2 5.71%
9 2 5.71%
10 1 2.86%

Note. n = 35
49

Of the 35 participants, 19 (54.28%) fell within the average to just below or above average
range when responding to the survey question about whether the best environment to instruct
students with disabilities is pull-out, as displayed in Table 6. More than half of the participants
responded without a majority being aligned to one mode of instruction. The participants
surveyed had different opinions towards the pull-out mode of instruction for students with
special needs:
General Education Teacher 2: Honestly, I never understood the difference between the
two instruction modes for the special needs students in my class. I just trusted the special
education provider then planned and developed my instructional approaches over time.
Context is key, as every student has their own unique needs.

Special Education Provider 2: Relationships matter, not just with the other teachers but
also with special education students. They determine how much they want to learn or
work on during a lesson, and that makes for challenges when you believe one mode is
better than the other.

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asks: What are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with
RSP and content-specific teachers during a school day to instruction special education students?
It is essential to gather feedback and better understand a school site to facilitate and observe
collaboration (Beverborg et al., 2017). The dilemmas faced are only going to be mended by those
who can address and build the capacity to foster working relationships with all school staff
members. Dionne et al.’s (2004) study, based on teamwork, described school leaders’ influence
50

to empower through creating and communicating a shared vision. The leader’s role is vital to the
inclusionary practices of collaboration needed to change not only perceptions but also actions.
Accountability
Facilitating perceptions and developing teachers’ practices to adapt collaboration
processes links the leader and their aptitude to put in motion a process of reflection and
cohesiveness (Beverborg et al., 2017). Of the 35 participants surveyed, 7 (20.59%) rated shared
responsibilities as being average, with the perceptions of all respondents being spread out with
no clear consensus on the duties of special education providers. The five participants interviewed
had a shared philosophy as it related to duties and responsibilities:
General Education Teacher 1: Honestly, there just is no time built into the regular school
day for this collaboration process to be successful. We either find ways to meet during
breaks or after school because it is not a valued aspect of instructional practices at my
school site.

General Education Teacher 2: We have always said that there were more lunch periods
and leaders that developed a community built on collaboration. I learned and continue to
harness this skill of collaboration because of the benefits and not because anyone is
forcing us to do it.

General Education Teacher 3: The special education providers at my school site have
worked to communicate and share their students’ information. But, I do not do the best
job at exchanging in the process. There are just too many students, grading, and other
tasks. Plus, no one is monitoring accountability in collaboration, so why does it matter to
me?
51

Special Education Teacher 1: If there were an emphasis on collaboration, it would be
more successful. Even these professional learning communities sound great, but they
miss their overall intentions when push comes to shove. School leaders require so much
of us then never give us the time needed to make sure this happens or show us how it can
benefit all the kids.

Special Education Teacher 2: There has been limited value on my colleagues’ part to
meet and lesson plan when I reach out. I have explained this to my school leadership.
They shrug as if I am the one making it difficult. Then, I walk into a class and realize the
lesson, assignment, and overall instruction is not only challenging for my special needs
students but all the learners in the classroom. But what do I know? So long as the
paperwork is in compliance, then we are doing right by kids.

Sehgal et al. (2017) study was able to identify both collaboration and principal leadership
as crucial aspects of a learning environment that affected both personal beliefs and student
outcomes. Based on the data collected, many of the participants interviewed highlighted their
working peers’ belief systems. Still, there was little emphasis on student outcomes related to
collaboration and the school leaders’ responsibility. General Education Teacher 2 was able to
simplify the concept:
Sadly, teachers are just like the students that we teach. Unless we know that collaboration
is useful or that we will be tested on it, we will not do it. I value it, but I cannot force
people to meet with me or work during the PLC to target a select group of students when
we have 30-plus [students] to a single class.

52

Table 6 displays additional data in the area of shared responsibilities and overall
understanding for teachers who were working together. Of the 35 participants, more than 21
(60%) indicated that there was not a sense of understood duties.

Table 6

Push-In Shared Responsibilities
Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree
0-10
Frequency Percent
0 2 5.71%
1 2 5.71%
2 4 11.43%
3 3 8.57%
4 3 8.57%
5 7 20%
6 2 5.71%
7 2 5.71%
8 6 17.14%
9 0 0%
10 4 11.43%

Note. n = 35

53

Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asks: What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special
education students to access general education content and achieve academic success? Inclusive
practices within classrooms and schools foster effective special education instruction. These
inclusive practices include interactions, supports, and adaptations made by instructors that
developed collaboration in and out of the school (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016).
General education teachers and special education providers must work within a classroom to
ensure special education students’ academic achievement. Special Education Provider 1 stated:
We all work best when we are seen as equal and not limited by what we cannot do daily.
Supports and activities can be created then taught to all learners in a way that scaffolds
concepts for students with special needs. The identification of these students is meant to
help them, not ostracize [them], and there is no reason why they cannot work alongside
their non-disabled peers.

Of the 35 participants, 26 (74.29%) fell within the average to the above average range
when responding to the survey question about the best environment to instruct students with
disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (General Education class), as displayed in Table
7. This is an essential culture that schools need to continue to strive for to support special
education students and the instructors within the classroom environment together.

