TEACHING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM: FOSTERING COLLABORATION BETWEEN SPECIALISTS AND NONSPECIALISTS

Background: A review of the literature of general education and special education teachers' efforts to collaborate in an inclusion setting revealed existing barriers they encounter day-to-day working with students with disabilities. In particular, there is (a) a lack of involvement of general education teachers’ participation in the creation of students’ Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that raises concern about how the targeted learning needs of students with disabilities are being addressed in inclusive settings, (b) nonspecialist teachers who do not feel prepared to work with students with disabilities or did not feel supported by their specialist co-teacher, and (c) the lack of understanding and proper use of diagnostic assessment data to meet the individual needs of students with disabilities. Research Question 1. What, if any, is the relationship between total experience for all education professionals (administrators, teachers, and instructional coaches) and their use of diagnostic assessment data for students with disabilities? Research Question 2. What, if any, is the difference in the current level of knowledge and experience of administrators, teachers, and instructional coaches based on their use of diagnostic assessment data for students with disabilities? Research Question 3. What, if any, is the difference in the current level of knowledge and experience in elementary and secondary school levels based on their use of diagnostic assessment data for students with disabilities? Research Question 4. How often does the district offer professional development specifically related to the practice of inclusion? What is the attendance breakdown by the educational title? Method: The current research utilized a descriptive, casual comparative design combined with quantitative survey data. The study was conducted in a suburban school district in Southeast Texas. The district enrolled 9,389 students, of which 739 (7.9%) have disabilities, and a total of 553 teachers, 25 campus administration, 132 professional supports, and 113 education aides. A Spearman rho correlation coefficient analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between the total experience of administrators, teachers, and instructional coaches based on their roles regarding diagnostic assessment data for students with disabilities in the 2019–2020 school year. A One-Way Anova was also conducted to determine the differences in the current level of knowledge and experience of administrators, teachers, and instructional coaches based on their roles regarding diagnostic assessment data for students with disabilities in the 2019–2020 school year. Lastly, the investigator analyzed special education inclusion, professional development opportunities. Results: There were no statistically significant relationship or difference between years of experience and how or when the data were shared, between years of position type and how or when the data were shared, nor between the school level and how or when the data were shared. For the second research question, there were more general education and special education teachers who attended inclusion PDs when compared to instructional coaches and campus administrators. Additionally, when analyzing PDs offered more frequently, there was a greater turnout for general education teachers when compared to PDs that were offered less frequently. Conclusion: According to the survey data, all special education teachers were involved in the IEP planning and sharing of data for students with disabilities, alternatively, some general education teachers still faced barriers when being included in the sharing of data towards the creation of students’ IEP goals in special education. In addition, professional development centered around inclusion should be offered more frequently in order for more general education and instructional specialists to attend them. It was the case that when teachers had more choices for times and titles of professional development, they tended to be actively participating in the selection being offered by the district.