54

Table 7

Least Restrictive Environment

Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree
0-10
Frequency Percent
0 1 2.86%
1 0 0%
2 2 5.71%
3 4 11.43%
4 2 5.71%
5 3 8.57%
6 3 8.57%
7 7 20%
8 6 17.14%
9 3 0%
10 4 11.43%

Note. n = 35

55

The challenges faced by individual students are directly related to and a byproduct of the
classroom and school environment they are instructed in (Pianta et al., 2012). Ronfeldt et al.
(2015) found that teacher collaboration resulted in student achievement in reading and math. The
five participants interviewed had inclusive practices within their responses but with mixed
perceptions:
General Education Teacher 1: I love having students with special needs in my classroom.
First, it forces me to re-think my instruction and assignments. While doing this, I can
have a broader understanding of how students learn and focus on challenging content at
times.

General Education Teacher 2: When thinking about student success, I try not to have a
fixed mindset due to testing. If I did, then many of the students with disabilities would be
viewed as failures in my classroom. Still, they benefit from being in my classroom from a
societal standpoint. We do not need to have them separated from their peers just because
they struggle to read and write at grade level. But I do believe there is a strong benefit
from a student getting pulled to pre- or re-teach concepts.

General Education Teacher 3: I am the content teacher, and I recognize that students
with special needs benefit most from being in my classroom. This is not to say that their
providers cannot explain the social studies subject to the students, but I am the expert as
it relates to understanding and delivering instruction. So, the students are most successful
when they are included and not taken from the classroom, but they struggle at times, and
that is where an extra adult helping is beneficial for their success.

56

Special Education Teacher 2: My students belong in the general education setting, but
the state standards and fixed grading ideas are not appropriate. Teachers can quickly fail
a student with a disability for a late assignment or wrong responses without reviewing or
consulting with me. Also, we have them in these settings because we believed it was
appropriate as a team. This success issue is not based on the student but rather on the
teacher ideas and overall environments of these classrooms.

Of the 35 participants, 21 (60%) fell within the average to the above average range when
responding to the survey question regarding whether the pull-out model for instructing students
with disabilities is the best environment for student success, as displayed in Table 8. This survey
question directly contradicted the overall belief that inside the general education setting was the
best instruction and environment for academic success.

57

Table 8
Pull-Out Mode of Instruction
Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree
0-10
Frequency Percent
0 1 2.86%
1 0 0%
2 3 8.57%
3 6 17.14%
4 4 11.43%
5 10 28.57%
6 5 14.29%
7 1 2.86%
8 3 8.57%
9 1 2.86%
10 1 2.86%

Note. n = 35

A teachers’ identity affects their instruction, their interactions with students, and the
regulation of classroom learning outcomes. Low teacher motivation can further the influence, or
lack thereof, of collaboration in schools (Sehgal et al., 2017). This motivation becomes a major
cause of a teacher’s ability to foster learning environments in which they believe students with
disabilities can be successful. Ultimately, students with disabilities need to be taught alongside
their non-disabled peers if they will have access to appropriate content and not be restricted
based on their identified needs (Zigmond, 2015). General Education teacher 3 stated:
58

I struggle with understanding what I can do for the two or three students in my
classroom. Even with another adult supporting and all the accommodations in place, is
there a way that these students can be successful? I already said that they benefit from
being in my class from a content perspective, but the education system is broken for these
students, and I don’t think that it is correct that we grade them or all students based on
summative assessments.
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings from 35 general education and special education
providers and three general education and two special education providers interviewed from
southern California public high schools. The results from this study indicated that collaboration
continues to be a challenge as teachers and special education providers attempt to instruct and
support special education students. As indicated in the results, the biggest challenge is teachers
and special education providers’ overall motivation in specifically understating and exhibiting
collaboration by implementing, instructing, and assessing students with special needs in the
classroom environment. This finding aligns closely with the social constructivism theory,
personal learning experiences as meaningful, and community-based implemented strategies that
allow teachers to collaborate. Historically, teachers’ perceptions have related to culture in that
they attempt to disassociate from the vast array of differences to implement a pure school culture
(Atkinson, 1997). Based on the data collected, participants continue to struggle when
establishing meaningful collaboration or overall understanding of the processes involved.
Further, the interviewed teachers and special education providers in the research reported
that accountability systems and school leaders were strong aspects to foster and provide support
to school-wide aspirations related to collaboration, specifically when targeting the needs of
59

special education students. According to Schunk and Dibenedetto (2016), these findings
authenticate that the emotional state of individuals gives rise to perceptions that can foster both
negative and positive outlooks as it relates to learning and attaining new understandings. Also,
self-efficacy theory relates to teacher collaborations in which they ask one another to find
common ground, and to perceptions regarding the challenges they face and how they should be
addressing them. The research and theories support that school collaboration should continue to
be developed by leaders and districts in order to target the teachers’ needs with regard to
implementing instruction.
In Chapter Five, there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions, and
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.

60

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications
Today, there remains a constant debate over whether special education students benefit or
need further intervention outside of the content-specific classrooms (Thompkins & Deloney,
1995). Many teachers believe special needs students can benefit from working alongside their
non-identified peers but believe that assistance should be provided inside the content classrooms
as a push-in model (Idol, 2006). The collaboration of special education teachers and content-
specific teachers is an equally essential aspect to individual special needs students’ perceptions
of being taught while at school (Wilson & Michaels, 2006). The research of Shin et al. (2016)
has shown that co-teaching and having a service provider inside the classroom allow for
opportunities for a more engineered lesson that could target each student within a given
classroom subject. For a push-in to occur productively, there needs to be a designed role and
value to a special educator’s classroom position. The attitudes and relationships made inside and
during co-planning phases can allow for a more fluid and inclusive environment (Pancsofar &
Petroff, 2016).
A research study conducted by Eisenman et al. (2011) found that the classroom
environments in which the service providers and general education teachers worked had to have
shared responsibilities and accountability systems in place. The most important aspect to
consider while analyzing the challenges and factors faced by general education and special
education teachers is student progress. According to Goodman et al. (2011), special need
students identified with mild learning disabilities have shown minor growth in graduation rates,
based on their non-identified peer groups. Additionally, Griffin et al. (2008) discovered the
trouble that most special education teachers have as they attempt to collaborate with the general
relationship teachers is support. This further detailed the challenges and factors in place that are
61

attributed to the skills needed to serve special education students. Stephen Hernandez (2013)
summed up the challenges faced through attitudes, skills, and individual competence and
confidence related to the shared responsibility to instruct students cohesively.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to describe the personal challenges and factors that lead to
classroom content used by teachers and special education providers working together in serving
high-risk special education students in high schools in Southern California. It is vital to identify
strains on teacher relationships and instruction to further the collaboration model of teaching.
Research Questions
The following research questions helped guide the research study:
1. What factors, based on educators’ perceptions, determine the success of instruction that is
used for specific special education students?
2. How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instruction benefit or limit the
success of special education students?
3. What are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with RSP and content-specific
teachers during a school day to instruct special education students?
4. What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to access
general education content and achieve academic success?
Methodology
A mixed methods approach was utilized for this study. Quantitative data was collected
from a survey distributed to 35 high school teachers and special education providers in Southern
California public high schools with student populations ranging from 1,500 to 3,500. Qualitative
data was obtained from three General Education teachers and two Special Education providers
62

through interviews. A semi-structured approach was used during the interviews, which contained
20 questions. The data was interpreted and analyzed using triangulation to check for consistency
of findings between the interview data, survey data, and the literature review to focus on
collaboration challenges.
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed. This
section will interpret the quantitative and qualitative data’s combined results and link the
literature findings.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asks: What factors, based on educators’ perceptions, determine the
success of instruction that is used for specific special education students?
Push-In Pedagogy
The most critical theme that was shared and discussed was the instructional approaches
employed within the classroom. Specifically, teachers’ prior preparation and personal perception
as it related to collaboration and in lesson designs. This theme was supported by research by
Sehgal et al. (2017), which found that teachers’ identity affects their instruction, their
interactions with students, and regulating classroom learning outcomes.
Teachers and special education providers continue to exhibit personal issues that derive
from a lack of collaboration within a school culture and how that leads to individualism by
teaching staff (Strogilos et al., 2012). This collaboration, understanding, and shared values result
in direct concerns when supporting and instructing special education students in these general
education classrooms (Strogilos et al., 2012).
63

Furthermore, a culture of collaboration push-in pedagogy could not exist without a school
leader that fully understands and acts by personally modeling it to his teaching staff (Waldron
and McLeskey, 2010). Teachers’ capacity to create improved student outcomes derives from
their ability to control their behavior and from instructional practices grounded in theory
(Korthagen, 2010). Teacher pedagogy is derived from their educational experiences and
knowledge, and is developed through the transferred understanding of colleagues in the working
environments (Korthagen, 2010).
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asks: How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP
instructions benefit or limit the success of special education students?
Conflicting Mode of Instruction Perceptions
The debate based on instructional modes for students with special needs in the general
education setting was mixed. According to Veen and Lasky (2005), a teacher’s identity and the
context in which they work can further dictate the outcomes as they relate to servicing special
needs students in schools and classroom settings. Based on the research findings, individual
perceptions are not aligned in a way that targets a culture or teaching practice centered on
collaboration within or outside of the classroom setting. In a study by Schunk and Dibenedetto
(2016) the authors described an individual’s emotional state as giving rise to perceptions that can
foster both negative and positive outlooks related to learning and attaining new understandings.
Self-efficacy theory relates to teacher collaborations finding common ground and shared
perceptions of the challenges they face and how they should address them. Based on this theory
and this study’s data, there is a lack of common ground and shared perceptions related to
instruction.
64

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asks: What are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with
RSP and content-specific teachers during a school day to instruct special education students?
Accountability
Research participants overwhelmingly indicated a lack of emphasis and follow-through
from leadership when enacting or attempting to enact collaboration. Facilitating perceptions and
developing teachers’ practices to adapt collaboration processes links the leader and their ability
to create a process of reflection and cohesiveness (Beverborg et al., 2017). Ultimately, both
collaboration and principal leadership emerged as crucial aspects of the learning environment
that affected personal beliefs and student outcomes (Sehgal et al., 2017). Based on the data
collected, many of the participants interviewed highlighted their working peers’ belief systems.
Still, there was little emphasis on student outcomes related to collaboration and the school
leaders’ responsibility in the process. Sehgal et al. (2017) study correlated with a study by
Dionne et al. (2004) that described transformational leadership based on teamwork influenced by
school leaders who empower staff by communicating and creating a shared vision.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asks: What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special
education students to access general education content and achieve academic success? In the
study, most research participants aligned to the belief that the general education setting was the
least restrictive environment and the best setting for special education students to achieve
academic success. Due to the lack of collaboration and inclusion of special education services,
the issues faced by students are related to the achievement gaps in U.S. public schools (Cole,
2006). Inclusive practices within classrooms and schools foster effective special education
65

instruction. These inclusive practices included interactions, supports, and adaptations made by
instructors that developed collaboration in and out of the school (Buli-Holmberg &
Jeyaprathaban, 2016). The challenges faced by individual students are directly related and a
byproduct of the classroom and school environment in which they are instructed (Pianta et al.,
2012). The collaboration of special education teachers and content-specific teachers is an equally
essential aspect to individual special needs students’ perceptions of being taught while at school
(Wilson & Michaels, 2006).
The five participants interviewed indicated inclusive practices within their responses but
had mixed perceptions related to implementation strategies. Also, specific responses from special
education providers who participated in this study were related to our public education system’s
measure of success for students with disabilities in high schools across America. Furthermore,
the surveys detailed the need for a general education setting, but with periods of time in which
students with disabilities benefit from being pulled from the classroom to gain additional
support.
Ancillary Findings: Recommendations
In addition to the four research questions that guided the study, the five interviews that
were conducted provided additional information that can assist teachers and special education
providers aspiring to improve collaboration. Some of these recommendations for collaborating
and instructing special education students at Southern California public high schools highlighted
the importance of leadership and school values and culture.
Importance of Leadership
The importance of leadership was a theme that stood out in the participants’ responses.
Both teachers and special education providers highlighted that these skillsets and collaborative
66

activities could not be successful or enacted unless school leadership determines them to be
important and builds site capacity. The leader’s role is vital to the inclusionary practices of
collaboration that are needed to change not only perceptions but actions. Beverborg et al. (2017)
discovered a causal relationship between a leader’s ability to influence self-reflection strategies,
alter teachers’ self-efficacy, and foster teachers’ learning while instructing students in school.
School Values and Culture
Self-efficacy theory relates to teacher collaborations in which they ask one another to
find common ground, and to perceptions as it relates to the challenges they face and how they
should be addressing them (Schunk & Dibenedetto, 2016). The General Education teachers and
Special Education providers were direct during their responses when mentioning the lack of
school-wide values or cultures that targeted special education students’ needs through
collaboration. McClure and Cahnmann-Taylor (2010) analyzed the social factors that occur
while two professionals attempt to collaborate in an environment that is influenced as a result of
ordered associations of authority and standing that persist in educational settings across the
country. When another adult enters your classroom to provide instruction, the lead instructor’s
mindset might be that they are not capable of teaching a special education student. The research
also supported these recommendations by detailing the most prevalent challenges to be school
culture, teacher pedagogy, and leadership.
Implications of the Study
This study contributes to research regarding collaboration challenges that negatively
success levels for students with special needs in high school settings. Additionally, this study’s
findings, aligned with research, suggest implications for practice to support improved
collaboration between General Education teachers and Special Education providers.
67

Instructional Pedagogy
There must be an emphasis on building teachers’ and special education providers’
understanding and abilities to improve collaboration. The pedagogy of teacher collaboration is a
crucial factor in determining positive student outcomes. Teacher pedagogy is derived from their
educational experiences and knowledge developed through the transferred understanding of
colleagues in the working environments (Korthagen, 2010). Korthagen describes this as peer-
supported learning, that leads to exchanges and the creation of collaboration that is both
reflective and centered on the students who are the receivers of their work. This pedagogy must
be both systematized and coordinated to influence students’ success and the environments in
which they learn.
As one of the major themes in this study was push-in teacher pedagogy, there needs to be
a continued effort and emphasis in preparation programs and at school sites to foster
environments in which these skills are taught. These learned skills can help teachers and special
education providers to incorporate collaboration into their own identity rather than simply being
seen as a required additive to their instructional practices. According to social constructivism,
establishing inclusionary practices, results in positive ways of interacting and gaining
understanding through socializing. Social constructivism relates personal learning experiences as
meaningful and community-based strategies that allow teachers to collaborate.
Accountability Systems
A research study conducted by Eisenman et al. (2011) found that the classroom
environments in which service providers and general education teachers worked must have
shared responsibilities and accountability systems. The progress of students with special needs
has been directly linked to the classroom and school protocols. In many situations, the formats in
68

which students progress correlate to court decisions centered on a student’s placement—n
particular, their instruction in the least restrictive environment. Alquraini (2013) cited numerous
court cases which indicated that many districts are not offering the least restrictive environment
to students and by further limiting their exposure and ability to access the general education
curriculum.
According to Ronfeldt et al. (2015), schools with developed collaboration networks have
better services and make content more understood to all students during the instructional day. As
teachers learn to collaborate, school leaders and a district must make a continuous effort to better
identify the factors limiting this framework through inquiry and reflective practices (Neumerski,
2013). In the Spring of 2000, Griffin et al. (2008) found that teachers who promoted a positive
school culture based on relationships of trust had more significant student achievement.
Furthermore, there was an overall positive perspective on the profession of teaching at these
specific school sites (Griffin et al., 2008).
Waldron and McLeskey (2010) attempted to study what led to school improvements and
how these improvements could result in increased student achievement. Their study noted that a
culture of collaboration could not exist without a school leader who fully understands and acts by
personally modeling it to his teaching staff (Waldron and McLeskey, 2010).
It is the responsibility, based on findings, of leaders to foster collaboration and embrace
critical roles such as coach and organizer to make sure that this model of inclusionary practices is
being implemented among teachers and within schools (Cobb, 2015). Sehgal et al. (2017) also
identify both collaboration and principal leadership as crucial aspects of a learning environment
affecting both personal beliefs and student outcomes.
69

School leadership must take actionable steps to promote inclusionary practices as part of
the ideology of school site staff. Additionally, the leader’s capacity building in the areas of goal
setting and teacher training should pinpoint how to facilitate collaboration in challenging
situations focused on students with special needs. School leaders must be prepared to monitor
and facilitate support services for teachers and students in special education. Time becomes a
factor but is not an excuse, and as Pazey and Cole (2013) observed, school leadership must be
critically aware and mindful of their responsibility to comply with legislation related to the
education of students with special needs. According to Leithwood et al. (2008), school leaders
are influential in fostering school cultures that relate directly back to teachers’ pedagogy and
their ability to alter their current instructional practices to be more collaborative.
Recommendations for Future Research
The researcher surveyed 35 teachers and special education providers and interviewed
three General Education teachers and two Special Education providers at high schools in
Southern California. Findings from this study revealed areas for future research including the
following recommendations:
Further explore the nature of accountability systems for school leaders.
Strengthen the research on organizations supporting the development of collaboration
between content-specific and special education providers.
Expand the research on teacher perspectives related to push-in and pull-out delivery
modes. Conduct additional investigation as to the effects of collaborative special
education on student outcomes in high school settings.
Further research the ideology of school site staff and their willingness to adapt/alter their
teaching strategies for special education students.
70

Study college and university preparation programs to assess how content teachers and
special education providers are supported and prepared to enter the schools and
collaborate.
Concluding Remarks
This study has drawn attention to the challenges of individuals responsible for educating
and working towards improving special education students’ overall progress. The research
reveals the perspectives and feelings of the participants towards an educational system and
schools that lack the overall support and leadership to enact meaningful change. During the
study, participants shared their lived experiences and professional expertise focused on daily
issues.
The challenges faced by special education and general education teachers include
individual perceptions, team actions, and unshared vision for inclusionary practices. In the
literature review and study, there emerged a need to further investigate why collaborative
relationships and skills are not a part of every teacher and school leader’s actions, which are
necessary for student outcomes (Bavonese et al., 2017). Some of the key lessons learned from
the 35 teachers and special education providers surveyed and the three General Education
teachers and two Special Education providers interviewed were that teachers and special
education providers must be made aware of the classroom challenges they may face when
targeting special education student needs and then work towards designing, implementing, and
assessing collaborative instructional practices to ensure their success. By knowing the challenges
before entering the classroom, these educators can navigate the school system more effectively
and be better prepared to overcome the challenges in supporting special education students,
71

closing the achievement gap, and addressing the low graduation rates of this student population.
Also, teachers and special education providers need to have support from their school leadership.
In this study, a strong focus on teacher preparation was highlighted. Teacher pedagogy
within a shared classroom and school environment is not something that individuals arrive at, but
rather is something that must be taught before teachers and service providers work together. It is
important to note that mutual relationships among participants form the foundation of a
successful organization (Fullan, 2008). Then, Fullan (2008) details how relationships can
strengthen and what then weakens them at a school site setting. Korthagen (2010) noted in his
study that the pedagogy that develops from teacher preparation programs is a significant area of
concern as it relates to past, present, and future teachers at schools. Teachers develop
understandings and practices that fit their worldview, which can be an area of interest related to
becoming more collaborative.
Finally, a critical finding of this study was the role of school leaders in addressing the
challenges of collaboration. School leaders must continue to support and value collaboration at
their school sites. Leaders must continue to foster an ideology and build a capacity for
collaboration within teachers and special education providers, specifically to address these
individuals’ relationships and mutual efforts to improve student achievement. The challenges of
collaboration affect special education student outcomes in American public-school
environments, but these challenges can be transformed into successes.

72

References
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431-447.
Aldabas, R. A. (2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History and areas for reform. Creative
Education, 6(11), 1158.
Alquraini, T. A. (2013). An analysis of legal issues relating to the least restrictive environment
standards. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(2), 152-158.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.S. Sections 12101-12213 (West Supp. 1991).
Retrieved January 31, 2020, from https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada
Annamma, S., Morrison, D., & Jackson, D. (2014). Disproportionality fills in the gaps:
Connections between achievement, discipline and special education in the school-to-
prison pipeline. Berkeley Review of Education, 5(1), 53-87.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1),
71-94.
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.
H. Freeman.
Bavonese, J. L., Connor, C., Wheat, V., Beard, L., & Owens, L. A. (2017). Collaboration
opportunities within university teacher education programs. Journal of Education &
Social Policy, 4(2), 72-79.
Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2017). The mediating role of principals’ transformational leadership
behaviors in promoting teachers’ emotional wellness at work: A study in Israeli primary
schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2), 316-335.
73

Beverborg, A. O. G., Sleegers, P. J., Endedijk, M. D., & van Veen, K. (2017). Towards
sustaining levels of reflective learning: How do transformational leadership, task
interdependence, and self-efficacy shape teacher learning in schools? In K. Leithwood &
J. Sun (Eds.), How school leaders contribute to student success (pp. 93-129). Springer.
Biklen, S. K., & Bogdan, R. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Pearson.
Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Promoting teacher quality and retention in special education. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 370-376.
Buli-Holmberg, J., & Jeyaprathaban, S. (2016). Effective practice in inclusive and special needs
education. International Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 119-134.
Cobb, C. (2015). Principals play many parts: A review of the research on school principals as
special education leaders 2001–2011. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 19(3), 213-234.
Cole, C. (2006, Fall). What is the impact of NCLB on the inclusion of students with disabilities?
Education Policy Brief, 4(11). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED495750
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
D’Alonzo, B. J., Giordano, G., & Cross, T. L. (1996). Improving teachers’ attitudes through
teacher education toward the inclusion of students with disabilities into their
classrooms. The Teacher Educator, 31(4), 304-312.
74

Da Fonte, M. A., & Barton-Arwood, S. M. (2017). Collaboration of general and special
education teachers: perspectives and strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2),
99-106.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational
leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 17(2), 177-193.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Title 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. Retrieved
January 31, 2020, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/s6
Eisenman, L. T., Pleet, A. M., Wandry, D., & McGinley, V. (2011). Voices of special education
teachers in an inclusive high school: Redefining responsibilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 32(2), 91104.
Fullan, M. (2008). What ’s worth fighting for in the principalship? (2
nd
ed.) Teachers College
Press.
Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion and
graduation rates: What are the outcomes? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(4),
241-252.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Common Core State Standards, writing, and students with
LD: Recommendations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 28-37.
Griffin, C. C., Kilgore, K. L., Winn, J. A., & Otis-Wilborn, A. (2008). First-year special
educators’ relationships with their general education colleagues. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 35(1), 141-157.
Harding, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. Sage.
75

Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Collaboration in Special Education: Its History, Evolution, and Critical
Factors Necessary for Successful Implementation. Online submission, 3(6), 480-498.Idol,
L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A
program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq. (1997). Retrieved January
31, 2020, from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage.
Jones, N. D., Buzick, H. M., & Turkan, S. (2013). Including students with disabilities and
English learners in measures of educator effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 42(4),
234-241.
Kim, E., Zhang, J., & Sun, X. (2019). Comparison of special education in the United States,
Korea, and China. International Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 796-814.
Korthagen, F. A. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education:
Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(1), 98-106.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Sage.
Mazer, J. P. (2013). Associations among teacher communication behaviors, student interest, and
engagement: A validity test. Communication Education, 62(1), 86-96.
McCallumore, K. M., & Sparapani, E. F. (2010). The importance of the ninth grade on high
school graduation rates and student success in high school. Education, 130(3), 447-456.
76

McClure, G., & Cahnmann-Taylor, M. (2010). Pushing back against push‐in: ESOL teacher
resistance and the complexities of coteaching. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 101-129.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Please add missing reference.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, H. (2014). Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(1), 34-38.
Murai, H., Berta-Ávila, M., & Figueróa-Ramírez, K. (2019). Bilingual/multicultural education
department: Reflections and lessons learned. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(1), 79.
Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about
principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from
here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002). Retrieved January
31, 2020, from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
Pancsofar, N., & Petroff, J. G. (2016). Teachers’ experiences with co-teaching as a model for
inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 1043-1053.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971). U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania - 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)
Retrieved January 31, 2020, from
https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/pennsylvania-association-for-retarded-
citizens-parc-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Qualitative research. Sage.
77

Pazey, B. L., & Cole, H. A. (2013). The role of special education training in the development of
socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in educational leadership
programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 243-271.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and
engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom
interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 365-386). Springer.
Polhemus, C. E. (2010). Collaborative behaviors among special education resource specialists,
general education teachers, and their principals (ERIC Number: ED513431) [Doctoral
Dissertation, University of La Verne] Proquest Dissertations Publishing.
Popovich, P. M., Scherbaum, C. A., Scherbaum, K. L., & Polinko, N. (2003). The assessment of
attitudes toward individuals with disabilities in the workplace. The Journal of
Psychology, 137(2), 163–177.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1994). Professionalization in teaching and teacher education: Some notes on its
history, ideology, and potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(1), 1-14.
Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the
Common Core Standards in mathematics for students with mathematics
difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 38-48.
Priscilla, P. (2002). The history of special education. Rethinking Schools. 16(3).
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796i (1982). Retrieved January 31, 2020, from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/narrative.html
78

Rigelman, N. M., & Ruben, B. (2012). Creating foundations for collaboration in schools:
Utilizing professional learning communities to support teacher candidate learning and
visions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 979-989.
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in
instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 52(3), 475-514.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Schunk, D. H., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. Handbook of
Motivation at School, 2, 34-54.
Sehgal, P., Nambudiri, R., & Mishra, S. K. (2017). Teacher effectiveness through self-efficacy,
collaboration and principal leadership. International Journal of Educational
Management, 31(4), 505-517.
Shin, M., Lee, H., & McKenna, J. W. (2016). Special education and general education preservice
teachers’ co-teaching experiences: A comparative synthesis of qualitative
research. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(1), 91-107.
Strogilos, V., Nikolaraizi, M., & Tragoulia, E. (2012). Experiences among beginning special
education teachers in general education settings: The influence of school culture.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(2), 185-199.
Tejeda-Delgado, M. (2009). Teacher efficacy, tolerance, gender, and years of experience and
special education referrals. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 112–119.
Thompkins, R., & Deloney, P. (1995). Inclusion: The pros and cons. Issues About Change, 4(3),
1-10.
79

Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Vannest, K. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in special education. Remedial and
Special Education, 31(2), 126-142.
Veen, K. V., & Lasky, S. (2005). Emotions as a lens to explore teacher identity and change:
Different theoretical approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 895-898.
Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through
comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 20(1), 58-74.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
Wilson, G. L., & Michaels, C. A. (2006). General and special education students’ perceptions of
co-teaching: Implications for secondary-level literacy instruction. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 22(3), 205-225.
Woodcock, S., Hitches, E., & Jones, G. (2019). It’s not you, it’s me: Teachers’ self-efficacy and
attributional beliefs towards students with specific learning difficulties. International
Journal of Educational Research, 97, 107-118.
Zagona, A. L., Kurth, J. A., & MacFarland, S. Z. (2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for
inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3),
163-178.
Zigmond, N. (2017). Delivering special education is a two-person job: A call for unconventional
thinking. In J. Crockett, M. Gerber, & T. Landrum (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of
special education (pp. 115-138). Routledge.
80

Zigmond, N. (2015). Where should students with disabilities receive their education? In B.
Bateman, J. W. Lloyd, & M. Tankersley (Eds.) Enduring issues in special education:
Personal perspectives (pp. 198-213). Routledge.

81

Appendix A: Interview Cover Sheet /Protocol
Interview Protocol
Name of Researcher:
Date of Interview:
Name of Interviewee:
Authorizer’s Phone Number:
Authorizer’s Email Address:
Interview start time:
Interview end time:
Research Question(s)
1. What factors, based on educator’s educators’ perceptions, determine the success of
instruction that are is used for specific special education students?
2. How does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instructions instruction benefit or
limit the success of special education students?
3. What are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with RSP and content-specific
teachers during a school day to instruct special education students?
4. What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to access
general education content and achieve academic success?

Introduction
Good afternoon ______________, and thank you for taking the time to be interviewed for this
research study. The purpose of this study is to identify challenges and factors as it relates to
collaboration and instructing special education students enrolled in your classroom. Also, feel
free to share and explain all your thoughts in a way that is both truthful and meaningful. This
research study is really trying to focus on the teacher’s and provider’s perception as it relates to
instructing, collaborating, and supporting special needs students which will be the driving force
of the interview.

Just to clarify, there will be a high level of confidentiality as it relates to every aspect of this
research study. Please feel free to ask any questions and be open about anything that you do not
want to discuss. Also, will you allow recording of interview for direct quotes, and taking notes as
you respond to questions so that strong data can be collected for the researcher study, will that be
okay with you?

Great, let’s begin! Side note, we can always take breaks and stop whenever you feel the need to
do so.

82

Questions (with transitions)
1)Tell me about your teaching career, specifically details about how you came into working with
your specific content or service providing area.
(Note: What details seemed to jump out if any that can relate to their understanding?)
2A) If pre-service, what type of hands-on training was provided for instructing and collaborating
to instruct students with special needs(SWD)?
2B) If the traditional teacher route, how has work experience changed as a result of their learning
experiences (during degree attainment) for collaborating and instructing SWD?
3) What type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to access general
education content and achieve academic success?
4)What influenced your overall teaching practices as they relate to instructional classroom
practices and collaboration?
-If a person, what did you observe from instructing SWD?
-If a practice, how does it facilitate the content for SWD?
The transition from background to instructional knowledge
“I was hoping to ask you some questions about instructional approaches to SWD, feel free
to re-direct or ask for clarification as I do so.”
5)How did you learn about the push-in versus pull-out methods in the environment of a general
education classroom?
6)When thinking about SWD, how did these two methods benefit or limit their success?
If targeting by individual student, ask them to provide examples of support/instruction.
7)What thoughts do you have about SWD being taught alongside their general education peers?
-Positive feelings; what are specific examples of their benefit?
-Negative outlook; what made you feel this way? Are there specific incidents where you
felt they were not able to learn?
The transition from instruction knowledge to collaboration
“Now, I want to examine the delivery of your content within the classroom setting. I might
even put together some scenarios as well, so take your time in responding.”
8) When you’re developing a lesson plan with SWD in your class, what are the challenges and
benefits of collaboration with service provider or teachers?
9) During a lesson, you notice that SWD are not accessing the curriculum or content, how do you
collaborate to ensure that the students do not fall behind? Do you find this to be a major area of
concern? If so, why?
10) Who or what do you think is responsible for ensuring collaboration between teachers to
ensure that special education students are successful?
-How do you address the lack of collaboration?
-What ways can collaboration improve or work to best suit student needs?

Closing
Thank you, ___________________. I really appreciated you taking the time to fill me in on your
experiences and practices. As an educator, I truly admire your work and devotion to your
students every day. If you feel like you have any questions or felt like there was something else,
you left out please feel free to call or email me. Again, thank you for taking the time to assist in
my research study. I hope you have a great rest of your day.

83

Appendix B: Survey
Question 1: What is your school role?
a) Special Education Provider
b) General Education Teacher
Question 2: How many years have you worked in the field of education?
a) 0-3 years
b) 3-5 years
c) 5-9 years
d) 10+ years
Question 3: What is the highest degree that you have earned?
a) Bachelors
b) Masters
c) Doctorate
d) Alternative Credentialing
Question 4: What is your educational background primarily in?
a) Early Education
b) Elementary
c) Middle School
d) High School
e) Other
Question 5: I believe that my input is valued when developing a lesson that best address Students
with Disabilities (SWD) overall needs.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 6: Currently, I feel that I am capable of addressing the needs of all learners in my
classroom to be successful.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 7: When I have a concern with a SWD in my classroom, I am able to address their
needs by collaborating with a special education service provider.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 8: The Least Restrictive Environment (General Education class) is the best setting for
SWD to be successful.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 9: The Least Restrictive Environment (General Education class) is NOT the best setting
for SWD to be successful.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

84

Question 10: I believe that the push-in model for instructing SWD is the best environment for
student success.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 11: I believe that the pull-out model for instructing SWD is the best environment for
student success.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 12: When a SWD is inside my classroom, the push-in model of service limits their
ability to be successful.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 13: When a SWD is inside my classroom, the pull-out model of service limits their
ability to be successful.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 14: When a special education service provider pushes-in to a classroom, the
instructional responsibilities are understood and shared.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 15: When a special education service provider pushes-in to a classroom, the
instructional responsibilities are NOT understood and shared.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 16: When a special education service provider pulls a SWD out of the classroom, the
instructional responsibilities are understood and shared.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 17: When a special education service provider pulls a SWD out of the classroom, the
instructional responsibilities are NOT understood and shared.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 18: Both the content teacher and RSP collaborate regularly to address the needs for
SWD in general education classrooms.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

85

Question 19: Both the content teacher and RSP DO NOT collaborate regularly to address the
needs for SWD in general education classrooms.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 20: If you would like to be considered for follow-up virtual interview, please provide
your email/phone number below:

86

Appendix C: General Recruitment Email Cover Letter
Dear (Name),
My name is William Satti Jr., and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California. Currently, I am collecting data for my study that relates to the collaboration
challenges between general education and special education providers. As a former special
education paraprofessional, teacher, department chair, and now a district administrator, I have
firsthand experience along with extensive literature from my dissertation that details my
assumption to have validity.
The online survey is anticipated to take no more than 3-5 minutes to complete. Depending on
your responses to the survey and your availability, you may be asked to be interviewed via Zoom
or via phone call. The interview is voluntary, and anticipated to last approximately 60 minutes
and may be audio-taped.
Participate in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study.
If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me via phone or email:
-Cell Phone: 860-460-4421
-Email: satti@usc.edu
Thank you for your participation,
William Satti Jr.
University of Southern California

Abstract (if available)

Abstract According to Ronfeldt et al. (2015), schools that have developed collaboration networks have better services and make content more understood to all students during the instructional day. Classroom environments are vital to the success and amount of learning that can occur during a given lesson and school year (Morgan, 2014). ❧ This study explored the personal challenges and factors that lead to classroom content used by teachers and special education providers working together in serving high-risk special education students in high schools. By examining the perceptions and events at southern California high schools, the departments can better align with one another to foster learning environments that target special needs students. ❧ The research questions used to guide the study were: what factors, based on educators’ perceptions, determine the success of instruction that is used for specific special education students; how does the push-in versus pull-out mode of RSP instruction benefit or limit the success of special education students; what are the biggest challenges faced while collaborating with RSP and content-specific teachers during a school day to instruct special education students; and what type of instructional setting is the best fit for special education students to access general education content and achieve academic success? ❧ The methodology for this study was a mixed methods design. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed. Surveys were sent to 35 General Education teachers and Special Education providers in southern California public high schools. From the surveys returned, purposeful sampling was used to select three General Education teachers and two Special Education providers from southern California public schools for one-on-one interviews.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strategies to create a culture of inclusion for students with special needs

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

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

PDF

Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion: leadership and school culture

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

Best practices to improve mathematics achievement of middle school Latina/o students

PDF

Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

Promising practices of school site administrators within established ninth‐grade transition programs at large high schools

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

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

Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Transformative learning: action research disrupting the status quo in literature in classrooms

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

Asset Metadata

Creator Satti, William Louis, Jr. (author)

Core Title The special education dilemma: collaboration between teachers and special education service providers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-05

Publication Date 05/06/2021

Defense Date 04/21/2021

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

Tag accountability,collaboration,general education,inclusion,instruction,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,push-in pedagogy,school culture,school values,Special Education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Escalante, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email billysattijr@gmail.com,satti@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112720071

Unique identifier UC112720071

Identifier etd-SattiWilli-9608.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SattiWilli-9608

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Satti, William Louis, Jr.

Type texts

Source 20210507-wayne-usctheses-batch-835-shoaf (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu