Page 1

1

Administrative Strategies to Advance Co-Teaching for Students with Disabilities

By

Heather N Tucker

A Dissertation in Practice

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Graduate School of Education

College of Professional Studies

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

March 5, 2024

2

Copyright

3

Acknowledgment

The journey of the EdD is harder than I ever expected. I never knew I was going to give up so

much in pursuit of professional growth. As a person, educator, professional, and scholar, I have evolved

in ways that I never expected when I enrolled. I could not have done it without so many people

dedicated to my achievement. With boundless thanks, I acknowledge all those who have touched me

along the way.

To my chair, Dr. Kimberly Nolan, I am eternally grateful for the gift you have given me; especially

at the point it was given. The faith in knowing there would be success and confidence in keeping going.

To the Northeastern faculty, Dr. Melissa Parenti, Dr. Wendy Crocker, Dr. Patty Mason, and Dr.

Anderson, thank you so much for your guidance in helping me know my path and stay true to my work. I

grew tremendously through my experiences with you.

To Delilah, Shannon, Erin, Cicily, Jessica, and Kelli, our accountability group has been a lifeline. I

am so proud of us all for embarking on such an incredible journey. I know your talents will bring you far.

To my participants, I am humbled by your honesty, wisdom, and passion for making our schools

a better place for students with disabilities. Thank you for your willingness to share in my work.

To my family and friends, Porter Street B.C. and Mayflower moms, thank you for listening to me

and cheering me on.

To Mom, Kim, Dennis, Cassie, and Joe, thank you for your encouragement, for your love, and for

allowing me to work at inconvenient times, spaces, and places.

To my husband and daughter, we did it. This has been a full-family endeavor. Olivia, I am so

proud to be your mother. Thank you for your sweet notes of encouragement. You are sweet and sassy

with the world at your fingertips. Bob, you are my love and my rock. Thank you for giving me the

opportunity to spread my wings, to challenge myself, and achieve. I could not do what I do without you

by my side. Love you, always and forever.

4

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Ernest Thibeault. Thank you for your silent guidance and ever

presence

5

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate and improve collaborative educational leadership to eliminate the

barriers created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and the deficit approaches to instructing students

with disabilities, which together limit access to the general education curriculum and classroom in

school districts in the Northeast. The Cycle 1 research identified that the philosophy of inclusion, high-

quality instructional practices, and access to resources impact the efficacy of co-teaching teams’

development of multimodal instruction. The Cycle 1.5 research identified the role of the administrator

of special education as vital to the success of implementing co-teaching. However, this role cannot

function in isolation. Action steps were then designed, implemented, and evaluated for a second

research cycle. During this participatory process, the administrators of special education and principals

co-created administrative reflection tools to optimize collaboration with their in-district colleagues while

strategizing to support their co-teaching teams, using co-teaching methodology. An evaluation of this

action research study included focus groups, document analysis, transcriptions, analytic memos, and

semi-structured interviews. The analysis of the data from all three cycles of collection demonstrated the

importance of the co-administrators in supporting co-teachers in developing and implementing

multimodal instruction to combat barriers against including students with disabilities in the general

education classroom. Through examination of the instructional practices and relationships between co-

teaching team members, the administrative strategies identified created opportunities to cultivate

inclusive educational environments for students with disabilities. This study concluded that (a) school

administrators need to develop a unified and unwavering philosophy of inclusion that is at the forefront

of all communication and anchors all other actions, (b) educational leadership is vital to the success of

co-teaching implementation, (c ) and the strategies implemented must be actioned with fidelity for the

sustainability of co-teaching.

Key Words: Co-teaching, Administrator of special education, Principal, Students with disabilities

6

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………….…………………………..5

Section One: Introduction………………….………………………………………….…….………………………………………………….7

Section Two: Results..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18

Cycle 1 Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19

Cycle 1.5 Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………20

Cycle 2 Action Step(s)……………………………………………………………………………………..………………………..36

Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43

Section Three: Literature Review……….………………………………………………………………………………………………….67

Section Four: Contextualization…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….90

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….108

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….118

Appendix A: Research Design………………………………………………………………………………………………….118

Appendix B: Dissemination Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………..152

Appendix C: Critical Reflection………………………………………………………………………………………………..153

Appendix D: Cycle 1 Participants

Appendix E: Cycle 1.5 Participants

Appendix F: Cycle 2 Participants

Appendix G: Cycle 2 Action Steps

Appendix H: Reflection Tools

Appendix I: 3-2-1 Feedback Form

Appendix J: Survey of Participant Experience

Appendix K: Info-graphic

7

Section One

The introduction includes an overview of the problem of practice that the research addressed,

the research purpose, research questions, a description of the research context and participants, and a

brief synopsis of the research design. The problem of practice examined the lack of collaborative

educational leadership to eliminate the barriers created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and deficit

approaches to instructing students with disabilities, limiting access to the general education curriculum

and classroom. This Action Research study investigated the strategies that advance co-teaching teams'

development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. Through

examination of the instructional practices and relationships between co-teaching team members, the

administrative strategies identified created opportunities to cultivate inclusive educational

environments for students with disabilities. The analysis of the data from all three cycles of collection

demonstrated the importance of the role of the administrator in supporting co-teachers in developing

and implementing multimodal instruction to combat barriers to including students with disabilities in

the general education classroom. Therefore, this study drilled down to the strategies that advance co-

teaching from the perspective of administrative collaboration; at the district level from the

administrator of special education, and at the building level from the principal. Through the lens of

social justice, this research investigated the barriers created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and deficit

approaches to instructing students with disabilities, limiting access to the general education curriculum

and classroom. Utilizing the collaboration of the co-administrators, other school districts can examine

their pairing of co-teachers and the planning and execution of high-quality instruction for students with

disabilities.

Using Action Research as a design for professional learning keeps educators at the center of

learning. In this research, special education administrators and principals expanded their capacity to use

their colleagues and staff in leadership roles to enact transformative change. While the overarching

8

research question persisted throughout all research cycles, the supporting research questions became

more discrete during their development. Through this process, the personal real-world context was

developed further. Using process-driven collaboration, the stakeholders were able to create

individualized strategy plans to further advance the strategies currently in place at their school district.

As a result of the co-created administrators' reflection tools, the participants developed ownership over

the process, increasing the sustainability of action. Additionally, the intent of this study was that this

process could be replicated by the participants in their own context, even after the research has been

concluded (Caro-Bruce, 2000; Johannesson, 2020; Killion & Harrison, 2000).

Problem Statement

A socially just and inclusive school is one that does not only emphasize academic achievement

or prioritizes academic achievement as an all-for-nothing trade-off over other important aspects of the

school community, such as authentic family engagement, recognition of multiple student identities, the

social and emotional development of students, and welcoming environment that values all people

(DeMatthews et al., 2020). Despite regulatory education reform starting in the mid-70s, 45 years later,

the practices to create a truly inclusive environment for students with disabilities are still met with

barriers. Systematically, it is necessary to drill down into the barriers to inclusive and equitable practices

across a state in the Northeast. Very few educators are well-equipped to bridge cultural differences

within the classroom to ensure all students have opportunities to learn and succeed (Bottiani et al.,

2017). Some classrooms view students with disabilities as the sole responsibility of special educators.

Moreover, teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education are primary barriers to its successful spread

and enactment (Schlessinger, 2017). Access and recognition require systematic work to ensure that

opportunities to participate and learn are afforded to all students (Finnerty et al., 2019; Kozleski et al.,

2020). The education workforce needs to understand its role in eliminating the impact of colonialism,

linguistic isolation, racism, and ableism. Scholars and practitioners must focus on intersecting forms of

9

oppression that overtly or covertly condone racism or ableism (Alim et al., 2017). When examining the

roles of stakeholders, it is essential to consider the impact of their habitual actions within a unified

construct can transform daily practices that propel the entire school community to overcome the

barriers and obstacles to equity and inclusion.

This research develops a sense of urgency for the education profession to address the barriers

to equity and inclusion in the classroom. Ableist practices—both intentional and unintentional—create

deficit mindsets, impeding the implementation of pedagogy, methodology, frameworks, and

instructional practices that combat the marginalization of students with disabilities. The ableist practices

are predicated on a lack of knowledge and understanding of how personal and professional actions

perpetuate low expectations for student outcomes. Research-based interventions rooted in culturally

sustaining pedagogy, co-teaching methodology and instructional practices, and Universal Design for

Learning (UDL) are powerful strategies for addressing marginalized practices. The disconnect lies

between the application of pedagogy and practices. The dynamics, between the adults themselves and

the environment, are where the discrepancies and ambiguities create inconsistencies in practice. There

is a shared responsibility by all stakeholders to make transformative educational changes in philosophy,

collective agency, and professional knowledge, to empower co-teachers to meet the unique needs of

students with disabilities, and to do so with confidence. School leaders are transformative agents with

the authority and agency to cohesively develop staff members to reach their potential for the benefit of

students. This research explored the missing element of sustainability as it applies to the specific

elements of co-teaching pairing for stronger relationships and co-planning processes. Using a

Community of Practice professional learning community, the special education administrators and

principals could draw from one another in the areas of co-teaching dynamics and co-planning in order to

share strategies with their in-district colleagues to include students with disabilities in the classroom in

their districts and schools.

10

Purpose of Research

The purpose of this Action Research study was to determine strategies that advance co-teaching

teams' development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in general education

classrooms. The co-teaching team comprises the general education teacher, special education teacher,

and instructional assistant. Instructional strategies are the approaches co-teaching team members use

when collaborating to develop multimodal instruction that accommodates the needs and abilities of

learners and reduces unnecessary hurdles in the learning process. Administrative strategies are the

practices enacted by the administrator to support the development and implementation of instructional

strategies. Primary stakeholders are the administrators of special education and the school principals,

who have the autonomy and authority to make educational decisions to make transformative changes

to support students with disabilities' access to the curriculum in the classroom. Knowledge generated is

expected to advance educational practices in the general education classroom in communities within

the Northeast.

Research Questions

Overarching Research Question

What strategies advance co-teaching teams’ development of multimodal instruction to include students

with disabilities in general education classrooms?

Cycle 2 Research Questions

1. How can administrative strategies support co-teaching teams to develop multimodal

instruction?

2. How can administrators of special education and building principals assess their context to meet

the markers of inclusive practices?

Fundamentally, the problem of practice sought to address the marginalizing practices of ableism

through the methodology of co-teaching, as indicated by the first research question. The Cycle 1 data

11

analysis indicated the complexities surrounding the philosophy of inclusion, and co-teaching elements,

such as educator relationships and lesson development, instructional practices, resource allocation, and

shared responsibility for students with disabilities. The gap between the pedagogical best practices and

general education classroom realities required investigation into ways to lessen the distance and

mitigate the barriers that impact the current status of co-teaching implementation. The focus on the

lived experiences of classroom educators exposed limitations in their ability to control many factors that

impact the success of co-teaching in the classroom. Cycle 1 data analysis shifted the focus to the role of

the administrator to advance co-teaching practices, which developed the supporting research questions.

The Cycle 1.5 data analysis highlighted the importance of the partnership between the administrator of

special education and the principal with the power and capacity to advance the instructional strategies

of co-teaching teams' development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in

general education classrooms.

Context

The context for research was public school districts in a state within the Northeast. As set by

state and federal regulations, each school district has one Central Office executive filling the role of

administrator of special education. Inherent to the individuals fulfilling this role are the education,

knowledge, responsibility, and power to make decisions that overcome the barriers to students with

disabilities accessing an inclusive and equitable learning environment. This research had no fixed site but

used wide geographical scope, to obtain a mass of administrators of special education who could

contribute to the elements of research currently missing in this field, as made apparent by the lack of

literature.

Due to a change in employment for the student researcher, the context for research also

changed. Cycle 1 conducted research in a small suburban town with a robust co-teaching model, in

which the researcher was the administrator of special education. Cycle 1.5 conducted research using

12

administrators of special education from communities within 4 to 23 miles of the original research site.

One participant was from a vocational-technical public school, and the others were from traditional

Prek-12 public schools. Cycle 2 conducted research using administrators of special education and

principals from communities across this state located in the Northeast. Distances from the original

research site ranged from 4 to 94 miles.

Within this state, the public-school districts considered for participation may be traditional prek-

12 schools, charter schools, or vocational-technical high schools, all with a co-teaching model of

instruction, which includes the general education teacher and special education teacher in the general

education classroom instructing students with disabilities. All sites had Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education (DESE) administrators functioning under the license of Administrator of Special

Education and, or Principal. This region included the site for Cycle 1, and also included the current

district of the researcher, which had the option to participate in this study.

Participants/Collaborators/Stakeholders

The primary stakeholders are school administrators of special education and principals, who

have the autonomy and authority to make transformative leadership decisions as well as hold the

primary responsibility for the structures, frameworks, and oversight for students with disabilities in the

classroom. While the ultimate goal of this research was to improve outcomes for students with

disabilities, this research did not include minors.

For Cycle 1 data collection, the co-teaching team was defined as the general education teacher,

special education teacher, and instructional assistants from the Dragon Public Schools. These were

recruited to participate due to the functions of their role in this district, working with students with

disabilities in the general education classroom. The primary stakeholders identified were classroom

educators, comprised of special and general education teachers. As these primary stakeholders were in

the classroom with students, they were crucial in the research, giving voice to the student’ needs in the

13

classroom. All ten of the participants were female. Three of the teachers were from the elementary

level, and six were from the middle school. No high school teachers or instructional assistants across the

district chose to participate in the research. The participants consisted of five general education and five

special education teachers, all of whom educated in a co-taught model in this district. For demographic

details, see Appendix D.

For Cycle 1.5 data collection, inclusion criteria included administrators who had held or currently

hold the state license of Administrator of Special Education, who also held current or previous primary

responsibility for overseeing the special education programming for the public school district from the

geographical location of the Southeastern Region of this state. Each public school district must have one

individual licensed as an Administrator of Special Education functioning in the role labeled as the

Administrator of Special Education, Director of Special Education, Director of Student Services, or

Director of Pupil Personnel Services. The Cycle 1 data and literature indicated the need for school

administrators to apply administrative strategies to support the co-teaching teams in developing better

lessons and implementing instructional strategies. Three of the four administrators of special education

were female. Three of the participants and the researcher were part of the same professional

organizations, more details in Appendix E.

For the Cycle 2 data collection, consideration was given to the layers of other internal

stakeholders critical to the overall impact on the implementation of co-teaching methodology. The Cycle

1.5 data collection identified the principals as a stakeholder group that has building or school-level

autonomy and authority over resource allocation. The principal executes the school's business by

controlling the daily routines and activities of that building. The Cycle 2 action steps were intended to

capitalize on the depth of knowledge, possessed by special education administrators, about instructing

individuals with disabilities, and for these individuals to collaborate with principals to examine their

schools regarding meeting the markers for effective inclusion. Two of the Cycle 2 participants were from

14

the original Cycle 1 research site, and one no longer worked for that district. One of the Cycle 2

participants was from a public charter school. Eight of the ten total participants from Cycle 1.5 and Cycle

2 had worked in a professional context with the student researcher, as detailed in Appendix F.

Positionality

As an Action Researcher, when considering the problem of practice, the researchers identify a

unique challenge that resonates with who they are as human beings, professionals, and community

members within their organizations. Examining positionality, the researcher must reflect on the

idiosyncrasies that define them as individuals and as researchers, because subjectivity influences what is

deemed an essential and worthy cause. Social hierarchy and positions of power as related to other

stakeholders may lead to intersections that create allegiances or estrangement from participants within

schools based on interactions (Herr & Anderson, 2014; Spillane, 2006). An Action Researcher must bring

conscious awareness of one's perspective, lived experiences, and expectations, as these all influence

what is known as truth (Ladkin, 2005).

As an Action Researcher within a state in the Northeast, the multiple identities of the researcher

impact subjectivity; each step inward peels back another layer of the onion of the researcher's

positionality. Within the Southeastern region of this state, there are several smaller subsections of

regions made up of several towns, most of which are considered suburban. As someone who grew up on

the South Shore and currently resides in the South Shore, the researcher had also worked in public

school districts located on the Metro-South and South Shore of this State. Currently, the researcher

works in a town within the Southeastern Region of the state. The researcher has intimate knowledge of

the culture and climate particular to this region bringing a unique insider perspective to the research

conducted in this region. The researcher has previously assumed many of the roles of the participants

from the different cycles of data collection, having been a special educator for 24 years and working in

various educational settings, from a specialized residential school to a full-inclusion school. The

15

researcher also served as an administrator of special education for 15 years, as an assistant principal of

an elementary school, as an early childhood center principal, and is currently a middle school principal.

Until recently, the researcher was one of ten executive board members of the lead professional

organization representing Administrators of Special Education (ASE) in the state. As an administrator of

special education and principal, the researcher understands how the day-to-day functions of schools

impact the implementation of programming for students with disabilities. Understanding the roles of

participants assists in understanding the frustration of teachers and building-based management when

provided with edicts from the central office that do not match the real world of a school.

As a result of the multiple roles held by the researcher, several factors must be considered when

addressing any potential bias or assumptions. Cycle 1 data collection included co-teachers from the

school district in which the researcher served in a supervisory role as the administrator of special

education. The researcher grew up in the town of the site of Cycle 1 research, therefore being familiar

with some of the staff, students, and families on a personal level. At the end of the Cycle 1 data

collection, due to a change in employment for the student researcher, she no longer had access to these

co-teachers. Coercion was no longer a factor. As a result of having no fixed site, research for Cycle 1 and

Cycle 1.5 data collection did not include subordinates; therefore, there was no risk of coercion.

Information about positionality is essential to ensure that the participants do not feel coerced into

participating (Miles et al., 2018).

Synopsis of the Research Design

The purpose of this Action Research study was to determine strategies that advance co-teaching

teams' development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. The

primary internal stakeholders were school administrators of special education and principals who had

the autonomy and authority to make transformative leadership decisions. Research participants

included the administrators of special education and principals from a state in the Northeast. These

16

school administrators held the primary responsibility for the structures, frameworks, and oversight for

students with disabilities in the classroom. This research examined the shared responsibility of the

administrator of special education and the principal to support co-teaching teams to create inclusive

and equitable educational environments; extensive engagement with all facets of the research sought to

understand the social worlds of participants, anchoring the subjective meanings, to conduct research in

a manner that was responsive to the setting and participants (Fossey et al., 2002).

This participatory process used focus groups, interviews, document analysis, and survey

instruments as part of inquiry and data collection cycles. The research questions guided the

investigatory process into the administrative strategies to support multimodal instruction by developing

and implementing tools that reflected on the markers of efficient and effective planning of multimodal

lessons, creating a shared responsibility for students with disabilities. Participants engaged in a process-

driven, multi-phase action step with data collection, starting with the development of common content

knowledge, followed by the co-creation of reflection tools to be used to understand the stage of

implementation of co-teaching methodology to develop strategy plans to advance co-teaching practices

in their schools. Sessions were synchronous and asynchronous across a virtual platform. Using in vivo

descriptive coding, the data analyzed identified trends and themes to understand whether the reflection

tool advanced the co-teaching teams' development of multimodal instruction to include students with

disabilities in the classroom. For more details on the qualitative, Action Research methodology and

procedures for data collection, please see the Appendix A section of this report.

Cycle 1 themes identified were a philosophy of inclusion, high-quality instructional practices,

and access to resources that have a direct impact on the efficacy of the co-teaching teams' development

of multimodal instruction. Cycle 1.5 themes indicated that while the role of the special education

administrator was vital to the success of implementing co-teaching instructional practices, this role

17

could not function in isolation. Cycle 2 themes identified were a philosophy of inclusion, implementing

co-teaching methodology, and sustainable administrative strategies.

Notable through the literature review was the need for more research with regard to the impact

of the role of the special education administrator on co-teaching. Additionally, missing from the

literature was the collaboration of the administrator of special education and the principal to include

students with disabilities in the classroom. School administrators have the transformative power to

make changes to the factors impacting the success of co-teaching strategies to address the ableist

practices that marginalize students with disabilities. Resources within the control of the principals are

the time for co-planning, curriculum materials, scheduling of staff, and co-teacher pairing. The role of

the administrator of special education is to have a deep and enriched understanding of the needs of

students with disabilities in order to develop educational programming that is specially designed for the

individual to make progress commensurate with their potential.

The intended outcome of this research was for the administrators of special education and

principals to co-create reflection tools: (a) with the flexibility to capture the variability of the different

contexts, (b) with enough structure to identify the expected elements of effective co-teacher dynamics

and co-planning, (c) simple enough to be used repetitively on-site, and (d) eliminating the need for

outside vendors and, or one-and-done professional development, thereby creating sustainability of

practices.

18

Section Two: Results

An Action Research approach used multiple cycles of data collection and analysis, to develop

themes to answer the research questions about the strategies that advance co-teaching teams to

develop multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

The problem of practice examined the lack of collaborative educational leadership to eliminate the

barriers created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and by deficit approaches to instructing students with

disabilities, limiting access to the general education curriculum and classroom. Cycle 1 data collection

and analysis used the perspectives of the general education and special education teachers to identify

the themes of: (a) a philosophy of inclusion, (b) high-quality instructional practices, and (c) access to

resources. From the Cycle 1 findings, and due to a change in the researcher’s employment, the target

participant group changed from co-teachers to administrators. The Cycle 1.5 data collection and analysis

from the perspective of the administrator of special education resulted in three themes: (a) the impact

of co-teaching dynamics, (b) co-planning lessons, and (c) administrative collaboration. Cycle 2 data

collection from the perspective of the collaboration between the administrator of special education and

the principal revealed: (a) a philosophy of inclusion, (b) implementing co-teaching methodology, and (c)

sustainable administrative strategies, as themes from which to develop actions for school administrators

to implement, to advance co-teaching teams to develop multimodal instruction to include students with

disabilities in the classroom.

This section shares a review of the findings from Cycle One data collection and analysis, a review

of the findings from Cycle 1.5 data collection and analysis, a discussion of the Cycle 2 action steps to

include goals, activities, participants, data collection and analysis, and the findings from the Cycle 2

evaluation.

19

Cycle 1 Results/Findings

The Cycle 1 data analysis resulted in the following three themes: (a) a philosophy of inclusion,

(b) high-quality instructional practices, and (c) access to resources. Subthemes further supported why

each theme was essential to answer the research question: What strategies advance the co-teaching

teams’ development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the general

education classroom? Cycle 1 data identified key factors to the successful collaboration of co-teachers.

The theme of a philosophy of inclusion coordinated the subthemes around relational factors such as

belief systems, and relationships. The theme of high-quality instructional practices explored subthemes

about adaptive elements of co-teaching methodology, such as co-planning multimodal lessons, and

classroom instruction. The last theme of access to resources considered subthemes for the technical

elements of co-teaching, such as planning time and materials. The themes led the reader to

contemplate the findings when creating the action steps for Cycle 2 data collection.

Cycle 1 Data Description

At the Dragon public schools, five female general education teachers and five female special

education teachers participated in semi-structured interviews over two weeks. The three elementary

and seven secondary teachers are currently or have been co-teachers in the Dragon’s model of two

teachers instructing students with and without disabilities in the general education setting, which

provided co-planning time as part of the structure of co-teaching implementation. Interview questions

sought to gain information about the roles and responsibilities of the co-teachers, co-teacher dynamics,

lesson development, and the impact of co-teaching methodology on student achievement.

Philosophy of Inclusion

The general education and special education teachers spoke about their lived experiences as co-

teachers implementing co-teaching methodology at the Dragon Public Schools. These participants

explain the tenets of a philosophy of inclusion as it applied to the educators, the general education

20

teachers, and the students. The two general education and two special education teachers commented

on the importance of a whole district standpoint, for all of the educators to take ownership over all of

the students, communicating a message of belonging. Casey, a general education teacher and school

leader dedicated to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for the Dragon public schools, commented,

All adults in the entire school building, whether it's the microcosm of the individual classroom, or a

grade level, whatever it may be, that we have a responsibility to all students, right? Regardless of

that student showing up in my classroom. Regardless of that student having an IEP [Individualized

Education Program], whatever it may be. Adults have a responsibility to supervise, help, and support

all of the students. And I think that's really a value of mine! And that value I apply, or I would like to

think pretty seamlessly.

Expanding further from the expectation of educator ownership over all of the students, Kelly, a special

education teacher, called out to the general education teacher about their specific responsibility to

students with disabilities in the general education classroom. She addressed the culture for students

with disabilities to feel welcomed by the general education teacher and why this is important when she

stated,

You have to have a culture where students with disabilities are welcomed by the general

education teacher. And they're not seen as a burden, and they're not just seen as the

responsibility of the special education teacher. Our goal is always to keep them in the least

restrictive environment. And eventually, we all want them all to be successful members of

society. So, in order to do that, we need to make co-teaching classrooms places where all

students are welcome and supported, and their needs are being met in the most efficient and

effective way possible.

21

A second special education teacher connected the importance of a philosophy of inclusion to the impact

on student success. Sasha highlighted the ownership of students with disabilities to the potential

positive impact on that child:

If you look at everything, like, this is my job. This is your job. Or like these are my kids, those

aren't your kids. Or these aren't my kids; those are the small group kids. They’re only going to go

with you. It needs to be, we are all a team. That everybody is everybody's child, just plan or no

plan. So it's not like I'm going to go in there and not help somebody who's got their hand raised

because they're not on an IEP. Find a way to make it inclusive. The more you single somebody

out, or make them feel different, then you’re not really getting a true measure of what these

kids can do. If they feel like they're just part of the group and part of the team, I really think

we’re getting a lot more out of them.

Rebecca, a general education teacher, noted the shifting of ownership over students with disabilities,

however, she began to identify the challenges when implementing co-teaching methodology as an

inclusive strategy:

In my career it's shifted from these are your kids to more like these are our kids. And their

success is ours, you know. But we own that together, every one of these students. And sharing

that responsibility, understanding, passion, and concern for a kid. But honestly, sometimes it did

get hard.

While the educators spoke to the benefit of collective ownership over all of the students, and for the

purpose of this research most importantly students with disabilities, developing and honoring a

philosophy of inclusion is not without hardship. The following subsections expand upon these hardships

as identified by the participants by exploring beliefs and relationships of the co-teaching team.

22

Beliefs

The first subtheme explored the belief systems as reported by the participants, that positively or

negatively impact the implementation of co-teaching methodology. While the co-teachers could identify

elements of a positive co-teaching relationship, their statements were not favorable. All of the teachers

spoke about the need to be on the same page or playing field for successful co-teaching. However, their

lived experiences did not always support this position. Most striking were statements from three

participants, two of whom are special education teachers, stating,

If they're not open to a co-teacher, it's a waste of time. [It’s] almost better if it wasn't there

when it goes poorly. Don't force it, don't try. You're wasting everyone's time. There should only

be co-teaching if both participants are willing and committed.

Despite the air of negativity, Kelly and Kimberly kept students at the forefront of their concerns. Kelly

opined, “Either do something to change their perspective and give them information, or not even try to

make them co-teach. It's not fair to the special education students if they're not willing to commit to a

hundred percent.” Sarah stated, “We have the same common goal in mind. We both want the kids to be

successful. Whether that looks different to both of us, we can meet on a middle ground.”

The relationships between the co-teachers seemed most impactful in unifying beliefs based on

trust. Ellen described that “it’s hard because every co-teaching relationship is a little different. It all

depends on who the person is. I think it has a lot to do with personalities.”

Relationships

The second subtheme delved into the factors of the co-teacher relationships. While the co-

teachers could identify elements of a positive co-teaching relationship, their statements were not all

favorable. All of the teachers spoke about the need to be on the same page or playing field for

successful co-teaching. However, their lived experiences did not always support this position. Sarah

identified the importance of respect, saying “We're all part of a team. We are all here to support kids.

23

So, if people don't have that mutual respect for those positions, I think that if it goes off the rails right

from the get-go.” Rebecca elaborated, "Trusting your partner, you know, because we do have different

philosophies often. My partner may feel one way, I feel a different way, but we've got to work

together." Amanda, from her role as a special educator, expressed the idiosyncratic challenges this role

faces as a co-teacher navigating a co-teacher dynamic when stating:

You can't change someone. A lot of people feel very, very threatened and territorial when you

walk into their classroom, and I wish that wasn't the culture. I don’t know if it is always like that.

I think people feel like you're judging them, and I never want them to feel like I'm judging them.

But you have to prove it, really early, what an asset you are. Like, let me take this off your hands

for you.

Sarah described the impact of having an open relationship on instructional practices. She expressed, “If

something isn't working, then you have to be able to say that to the other person and look for

something new to do." Co-teachers need the foundation of a trusting and respectful relationship to

develop a shared belief system in order to be able to express their thoughts about lesson development

and implementation.

High-Quality Instructional Practices

The second theme indicated that co-teachers require additional support in the areas of high-

quality instructional practices to collaboratively develop the skills and strategies to meet the needs of

students in general education and do so consistently. This subtheme focused on the co-planning of

multimodal lessons using co-teaching methodology as the framework for high-quality instructional

practices.

Of concern, a co-teacher was unsure of the modes of co-teaching and how to apply themes, as

demonstrated by an inability to define the co-teaching practices. Christina, a special educator, candidly

shared:

24

I feel like I always struggle with, like other people, is like we don't have a definite, clear

definition of co-teaching. Is it parallel teaching? Is it small groups? Is it one lead, one support? I

don't know it's hard. Co-teaching looks different, depending on what the grade level is, what the

subject matter is. So, it's hard to necessarily define it. But I think there's a lot of confusion

around what actually are the various players' responsibilities? About co-teaching, I think that's

one thing that makes it kind of challenging. Sometimes, gen. ed. teachers and special ed.

teachers don't have the same ideas about what they should be doing or what their

responsibilities are. So I think that's something that's important.

One special educator, Kelly, linked the knowledge of the students’ learning needs to instructional

strategies. She said:

So, I think it takes time to get to know your students. I think you have to build relationships

before you dive into academics. Then know that, how different students learn. I also think it's

important just to design a lesson that anyone can access, anyone of any learning style. So

Universal Design is helpful in that.

Kelly also expressed varying levels of success as a member of a co-teaching team when planning, and

articulated expectations the best when stating:

So ideally, when co-teaching works the best, it's when the general ed and special education

teacher are sharing all the responsibilities. They’re planning. They’re planning for assessment

and differentiation. I think it's been the most successful when, like, everyone's buying in and

feels like their voices are heard, that they're like an important part of the team.

The participants' responses indicated only a surface-level understanding of the co-teaching

methodology. The teachers were able to articulate foundational aspects of co-teaching, such as using

the co-teacher relationship to plan lessons for students that scaffold instruction based on student

learning profiles.

25

Co-planning Multimodal Instruction

This subtheme identified specificities of co-planning lessons. The general and special education

teachers spoke about strategies to support students to access the curriculum. These strategies included

dividing the responsibilities and also ensuring scaffolds were planned. Kimberly described her planning

process as “I make sure that we plan the big picture first and then dive down to see what each kid

needs.” Mary commented on her collaboration with her co-teacher, “Oh, these kids really need graphic

organizers. These kids need written directions. Then we'll divvy it up. I'll make the ELA content and I'll

share it with them [special education teachers]. Then they’ll often add in a graphic organizer.” Sasha

described the co-planning with her team as, “We actually meet together the three of us every week to

kind of talk about what standards we're teaching that week, and the scope and sequence of the

programs we're doing for the week.” Another teacher commented, “If you don't have the same common

goal, it ends up being one teacher is the answer giver and one teacher is like the question answerer.

That’s an easy role to fall into if you're not on the same page.” Across the responses, the co-teaching

teams identified different processes and sharing of responsibilities. On a positive note, the participants

continued to identify the benefits of co-teaching. Ellen suggested, “You just have to try and just be open.

It’s not gonna be perfect.” Amanda recommended, “I wish we observed other teachers more because I

feel like I really came into my own when I started, like being in five different classes every day, watching

teachers.” Examples of technical aspects that indicate, “When we can plan everything, kind of big

picture in chunks, we actually were able to reach all the students.” “When it's done right, it does such a

service to not just special students with disabilities but the general ed kids get more support than they

would and get more dynamic and engaging lessons.”

Teachers mentioned technical strategies and instructional practices for engagement,

representation, and expression of knowledge. Some teachers spoke directly to differentiation and

components for Universal Design for Learning (UDL). However, no teacher connected multimodal

26

instruction development to co-teaching or inclusion of students with disabilities in general education.

This lack of response was data in and of itself. The reflections of the participants highlighted the

inconsistencies in planning the application of high-quality instructional strategies, requiring professional

development to address skill deficits.

Access to Resources

The third theme was that availability and access to resources impact the co-teaching teams’

development of multimodal instruction. Subthemes explored the resources of time for collaboration and

access to materials. There seemed to be a lack of understanding by those who create schedules to

create opportunities for co-teachers to develop lessons that focus on strategies that support students

with disabilities to access the curriculum. Repeatedly, the educators spoke to the need for sufficient

planning time together. A special education teacher, Amanda passionately spoke about embedding the

philosophy of inclusion into action by creating time for meaningful work:

It is really frustrating to say, like as a district we value co-teaching. Then you don't give people

the time to do it, like that's not valuing co-teaching. We can say it until we are blue in the face.

But if you're not honoring that then we really don't value it.

Mary spoke further about the sufficiency of co-planning time:

You know, your preps are great but it's like by the time you go to the bathroom, [and] answer a

few emails there's only 10 minutes [left]. It's more like, “Hey we're doing this. This is what it's

going to be. We need this.” Not like full-fledged, but planning takes hours to really have

something blossom. I think time is very key.

With regard to materials for success, one special education teacher commented, “Unfortunately,

special education is not always afforded the same resource access as their general education

counterparts.” The Dragon public schools is considered a well resources district, it was surprising to hear

educators reference lack of access to instructional materials by special educators.

27

Time for Collaboration

The subtheme about time for collaboration shone a light on the Yeoman’s work of co-planning.

Co-planning requires a depth of knowledge by both educators in their area of expertise, a willingness to

share ideas and learn from one another, and the time dedicated to co-planning lessons for students with

disabilities using co-teaching methodology. Kelly explained, “Make the time to plan with each other so

that you're on the same page. Make sure that you're using each other effectively. Make sure you're

supporting in a meaningful manner. You need to be patient.” Kelly provided direct recommendations for

making dedicated time for collaboration. She suggested:

Take out your calendars. Sit down together for an hour, hour and a half, however long it takes,

and say, this is what we need to be teaching each week. The boil it down … But if you can just sit

and plan out a month, a month, a term at a time. Then, you know, you're always on the same

page.

Amanda identified that “planning takes hours to have something really blossom.” Amanda added during

the time for collaboration “the reflection piece is huge” to review “the lesson that flopped last week.” As

Amanda’s co-teacher, Kimberly spoke separately about the time for collaboration, bringing reality to the

work of co-planning, “Not every lesson is going to be a stunner.” Time for collaboration has a positive

impact on the co-teaching relationships, as Ellen felt, “Certain teachers are willing to budge, if you have

the time to plan.”

Materials

This subtheme discussed the imbalance of access to instructional materials between general

education and special education teachers. Very often, special education is not provided the same

teacher manual or access to online programming as their vernal education counterparts. Kelly explained,

“Not having solid materials and curriculum that can make it challenging.” Christina explained further,

28

I think resources, like making sure the special education teacher has the teacher's edition of the

math book. And everyone's on, like, they have access to the same manipulatives. They have

access to all like the online programs that a general education teacher would have access to. So

just doing things to make it so that you can have everything you need.

When co-teachers do not have the same access to materials or are not part of the curriculum

development process, special education teachers encounter continued barriers to inclusive instructional

practices. Amanda has experienced that “if someone has already developed their curriculum isn’t going

to redevelop their curriculum just because you have some strategies that you want to try. You have to

sneak them in when you can.”

Findings

The stakeholders responsible for technical aspects of co-teaching, such as planning, time

allocation, and material management, need to understand that these resources are vital for positive

student outcomes and the success of co-teaching teams in general education classrooms. Effective

strategies are not everyday standard practices. The strategies may advance co-teaching teams, but the

amount of advancement takes time to determine. Therefore, the findings of this research highlighted

the crucial nature of a philosophy of inclusion, high-quality instructional practices, and access to

resources.

When examining the experiences of the participants, they have the ability to make

transformative changes at the classroom level when the conditions are optimal. All of the participants

identified the need for time to collaborate but did not directly speak to the components of

implementing co-teaching methodology with continuity and consistency as part of co-planning; nor did

they directly speak to the components of implementing professional development and professional

learning to increase their skill sets further. Co-teachers have very little control over factors that impact

the efficacy of the co-teaching model with sustainability at a global level. Administrators have the

29

authority and autonomy to make decisions that impact the co-teaching team members' implementation

of co-teaching methodology.

Conclusion

When considering this body of research in the context of the literature, using Cycle 1 data

directly from the teachers was essential because the findings indicated that exploration from the lens of

the school administrator was required to determine actions for meaningful change. The school

administrators have the transformative autonomy and authority to make changes to the factors

impacting the success of co-teaching strategies; however, not all administrators have the same level of

intimacy and impact of control. Principals control the resources of time for co-planning, curriculum

materials, scheduling of staff, and co-teacher pairing. On the other hand, the administrator of special

education has district-level control, yet a different level of intimacy in interactions with teachers. This

role requires a deep and enriched understanding of the needs of students with disabilities in order to

develop educational programming that is specially designed for the individual to make progress

commensurate with their potential. However, there is currently no literature on collaboration between

the school principal and the administrator of special education to include students with disabilities in

the classroom. Indeed, there is a need for more research on the role of the special education

administrator and the impact of this on co-teaching.

As a result of the lackluster data regarding this role, the Cycle 1.5 data collection process used

qualitative and quantitative data collection to explore further the impact of strategies that advance co-

teaching teams from this lens. Then the Cycle 2 research focused on the collaborative administrative

strategies of the administrator of special education and the principal for the advancement of co-

teaching.

30

Cycle 1.5 Results/Findings

The Cycle 1.5 data analysis resulted in three themes (a) the impact of co-teaching dynamics, (b)

co-planning lessons, and (c) administrative collaboration. The administrators of special education, who

are experts in the field of education students with disabilities, articulated clearly the components of co-

teaching methodology as vital to implementing a philosophy of inclusion in the general education

classroom. The co-teaching relationships and beliefs significantly impact students’ access to the general

education classroom. Reinforcing the perspectives of the co-teachers from Cycle 1, the educators do

want students with disabilities to succeed. The lack of knowledge and skill sets to implement co-

teaching methodology can be minimized through professional learning and narrowing the focus on co-

planning multimodal instruction. Oversight to co-teacher lesson planning requires an intimate

knowledge of, and access to, these professionals. By virtue of the role of the administrator of special

education, adding the role of the principals as collaborators extends the evolving target participant

group for the Cycle 2 action steps.

Cycle 1.5 Data Description

Due to a change in employment for the student researcher, and the findings from the Cycle 1

data analysis, the primary stakeholder group of the participants was those in the role of administrator of

special education. As a result, an abbreviated additional cycle of data collection, identified as Cycle 1.5,

included the perspectives of this stakeholder group to answer the research questions of “What

strategies advance the co-teaching teams to develop multimodal instruction to include students with

disabilities in the general education classroom?” The participants were administrators of special

education from communities within 4 to 23 miles of the original research site. As there is only one

administrator of special education per school district at the executive level of Central Office, there was

no fixed site for this cycle of data collection. Of the four participants, one was male. One was from a

vocational-technical public school, and the others were from traditional Prek-12 public schools. All of

31

the administrators of special education have over ten years of administrative experience across multiple

school districts, indicating a strong collective knowledge from which to draw conclusions. They

participated in semi-structured interviews over four weeks, as a result of the data collection cycle

coinciding with the close of a school year. Interview questions sought to gain information about the

roles and responsibilities of the co-teachers, co-teacher dynamics, multimodal instruction development,

and the impact of co-teaching methodology on student achievement. Through in vivo coding of these

semi-structured interviews, data was coded into dynamics, roles, instruction, and professional

development. The participant group identified multimodal instruction as a critical vehicle for meeting

the needs of students with disabilities in the classroom.

Co-Teaching Relationships and Beliefs

Interestingly, while the themes from Cycle 1 and Cycle 1.5 data do not significantly differ, the

emotions perceived behind the themes do. One divergent perception was on the beliefs surrounding co-

teaching. In Cycle 1 data, some of the participants expressed that if the co-teacher was not open to the

co-teaching model for inclusive practices, then it was better not to do it at all. However, from an

administrator’s lens, the ability or inability to manage inclusion was not from a not-want-to perspective

but from a belief system. Alice described this belief:

So it's not that anybody would ever outwardly not want the best for a student. I think that

sometimes not everyone, not to over generalize it, but the honest belief system is this student

would be better off somewhere else. Getting this instruction from someone else, in a different

environment.

General educators seem to believe that the student would genuinely be better off being instructed by a

different teacher with a perceived skill set more specialized than the current teacher offered. It seemed

as though the administrators felt the educators truly resistant to co-teaching were a small percentage.

32

Both constituent groups identified the relationships and dynamics between the general education and

special education teachers as paramount to the success of co-teaching.

The dynamics between the co-teaching teams’ general education and special education teachers

impact the level of student success in the classroom. Alice opined, “If your beliefs drive your decisions, I

need to be a general education teacher that believes all of these kids belong in this room.”

Eric described the barrier of changing a general education teacher’s role, “A school culture issue that a

lot of us have to deal with. There are some teachers who worked for so long as a single entity in a

classroom that bringing someone else into share the responsibility can be a challenge.” Maria connected

the co-teaching dynamics to the impact on students when she said, “When the teachers are working

together there’s a more pleasant vibe. It’s going to be more helpful and comfortable for the kids. Kids

can pick up tension.” If both general education and special education teachers believe that all students

can access the curriculum in the classroom, then they will be open to suggestions that remove barriers.

To develop the shared belief systems, the co-teachers need to collaborate to develop multimodal

instruction, capitalizing on the individual teacher’s strength and expertise.

Co-planning Multimodal Instruction

Co-planning instruction is essential to the success of the co-teaching model of inclusion. All of

the administrators of special education spoke of the importance of co-planning lesson design for the

delivery of instruction to ensure access to the curriculum. One strategy identified was “to make sure

that you do have the planning time to make sure there are those conversations around belief systems …

and beyond that begin planning with the end in mind.” Jane discussed the co-teacher roles as part of co-

planning. She explained her expectations:

Really as a goal is to have them co-plan. So, having the general Ed teacher kind of put their

perspective of what the standards are, you know, how they want to execute the lesson. Then,

33

having the co-teacher come in and talk about the best way to kind of support the students

within the classroom.

Jane was able to talk about the specifics of co-teaching methodology in the context of her teachers

planning and delivery of instruction.

So, looking at you know, different types of models. So I, we had a couple of co-teachers who

really worked really well together, they do it. So they'll do team teaching, alternative teaching.

Some of them will do one teacher deliver and, one support in certain situations. The other

models they don't love like the parallel teaching and the station teaching. Predominately they

use alternative team teaching, one to teach one support, and then they use the other ones less

frequently. They don't like station teaching. It's been really hard to sell. The goal is to have them

working as a team. So co-planning together, co-assessing and co-instructing.

Alice described the fund of knowledge possessed by each of the co-teacher roles vital to co-planning

effectively. She stated:

The general education teacher is the content expert … Special education teachers knowing and

understanding student profiles, strengths, and weaknesses, being able to provide input into

barriers and maybe instructional practices that are going to help all the students be able to

access the curriculum. Each teacher gains from one another. The general education teacher

learns how to accommodate different learning profiles, and the special education teacher gains

in curriculum content knowledge, ultimately improving the outcomes for students with

disabilities in the classroom.

School administrators cannot assume the co-teachers understand clearly their role and contributions to

the co-planning process. Co-teachers require training and professional development, specifically in co-

teaching methodology and instructional practices, in order to try new ways of teaching and learning.

34

Eric identified that “the professional learning has to happen first. You cannot just throw people

together … It has to be carefully planned out.” Alice described the professional learning around co-

teaching implementation in her district. She stated, “We're making huge strides with the multi-tiered

system of support and the UDL. And now, kind of figuring out how we can get that co-teaching and

inclusive practices PD, in a way that is not like that one-shot deal.” Eric expanded upon the role of data

to make instructional practices when co-planning lessons. He described his district:

We do a lot of data analysis around the impact of effective instructional techniques. And you

know, where a team may be lacking, you know, if the data shows that, you know, students

aren't making effective progress based on the construct of the classroom. That's actually an easy

fix because they can see the hard data right in front of them.

The participants recounted the challenges they have experienced from their Central Office role when

trying to lean into the accountability systems of monitoring of the co-teaching methodology and

implementation at the discrete classroom level.

Administrative Collaboration

Regarding the level of execution and monitoring of the co-teaching implementation required,

Marie identified the challenge, " ... from Central Office, you are a little bit far further removed than you

are as a principal," which necessitates collaboration between the administrator of special education and

the principal. Eric spoke to the need for a shared belief system between the administrator of special

education and the building principal:

You need someone who's, gonna, you know, lead the, you know, carry the banner and lead the

charge of inclusion. And then also convincing the building, you know, administration of the same

thing is always, it's always a challenge. But I find it, find it a creative challenge.

In the reality of collaborating with building based leadership for transformative change is the number of

partners with whom the administrator of special education must cooperate. One administrator of

35

special education expressed a challenge with having to work with 14 different principals. He said, “I am

now dealing with 14 different principals, with 14 completely different personalities, with 14 varying

levels of knowledge around special education.” The educators who want to be administrators, want to

become principals, have varying levels of knowledge about special education, with varying personalities

and views on how to build and navigate relationships with staff, students, and families. Administrative

collaboration between the administrator of special equation and the principal, similar to the co-

teachers, brings together the knowledge and expertise to support the teachers to develop and

implement lessons utilizing co-teaching methodology. Maria, who has been an administrator of special

education in multiple school districts, spoke about the work done over the past few years “to bring

principals together, so it's more collaborative and not as competitive.”

Findings

The Cycle 1.5 data analysis resulted in three themes (a) the impact of co-teaching dynamics, (b)

co-planning lessons, and(c) administrative collaboration. Co-teachers require support and oversight

from administrators who are well-versed in co-teaching methodology to make transformative exchange

at the school and district level to overcome barriers for students with disabilities to access the general

education classrooms. The administrators of special education identified multimodal instruction as a

vehicle for making transformative change. Focus on the development of instruction closes the gap

between teachers' desire for students to succeed and their confidence in effectively planning

instruction. The administrators of special education spoke about the obstacles in their roles at the

district level with the oversight of the co-teaching model. The findings created a sense of urgency for the

school administrators to develop administrative strategies that advance the co-teaching teams’

development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. Cycle 1.5

themes indicated that while the role of the special education administrator is vital to the success of

implementing co-teaching instructional practices, this role cannot function in isolation. A highlight of

36

this cycle of research was the identification of the need to know where to start—and to start small, in

order to address the needs of the districts and the constituents.

Conclusion

The Cycle 1.5 data analysis, alongside the exploration of existing literature to contextualize the

problem of practice, suggests that the impact of deficit mindsets continues to be a barrier to accessing

the general education classroom. When co-teachers lack the knowledge and understanding of inclusive

pedagogy, the inequities in the classroom continue. Absent from the literature is the dynamics between

the co-teachers and administrators when examining the strategies that advance the development of

multimodal instruction. Cycle 2 research further explored the administrative strategies that support the

instructional strategies to advance the co-teaching teams' development of multimodal instruction to

include students with disabilities in the classroom.

Cycle 2 Action Step

This section provides an overview of the Cycle 2 action steps, informed by Cycle 1 and Cycle 1.5

analysis and a review of relevant literature on administrative strategies for transformative change and

co-teaching methodology to instruct students with disabilities. Beginning with a review of the actions,

step goals, and objectives, this section then describes the activities that occurred through a Community

of Practices forum, co-creating reflection tools to be used to increase understanding of co-teaching

methodology with the embedded structure of data collection. Finally, Cycle 2 collections and data

analysis revealed themes supported by the statements from participants.

Through the analysis of Cycle 1 and Cycle 1.5 collection, the plans for Cycle 2 Action Research

and Evaluation addressed themes of impediments to the advancement of co-teaching teams'

development of multimodal strategies to include students with disabilities in the general education

classroom. Each of the data cycles produced similar findings as to barriers to effective inclusion, but the

presumptions as to why did differ. The administrators of special education seemed to have more of a

37

growth mindset on the adaptive features of co-teaching, than co-teachers whose focus was more on the

technical features of co-teaching. Without the collaboration of the principal, the administrator of special

education lacks local control despite being an expert in meeting the needs of students with disabilities in

the classroom.

The Cycle 2 research co-created administrative reflection tools to understand the current stage

of the district’s implementation of the co-teaching methodology, to develop strategy plans to advance

co-teaching practices in their schools. Using a Community of Practice Professional Learning Community

(PLC), the researcher incorporated Action Research as a design for professional learning (Johannesson,

2020). The researcher facilitated the administrators of special education and principals through the

Community of Practice professional learning sessions. The plan had four phases and six steps to support

administrators through the definition of co-teaching methodology, the identification of inclusive

educational practices, and the meaning of the elements of co-teaching dynamics and co-planning, for

more details see Appendix G. The administrators developed shared vision, shared definitions, reflection

tools, and strategy plans to examine co-teaching practices in their context. Using markers of effective

co-teaching dynamics and effective co-planning, administrators could reflect on the impact co-teaching

methodology has on the success of students with disabilities in the classroom. By increasing the capacity

of the administrator of special education, in collaboration with principals, to analyze their co-teaching

practices, the administrators could identify areas of strength and need for strategy planning in their

context to increase the quality and quantity of inclusion for students with disabilities.

Action Step Goals and Objectives

The goal of the Cycle 2 research was to co-create administrative reflection tools to be able to

analyze the district’s co-teaching model to support the further implementation of co-teaching

methodology and instructional practices with sustainability. The aim was to increase the quality of

inclusion and the number of students with disabilities participating in the classroom. Through the

38

identification of markers of effective and efficient inclusion, administrators of special education and

principals collaboratively developed tools in the areas of co-teacher dynamics and co-planning lesson

design. The school administrators utilized the reflection tools to strategize how their co-teaching teams

could increase the efficacy of the implementation of co-teaching methodology, see Appendix H. The

administrators of special education and principals could customize a strategy plan individualized to their

co-teaching teams at their school or in their district. The intended outcome was for the administrators

of special education to co-create reflection tools (a) with the flexibility to capture the variability of the

different contexts, (b) with enough structure to identify the expected elements of effective co-teacher

dynamics and co-planning, (c) that were simple enough to be used repetitively on-site, and (d) to

eliminate the need for outside vendors and, or one-and-done professional development, thereby

creating sustainability of practices.

Action Step(s) Activities

Using a community of practice format, administrators of special education and principals

supported one another through a reflection and strategy planning process facilitated by the student

researcher. The four-phase, six-step action plan included three virtual synchronous sessions with one

asynchronous self-paced period. The participants developed a shared understanding of terminology and

co-teaching methodology, and then identified participants in their school districts. The participants

drafted reflection tools to be used with their constituents to determine the current level in the process

of implementing co-teaching methodology. As part of the Action Research cycles, the reflection tools

were created, utilized, and revised as part of a feedback cycle. Participants identified strategic plans for

using the reflection tools in their implementation processes.

The Phase One, Step One of the action step established a common understanding of the critical

components of co-teaching methodology. The role of the student-researcher was to facilitate the

participant discussion by providing resources for participants to reflect upon when garnering a shared

39

base of knowledge. While the fundamentals of co-teaching methodology are consistent, there are slight

variations depending upon the leading outside expert's model of co-teaching to which the district

subscribes. The current study does not favor one philosophy over the other. This action step intended to

recognize the idiosyncratic nature of each district based on its philosophies, structures, and status of

implementation. Participants needed a common understanding of the vocabulary, domains, and

elements of co-teaching pedagogy to have interrelated reliability as a foundation for self-reflection,

strategy planning, and implementation of co-teaching methodology and instructional practices in the

classroom.

During Phase Two, Step Two of the action steps, participants co-created reflection tools with the

intent to examine their district's implementation of co-teaching methodology. Participants identified

domains as subcategories for the marker of effective co-teaching dynamics and the marker of effective

co-planning. Participants then created descriptors for each domain across three categories ranging from

approaching, meeting, or exceeding. These markers allow schools or districts to reflect on the expected

co-teaching practices used by the co-teaching teams to develop multimodal instruction to include

students with disabilities in the classroom. Participants developed a reflection tool for each element, co-

teaching dynamics and co-planning. Participants received the tools electronically to use in the next steps

of the phase.

During Phase Two, Step Three, the participants participated in a self-paced module using the

reflection tools in their school or district and collaborated with their stakeholders. Depending upon their

context, the participants collaborated with Central Office Administration, Administrators of Special

Education, Principals, Curriculum Directors, and Co-Teachers. The participants reflected upon their

school or district's phase of co-teaching methodology implementation. They provided feedback on the

setup and structure, usability, and potential application of the tool. The participants were particularly

critical of the language and terminology used to describe each category across the domains. Participants

40

provided written feedback in the form of a 3-2-1 chart identifying three positives, two changes, and one

piece of missing information, for details see Appendix I. The suggested tool revisions were made by the

researcher and provided to participants prior to the start of Step Five.

During Phase Two, Step Four, the participants engaged in a second virtual, synchronous

community of practice session focused on revising the reflection tools and developing strategy plans to

identify administrative strategies to support the co-teaching teams in each school or district. The

participants spoke to the consistency of language used to describe the categories of expectations in

each of the domains. Participants co-developed revisions of the tools to reflect implementation status

versus an evaluative status. The reflection tool design was for the school administrators to use together.

The reflection tool design was not to be forward-facing to co-teachers. However, participant feedback

requested that the language of the tools be inclusive of the co-teacher lens. Therefore, phrases such as

working towards, at the technical level, and understanding the basics of, described the implementation

status. The participants also shifted language from the Intervention Plan to the Strategy Plan. The term

intervention implies a negative connotation versus a growth mindset. The participants identified three

application methods for the tools with an accountability measure for fidelity. Participants verbally

identified their intended tool use during the asynchronous action step.

During Phase Three, the Step Five objective intended for participants to work collaboratively

with other administrators in their school or district to increase support for co-teaching teams using the

co-created and revised reflection tools. At this point, the idiosyncratic nature of the school or district

and the participant's role led to variability in the asynchronous work in that context. Participants

identified using the tools in three ways, and all of the ways utilized a learning walk format. The first way

the participant would conduct a learning walk with a co-administrator, would be by targeting the co-

teaching instructional practices of one co-teaching team in an observation-feedback-observation-

feedback loop. The second way the participant would conduct a learning walk of multiple co-teaching

41

teams with a co-administrator, is to identify overarching strengths or overarching areas of need to

provide professional development. The professional development could be Professional Learning

Community (PLC), Data Meetings, Faculty Meetings, or Professional Development (PD) time. The third

way the participant could use a learning walk with a co-administrator, is to identify exemplary practices

of co-teaching teams as an exemplar of look-for. As part of the data collection, participants provided

written feedback in the form of the 3-2-1 chart prior to the next step of the action plan.

In Phase Four, Step Six was a final Community of Practice session in which participants shared

reflections on their experience as participants, the application of the reflection tools, the utilization of

administrative strategies to support co-teaching teams, and the identification of next steps. Participants

spoke about the potential of using the tools for data collection to identify growth over time and

strategies that address areas needing support. The participants completed a four-question Microsoft

survey after this session to gather participant experience feedback. For more details see Appendix J.

During a 45-minute interview, participants provided feedback on the tool development and revision

process and the application of the tools.

The goal of the Cycle 2 research was to co-create administrative reflection tools to be used to

understand the stage of implementation of co-teaching methodology to develop strategy plans to

advance co-teaching practices in their schools with sustainability. The community of practice sessions

and asynchronous work developed reflection tools for the participants to identify their level of

implementation of the co-teaching methodology, thereby meeting the objective of the action steps.

Participants/Collaborators/ Stakeholders Experience

While the ultimate goal of this research is to improve outcomes for students with disabilities,

this research does not include minors. Consideration was given to the layers of external and internal

stakeholders who are important to the overall impact of co-teaching beyond the classroom instructors.

The Cycle 1 and Cycle 1.5 data and literature indicated the need for school administrators to apply

42

administrative strategies to support the co-teaching teams in developing better lessons and

implementing instructional strategies. Therefore, there are two primary sets of stakeholders crucial to

the Cycle 2 data collection. First, the external stakeholders are the school special education

administrators with the district-level access and power to make transformative leadership decisions and

are primarily responsible for the structure frameworks and oversight of students with disabilities in the

classroom. As a result of the Cycle 1.5 data collection, the internal stakeholders, the principals with

building or school-level autonomy and authority over resource allocation, are necessary to take action

to address the practices required to include students with disabilities in the classroom. The principal

stakeholder controls the daily routines and activities to perform school business. A Google search of

communities within the geographical boundaries of South Shore, Southeastern, and across this State

identified school districts. These public school district websites identified the building principals and

administrators of special education. Using the State Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education (DESE) website, the stakeholders fulfilling these roles were confirmed. Using their

Northeastern email address, the student researcher recruited participants by their publicly obtained

email addresses on their school district’s public website.

Participants in this research were the external and internal stakeholders identified. A principal

who leads a single location or school has increased support and influence on the strategies

implemented, unlike the administrator of special education, who leads multiple sites within a district.

The cycle data indicated that when the knowledge of the administrator of special education combines

with the power of the principal, these stakeholders can effectively assess for areas of growth. They also

have the responsibility to implement interventions to support co-teachers to make changes to

instructional practices in the classroom. Special education administrators can collaborate with their

constituents through the self-assessment and intervention process based on their organizational

structure and other idiosyncratic factors. The principal will have a realistic understanding of the factors

43

that support the efficacy of the intervention developed and implemented, increasing the likelihood of

sustainability. The Cycle 2 action steps intended to pair the administrator of special education with the

principal as a strategy to increase the outcomes for students with disabilities in the general education

classroom, by effectively meeting the markers for inclusion.

Another group of internal stakeholders was the co-teaching team members, who develop the

lessons and deliver the instruction in the classroom. Most importantly, the students benefit from

increased support and strategies that increase the quality and quantity of their access and participation

in the general education curriculum in the classroom. The students are the ultimate group that will

demonstrate the long-term effects of the reflection and strategy planning process. As the self-analysis

and reflection cycles continue, this is an opportunity for these internal stakeholders to become primary

stakeholders. It is not giving away power but developing the power in others (Shilling, 2000). A

leadership team needs to be cognizant of empowering those in the classroom to develop inclusive and

equitable environments. However, for the scope of this research, the focus is on the administrators of

special education and building-based administration.

Cycle 2 Evaluation

Across a four-phased, six-step action plan, several opportunities for reflection and feedback

were integrated into the plan, allowing for the assessment of the effectiveness of the cycle of research.

Document analysis, focus group data collection, active participation in the reflection tool utilization

outside of the community of practice sessions, and semi-structured interviews gained insight into

working towards meeting the intended outcomes of the action steps. The goal of the Cycle 2 research

was to co-create reflection tools to be used to understand the stage of implementation of co-teaching

methodology to develop strategy plans to advance co-teaching practices in their schools with

sustainability. The reflection tools examined the co-teaching model for markers of effective co-planning

and co-teacher dynamics to implement strategies to develop instructional practices with sustainability.

44

Through a community of practice format, administrators of special education and principals supported

one another through a reflection and strategy planning process as facilitated by the student researcher,

which led to the development and refinement of reflection tools. Administrators of special education

and principals were able to determine the strategies that advance co-teaching teams’ development of

multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom.

When breaking down the Cycle 2 research goal, the action plan produced significant progress,

obtaining four out of five objectives and meeting three of the four intended outcomes. The research

met the goal of co-creating an administrator's reflection tools for the elements of co-teaching dynamics

and co-planning. The researcher created an administrative tool as a result of the participants' feedback.

However, the intended evaluation purpose of the tools evolved in a different manner based on

participant feedback. The administrative strategies identified would develop co-teaching instructional

practices further. The level of sustainability is something yet to be determined. Participants identified

the implementation period to on-board co-teaching methodology to be a minimum of a two- to three-

year process. The three participants in the co-teaching implementation stage were able to identify

embedding the tools into their currently existing framework of learning walks with feedback cycles. The

learning walk schedule developed prior to participation in this research prevented multiple cycles of

observation and discrete feedback using the reflection tools during this time. Five of the six participants

presented the co-created tools to co-administrators in their district for the purposes of engaging in

dialogue around their co-teaching methodology and instructional practices. One intent of the research

was to use a shared resource drive for participants to access and add materials related to co-teaching

methodology. Participants only utilized the resources in the slide decks and reflection tools. Two

participants were actively engaged in consultative services by experts in the area. Two participants were

not seeking consultative support but implementing the co-teaching methodology within their district.

45

The last two participants were either well-established or not developing their co-teaching model at this

time.

Lastly, the co-created reflection tools developed have enough flexibility to capture the variability

among the different contexts, enough structure to identify clearly the expected elements of co-teaching

dynamics and co-planning, and are simple enough to be used cyclically on site. The participants reported

there is value and application of the tools whether their district and school were in the second to third

year of co-teaching implementation or not yet embarking on the co-teaching journey. The participating

districts and schools varied in size, staffing, organizational structure, and resource availability. Both the

administrators of special education and building principals reported collaborating with their in-district

co-administrators using the co-created tools as frameworks and guides for discussing the inclusive

practices of their co-teaching teams. One district did report they are in the process of currently phasing

out the role of the outside consultant by building capacity for co-teaching coaching within their district.

However, this was established prior to participating in this research study.

Considering all of the components and complexity of this Cycle 2 research project, when

evaluating the data sources, the action steps effectively progress this research toward meeting its goals,

objectives, and intended outcomes. Through the evolutionary process of Action Research, the Cycle 2

data collected has further supported the administrators of special education and principals in continuing

to implement cycles of reflection and action steps to further their districts’ and schools’ co-teaching

methodology and instructional practices. The findings of this study expand upon current extant

literature and fill the missing component of the role of the administrator of special education in current

research. The research identifies strategies that advance the co-teaching teams' development of

multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom.

46

Cycle 2 Results/Findings

The Cycle 2 data analysis resulted in the following three themes: (1) a philosophy of inclusion,

(2) implementing co-teaching methodology, and (3) sustainable administrative strategies. Subthemes

further supported why each theme was essential to answer the research questions: How can

administrative strategies support co-teaching teams to develop multimodal instruction, and how can

administrators of special education and building principals assess their context to meet the markers of

inclusive practices? The data collected across the six Cycle 2 action steps included focus groups,

document analysis, and participants' semi-structured interviews. From the themes, concrete

administrative strategies identified actions that advance co-teaching teams' development of multimodal

instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. The theme of a philosophy of inclusion

encompassed subthemes of the qualities and characteristics of an educational leader through their

unified and unwavering beliefs and knowledge of co-teaching. The theme of implementing co-teaching

methodology explored subthemes with regard to the instructional leadership required to develop and

execute strategies for co-teaching implementation. The last theme of sustainable administrative

strategies considered subthemes at the classroom level to include co-teaching relationships and co-

planning lessons and delivery of instruction.

Each theme built upon one another with inclusive strategies at the district level to increasingly

discrete focus on the school’s strategies and practices, to the classroom instructional practices. The data

condensation aligned with the nature of the steadfast overarching research question to the more

specific Cycle 2 research questions. The acute attention to co-teaching methodology from an

administrative lens pulled together the findings from Cycle 1 and Cycle 1.5 to build the actions necessary

to move from pedagogy to practice. The philosophy of inclusion was a through line that impacted all

facets of the findings in pursuit of answering the research questions. A belief system is nebulous until

unified by clear communication and solidified in actions by all of the stakeholders in an educational

47

organization. The educational leadership must marry the intention with the execution. The findings were

indicative of this research advancing inclusive practices through the strategic application of co-teaching

methodology to include students with disabilities in the classroom.

Philosophy of Inclusion

The first overarching theme about the philosophy of inclusion developed as part of the

community of practice sessions when the participants engaged in rich discussions while co-creating and

refining the reflection tools. An inclusion philosophy is the inherent values and beliefs that all students

can learn in the least restrictive environment (Murawski, 2020). The success of implementing co-

teaching methodology is reliant upon a unified, unwavering administrative philosophy of inclusion that

fosters a culture of belonging. This culture of belonging is grounded in a depth of knowledge evident in

the actions that penetrate barriers, where everyone is welcome. Stephanie stated, "It is all of our

responsibility for all of the students." When a commitment to inclusion permeates every aspect of an

organization, it anchors practice to pedagogy.

As the three administrators of special education and the three principals described their

district’s implementation status of co-teaching methodology, they provided insight into the realities of

co-teaching implementation, such as not having a unified and unwavering philosophy of inclusion by

administrators or teachers. One administrator of special education, in the planning process of

implementing a co-teaching model at one of the elementary schools in their district, pointed out that

the philosophy of inclusion needs to start with the administration. This participant opined that the

responsibility to bring forward the philosophy of inclusion rests with this role,

I feel like it goes back to what we said, [about] the inclusion philosophy, that special [education]

is not always at the table. And that just speaks volumes to the inclusion philosophy

administratively . … We also [need] to change that system at the administrative level.

48

A fellow administrator of special education, whose school has been implementing co-teaching for the

past three to four years, candidly shared about the ongoing work with implementation:

We're struggling with [co-teaching] at first. The gen ed teacher was just like, oh, well, you know,

either the TA [teaching assistant] or the learning specialist was always with that person [student

with disabilities]. And so then that person [student], the gen ed teacher doesn't really know her.

So, I think there are areas that need work in inclusion. It's when the teachers [say], Oh, your

kids, you go work with your kids over there. I think that's a barrier that, you know, we're still

working with. And I'm gonna be honest, I think we are.

Two administrators spoke about having to gain the buy-in of their co-administrators at the building

level, for the successful implementation of co-teaching. They discussed the impact of the need for

school administrators' knowledge of co-teaching methodology, particularly the principal when enacting

co-teaching with efficacy and sustainability. All of the participants interviewed commented on the need

to define inclusion the same way; otherwise, inclusion is only surface level. Participants were not

negative or derogatory about the lack of continuity around the inclusion philosophy; statements were a

matter of fact. Donna, an administrator of special education said,

The inclusion philosophy, like, I don't know that it's defined from the top down. It's named in

our vision and mission, but I don't think there's a definition. And I think that because of that, I

feel like it's a very surface-level inclusion. I guess is how I look at it, right? Yes, we have unified

sports, or some kids go into gen ed classes for portions. But, I really feel like what we're trying to

get at is that more meaningful, targeted inclusion that makes it equitable access for them

[students with disabilities]. We don't have a clear definition. I think they [the principals] believe

in inclusion for what they think it is, but I don't really know that they truly believe it.

Kassandra, another administrator of special education reflected on the need for a philosophy of

inclusion by stating, “I think that's with just people in general, if you don't see an added value whether

49

it's right or wrong, you're not going to like we're not gonna have a buy-in.” It is important for school

administrators to be consistent in action and voice surrounding their values, but build collective efficacy

by sharing the leadership and responsibility with the staff, students, and even the community. The

subthemes of unified and unwavering beliefs and administrator knowledge are explored in greater detail

in the following sections.

Unified and Unwavering Beliefs

The first subtheme of unified and unwavering beliefs sets the expectations for collective

ownership and responsibility of school administrators and educators over students with disabilities. In

education, there is a ubiquitous application of ownership over students that its membership exhibits

when using phrases such as in my class, in my building, or my district—that is, until discussions involve

marginalized groups and populations of students. Then phrases such as “your kids” and “those kids” get

used. Educators need to change their language from expressions of segregation to inclusive expressions,

such as all kids. The mindset of stakeholders needs to shift. While Donna agreed that all the students

ought to be included, she expressed concern, “It's this philosophy of inclusion and believing all kids can

meet these expectations. I don't know that we're totally there yet.”

To have a unified and unwavering philosophy of inclusion, school leaders must develop a

philosophy of inclusion that expresses the commitment to inclusive practices through action.

Participants and their co-administrators must have a voice in the development of the inclusion

philosophy to establish ownership over the framework to ground the expectations and actions (Perry &

Richardson, 2020). When communicating about inclusion and equity, school administrators must be

intentional with the language they use. Through the development and revision of the administrative

reflection tools, participants demonstrated significant consideration of the phraseology used to describe

the expectations across the domains. At a focus group, Rick shared the conversation he had with the

superintendent of his school district. Their discussion focused on the column labeled approaching, which

50

was intended to describe the elements of co-teacher dynamics and co-planning that indicate a technical

level of co-teaching implementation. Rick, a principal stated, “One common theme that we pulled up

from this column, in particular, is just to be consistent with the language. Whether it stated negatively

or positively, I think, was one thing across the three rubrics that we noticed.” Rick expressed this was

important when sharing reflection tools with co-teachers for “maximum transparency and common

language about, you know, where do they see themselves on continuum.”

School administrators must integrate the language representative of the philosophy of inclusion

into their leadership practices. One principal spoke to a high level of consciousness, when drafting

weekly newsletters using inclusive language. An administrator of special education stated she reframes

stakeholders' language when they use disparaging words, such as heavy-hitter. A principal spoke to the

importance of the administrative role to "speak of it [inclusion] with a frequency that creates a culture

that values it." The participants identified actions as paramount as they model expectations for

inclusivity for teachers and other educators. However, the actions of single-school leaders alone are not

enough. The solidarity of practice by all stakeholders communicates the dedication to growing mindsets.

Donna optimistically expressed, "Our strength is together."

Administrator Knowledge

A second subtheme within the philosophy of inclusion is the administrators of special education

and the principals’ knowledge from which to support the implementation of the co-teaching

methodology. A special education director identified the disconnect between the philosophy of

inclusion and action when stating, "[The principal] can definitely talk the language and understand it, at

least theoretically, what it should look like." A principal well versed in special education expressed, "I

have had years and years of training and experience with good mentors. … We need the principals to

become more fluent in what it's supposed to look like." When the administrators supervising the

implementation of co-teaching do not have sophisticated knowledge of co-teaching, their ability to

51

know what to look for in the classroom diminishes their ability to deliver effective feedback. Lori stated,

"They need actual training, especially if they've never done co-taught. They have no clue what it's

supposed to look like." Donna is in the development stages of the implementation of a co-teaching

model, with the intent of starting next school year. She thought the administrative tool "sparked

conversations" with colleagues as part of the planning process to engage in articulating a philosophy of

inclusion from which to grow. Kathleen, one of the participants furthest along in the implementation

cycle, spoke to the representation of the inclusion philosophy in the School Improvement Plans (SIP),

accountability memos, and documents for public review, but even more important is the "consistent

messaging from documents to practices."

Another administrative strategy that advances co-teaching is providing school administrators

with professional development in co-teaching methodology and instructional practices. A participant

lamented, "People don't understand what ‘least restrictive’ means, or they've forgotten what it means."

The participant statements made during the Community of Practice sessions did not have an egregious

tone or one of apathy. Moreover, there needs to be more understanding of the intimate details of the

co-teaching methodology. Participants compared principals with strong special education backgrounds

to unicorns. Lori explained, "So, I just feel like significant more training has to happen admin-wise and

more support for them so that we can support these teachers because they're trying." At least three of

the nine participants have a contract with a professional for consultative support to implement their co-

teaching model. Of the consultants with expert knowledge of co-teaching methodology, three were

local, and one was national. The esteemed experts in the field were hired over the past three to five

years to provide professional development to educators. As reported, only Kathleen referenced direct

support for principals using professional consultative support to "figure it out and problem solve." Using

outside consultants requires a fiscal commitment when there is an in-house expert who can also support

the implementation of the co-teaching methodology. The administrator of special education role is one

52

every school district must have under state and federal regulations. Their primary role is not only to

comply legally but also to possess the knowledge of how disabilities impact students in the classroom

and the strategies necessary to close the gaps. The role of the special education administrator is an

internal resource that should be leaned into by the other district leadership beyond legal compliance

and crisis management.

An articulated philosophy of inclusion sets the stage for actions that advance co-teaching teams'

development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities. Implementing unified

strategies by educational leaders targets the ableist practices that perpetuate marginalization. As co-

teaching evolves in the participants' school districts, co-teaching will shift from a new initiative to being

ingrained in the routines of educators. Deb forecasts,

I'm hoping that over time it becomes more of their building culture, rather than special ed

bringing this initiative for a few classrooms. That teachers see the positive impacts. We have

data to support it. We see, you know, we have observational anecdotal data. We have objective

data; all of that to back it. Then, the principal will almost overtake the lead at some point to

make it more of a building culture. You know, this is our expectation.

The lack of cohesion between the mission, value, and vision, and the district-wide leadership

practices leads to pockets of inconsistency of equitable access which impacts student achievement in

the areas of personal and academic excellence (Cheatham et al., 2020).

Implementing Co-Teaching Methodology

The second theme explored the factors necessary to implement co-teaching methodology with

fidelity. The subthemes identified the need for the participants to develop co-teaching reflection tools to

identify high-quality instructional co-teaching practices and to implement accountability systems. The

administration must be explicit and intentional when defining expectations for the utilization of co-

teaching methodology by co-teaching teams, when both developing and delivering multimodal

53

instruction within the systems of continuous improvement. Unified and unwavering belief systems

anchored in action using structures and systems develop a district's practices beyond the technical

implementation of co-teaching.

Through the process-driven action steps to co-create reflection tools with cycles of revision,

participants spoke about what co-teaching is and is not. Kassandra, from a special education point of

view, stated:

I think they [co-teachers] have a handle [on co-teaching]. I think they know what it is, and they

think they know what it is, and they think they're doing it. But they're not. I think that's like that

where the disconnect is. I think they know what it is. I don't think they're implementing it with

efficacy.

Lori described effective co-teaching as:

You don't know who the [general education] teacher is or [who] the Sped teacher is. I'll never

forget that first moment I trained my staff, and that first time I did an observation. You just

wanted to cry; you would get goosebumps. You're like, Oh, my God, this is what this is, what co-

teaching is. … You can't tell who's who. They bounced off each other like they've been married

for 60 years.

Chuck identified the challenges when co-teaching expectations are not defined clearly for each member

of the dyad. He reflected upon a previous experience:

I've also seen this other Sped teacher, who 9 times out of 10. She seems to do these sort of

there and standing around, sort of, every once in a while, parroting what the classroom teacher

is saying. And she became a teacher who was impossible to do an unannounced observation on

because she was never really doing anything.

When school administrators are not able to effectively evaluate staff or provide feedback to the

teachers without clear expectations for all, classroom instruction does not evolve. The participants were

54

united in determining expectations for multimodal lesson development and instruction delivery when

developing the administrative reflection tools. During the session one focus group discussions,

participants identified strategies used by administrators to increase the efficacy of co-teaching and

structures for accountability.

An unexpected development was that all of the participants' school districts have a practice of

conducting non-evaluative learning walks with co-administrators. Learning walks are short observations

in classrooms with a targeted focus, followed by opportunities to debrief the observation. During the

debrief sessions, co-administrators share reflections to ensure interrelated reliability and consistency of

practices observed and to provide feedback to the educators. Three of the nine participants from

session one and session two, have learning walk guides or tools previously developed. The tools of these

participants did not focus on co-teaching. Four of the nine participants were interested in using the co-

created tools to reflect on their co-teaching implementation. Lori explained the importance of having a

tool or guide for learning walks,

I think if you have a principal or an AP [assistant principal] to train on learning walks. And they

don't have the lens of special ed, and have no experience of actually being a co-teacher, I feel

like it's extremely valuable to those administrators. They may not really necessarily be familiar

with what to look for. I'm just thinking about conversations I've had with colleagues. And I feel

like, it's a good resource even to say, like, Oh, yeah, that's what I need to look for.

Participant discourse included methods of how the co-created reflection tools integrated into current in-

district systems of learning walks and feedback cycles. They also discussed how the tools could drive

conversations to make changes to the administrative practices that oversee the implementation of co-

teaching. Kathleen, whose district has implemented co-teaching methodology over the past two to

three years, informed the other members of her cohort how she used the reflection tools. She stated,

55

[It’s] a conversation starter really. It really kind of grounded us. When I first started to use it [co-

created reflection tool], I had picked one particular principal and we were already looking at it

[co-teaching]. So we had a rubric of our own. So honestly, it was a lot of looking at it and saying,

Oh that, I think that language is better. I think that's what ours is meaning to say. Or where does

this fit in from our rubric? And checked it to yours [co-created reflection tool]. So it really just

became a conversation about saying where are they, the where are the skill sets in each of these

components that we're looking for?

The three participants with established learning walk processes in their districts spoke critically of the

need for accountability systems for both the co-administrators and the co-teachers to follow up on the

feedback given. Lori specified the support the reflection tools provided to make changes to her

practices,

I feel like the tool helped me to solidify [my practice]. Obviously, I'm looking for this year's

instructional purposes, but for the co-teaching pieces. It was already a focus for us. It's helping

me organize my depth feedback and then knowing to go back and hold them [co-teachers]

accountable.

Co-teaching is a costly endeavor when two educators are committed to the planning and

delivery of instruction for one classroom. Consideration needs to be given to the implementation and

sustainability plan when executing co-teaching methodology, as well as the communication of explicit

expectations for continuity and consistency. The subthemes will further describe the process and

purpose of co-teaching reflection tools and systems of accountability for using the reflection tools.

Developing Co-Teaching Reflection Tools

Across the participants’ schools and districts are standard administrative instructional leadership

practices tangible to shaping classroom experiences for students by examining teacher educational

practices. The most significant administrative practice was learning walks. These are non-evaluative

56

classroom observations conducted with a predetermined purpose using a guide to focus the leadership

on classroom instructional practices. The focus of action step two homed in on the practices

administrators would expect to see in the co-taught classrooms. The participants dissected the

particulars of co-teaching methodology to produce a reflection tool with clarity and precision to use as a

guide for the learning walk process. Stephanie identified the benefit of “some of these tools, is it [co-

teaching] happens less by accident and needs to be more explicit.” Pronounced through the action steps

was the participants' shift in terminology to growth mindset language. For example, the intent of the

student researcher was for the participants to assess their implementation of co-teaching. Through

participant-driven discussion, the term assessment changed to reflection. One principal felt the term

assessment “had an end-point not reflecting growth.” Lori described the reflection tools as “Articulate.

So, the instruction needs to be really clear and concise and structured or organized.” Rick identified how

“the meeting and extending categories were clear and established what to observe in an effective co-

teach planning meeting or classroom” on the tool evaluation form.

A positive, unintended development for the application of the reflection tools was for these

tools to be forward-facing to the co-teachers. Paula explained how the tools could be used with co-

teachers in a supportive manner, “This is a really good way for us to sit down and talk about these

different domains. … These are some things that I'll be looking for. I say to teachers, you can't fix what

you don't know.” Chuck expressed, “There's some benefit to having the fact that you're coming as a

professional with materials. That you're using a guide for your discussion, I think is a positive.” However,

having a reflection tool focused on co-teaching is not enough. Administrators and co-teachers need to

engage in discussions that are targeted at co-teaching practices with critical feedback and follow-up to

create fidelity in the implementation of co-teaching methodology.

Accountability Systems

57

Accountability is two-fold, encompassing both the administrator and the co-teachers. It is

incumbent upon the administrator to have a system developed and implemented to observe, provide

feedback, and go back in a timely manner to see if the feedback was implemented. Kathleen, an

administrator of special education who does not have supervisory authority over a principal, stated, "It's

hard because it's you, holding the principals accountable who have to hold the teachers accountable.”

Lori referred to the feedback cycle as “I need to progress monitor the [co-teachers] progress

monitoring.” The co-teaching team must consider the explicit feedback and make adjustments to their

planning and delivery of instruction. The concrete simplicity of the co-planning tool allows the

administrator to ask specific questions about the instructional practice observed and its connection to

the planning of that practice. As an administrator of special education, Bruce stated, “So that we know

we are identifying the quality skills behind co-teaching.” As part of the feedback cycle, it is also

incumbent upon the administrator to track the types of feedback given to determine whether the

individual or co-teaching team requires small or large-scale professional development. One principal

reported that their district’s co-administration team created a Google sheet for tracking feedback that

was color-coded to prioritize the classrooms for follow-up. The learning walk observation-feedback

cycles are shorter than summative educator evaluations—which are typically lag indicators—with the

shorter cycles increasing both the frequency and quality of feedback an educator receives. The

reflection tools provide more points of contact, communication, and feedback, highlighting growth in

real-time. When growth is visible in meaningful ways, those involved in co-teaching feel the work they

are doing matters.

Sustainable Administrative Strategies

The third theme further draws upon the philosophy of inclusion to create understanding

through action by focusing on the co-teaching model markers of effective co-teacher dynamics and co-

planning at the general education classroom level. Multi-faceted accountability for the commitment to

58

implementing co-teaching starts with school administrators modeling behaviors that demonstrate the

belief system of inclusion. Lori stated, “So, that's, I think, holding ourselves accountable for that. And

breaking out of our kind of our own administrative, our own defaults. So that they trust that when we're

committed to it [co-teaching], they will build commitment with it, too.” The commitment means

providing the resources necessary to make the co-teaching model effective. Kathleen expanded on this

concept when she said:

A co-teaching model is being true to the commitment. Right? So, I think the original fear from

teachers that I've heard is that it's a change. Whether it means it means they're not gonna have

the paraprofessional support or whatever it looks like. Are they gonna have the planning time to

be able to do this? We are gonna give you extra planning time, whatever it is, then we can't also

take that away because we don't have enough subs in the building.

Commitment from the school administration also includes a commitment to the Central Office

executives. Kathleen was the first participant to speak to connect the fiscal commitment of co-teaching

to the understanding of the business and finance director. She said:

I think about the inclusion philosophy. I think the one thing as I am thinking about it now. And

we're all in the middle of budgets, right? That, it's all so important to make sure that the

business manager understands the philosophy. …from his [business manager] perspective, he's

looking at it. As there are two professionally salaried people are very in one particular

classroom. Is this the most efficient use of our financial resources? ... We always, as

administrators look at, okay, we're stuck with budgets, and we have an obligation to be fiscally

responsible. To find that right balance between what's needed, what's appropriate, and not

exceeding.

Lori spoke about the increased staffing needs and some of the technical challenges when implementing

co-teaching.

59

It's hard for the co-teachers; they are in there for a block of math and a block of literacy. So it

takes a lot more staffing, obviously, given the dynamics of my school. … It's just the complexity

of scheduling. As with most schools, especially middle school, like you. So, I think that we need

to have that continued support and that time.

As a principal, Lori spoke to her fiscal responsibility to collect data to prove the model is worthy or in

order to advocate for more resources. She expressed:

I'm grateful that upper administration has been open to this. I do feel like the data needs to

prove itself. It has to show that it works…. Make sure your data is showing its worth. If not,

there is the chance that you're out. You know what I mean? It doesn't matter because your data

doesn't show it. I can't fight for it, something that's not working.

Understanding the accountability measures, as the administrators of special education and principals

have described, school leaders must be intentional with the strategies that advance the co-teacher

relationships, co-planning lessons, and delivery of instruction. For sustainable co-teaching methodology,

administrative strategies must target the development and implementation of systems with fidelity.

When considering the systems of a school district, it is essential to divide the structures similar to that of

the co-teaching tools: dynamics and planning. While it is not possible to fully separate the people from

the process, when identifying administrative strategies to support co-teaching methodology, it is

necessary to do so. The following subthemes examine the co-teaching relationships and the co-planning

of lessons and delivery of instruction.

Co-Teaching Relationships

Predominant in the Cycle 1 and Cycle 1.5 findings, the relationships between co-teachers can

have a profound impact on the success of students with disabilities in the classroom. Leadership must

be intentional and proactive when pairing co-teachers. Participants identified several common

strategies to develop the co-teaching dynamics critical to setting the expectations of co-planning.

60

Administrative strategy is a necessary component when embarking on the co-teaching implementation

journey, particularly around the co-teaching dynamics. When developing the co-teacher dynamic

reflection tool, Chuck conveyed,

We're writing all this stuff out, which is beautiful. But, if you're a teacher this all seems pretty

overwhelming. This lot of stuff and you're sort of like, oh, my God! Can I do all this stuff? But it's

getting back to forming the right co-teaching team. If you have the right co-teaching team, a lot

of this becomes just so embedded in what you do every day.

The participants that recently established co-teaching or are planning to, both articulated the need to

start with volunteers as part of a pilot. Volunteers included principals from the administrator of special

education’s standpoint. Donna was cognizant that many of the principals in this district were new or just

starting their administrative careers; versus the population of educators who were largely long-standing

teachers. She reflected positively on the new administrators, “They're learning personalities, which

could be an asset in terms of coming in with fresh eyes and mixing things up.” However, she also

thought, “Just their [co-teachers] perspective on the district and what has always been done. I think just

the belief system and a shift in practice is going to be challenging.” The dynamic requires strategy

planning as part of the implementation process.

As learned in the previous findings, without buy-in, co-teaching will not be implemented with

the intention and fidelity necessary to move beyond surface-level inclusion. While different participants

had unique strategies for pairing co-teachers, the intent was based on logical reasoning. Lori’s strategy

paired stronger teachers with weaker teachers or new teachers with seasoned teachers to build

modeling into the collaborative work. Pairing novice educators to start co-teaching with experienced co-

teachers ensures that at least one person in the dyad is familiar with co-teaching methodology. A

principal spoke to the benefit of keeping the established pairings together for two to three years, as

there is “a rhythm, and understanding each other's communication style. Also, trust.” It takes time to

61

learn each other's personalities. Donna recommended that leadership be mindful of historical events

that make pairings poor or require “breaking up some of these dysfunctional marriages.” Stephanie

identified that co-teaching can “be emotional for people” to have to “relinquish control.” Also,

educational leaders should “facilitate collaboration” with the premise that teachers “care a lot about

making sure they’re providing kids what they need to be successful.” Chuck referenced intentionality

throughout the hiring process. This participant recommended that the reflection tools be utilized as part

of the interview process, making the expectations of the district and school clear from the beginning.

Given the rate of turnover or the size of a district, the opportunities to build co-teaching teams may be

limited.

Participants from smaller districts referenced greater importance in setting expectations for the

co-teaching dynamics versus the actual pairings. One administrator of special education highlighted that

the size of the district and schools meant there were limited choices for pairings, given the number of

special education and general education teachers from which to choose. Implementing strategies to

address the challenge Stephanie identified, “You and I both know not all the not all co-teaching teams

are as effective as others or communicate as well as others.” Chuck expanded upon the role of the

educational leader, “Yes, we know what their titles are, but what were they doing?” If we left it up to

them "to figure out how that works without any sense of like a tool or like guidance," it is not fair;

leadership needs to help set people up for success. The co-teacher dynamic reflection tool is a tangible

strategy that clearly communicates the expectations of the co-teaching partners. The strategic

application of the learning walk practice provides administrators with opportunities to engage the co-

teachers in dialogue about their work with one another. Shifting the focus from the people to the work

they are doing in a structured and explicit nature reduces emotionality by focusing on actions.

Co-Planning Lessons and Delivery of Instruction

62

Albeit the co-teaching relationship is necessary for the success of co-teaching, a strong dynamic

cannot mask the failure of uncalculated lesson development and delivery. Entering a classroom where

co-teaching is happening, as identified on the co-planning reflection tool at the extending level, Lori

described, “You just know it [co-teaching] when you see it. It’s magical. It's so good you could cry.”

However, the term magic might underrepresent the work that goes into methodically planning the

lesson through the delivery of instruction. Given the co-teachers are in the classroom working directly

with students and are typically the focus when discussing co-teaching, the role of the administrator can

be grossly underestimated. The administrative lens communicates the importance of co-planning

through the logistical systems of the school environment, the building schedule and practices that

facilitate common planning, and the feedback from the learning walks connecting classroom actions to

meaningful planning, again pulling the inclusion philosophy from pedagogy to practice.

Co-planning Lessons. Co-planning lessons require the co-teachers to identify the curriculum

standards and a target objective for the lesson, match the instructional activity to the co-teaching

model, and select the manner in which to deliver the instruction for maximum student engagement.

Kassandra engages her co-teachers in the discussion “to pick a learning target. All our kids need to

practice all those things. But pick one thing and scaffold that.” She also spoke about empowering the

special education teachers in the co-planning process,

I think the teachers to be able to feel okay that they can go and tell them [general education

teachers] like, Hey, we're gonna pull a small group and work on this poem for two days instead

of doing like four poems over a week because you are going so fast. That's where they're like,

Oh, we can do that. So by having those conversations, I'm trying to empower them to be able to

have their own voice in the planning.

Stephanie explained the roles and responsibilities of the co-teachers as the general education teachers

know the skills and content, and the special education teachers have the expertise on accommodations.

63

Donna and Kassandra's school districts are using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) when developing

the methods to deliver instruction to the students, ensuring multiple modes of representation,

engagement, action, and expression. The co-created co-planning reflection tool purposefully divided the

domains into the co-planning and delivery of instruction to match the intended outcomes to the

classroom actions. Rick identified that the co-planning reflection tool provides the school administrators

a guide to engaging co-teachers in discussions to connect “planning with instruction.”

Co-planning Time. Time is something there is never enough of during a school day, never mind

the competing factors for the little time that does exist. Time for co-planning must be held sacred. Lori

and Kathleen, the participants who are farthest along in the co-teaching implementation, spoke to the

principal's commitment to the philosophy of inclusion as paramount to developing a schedule that

prioritizes co-planning time over other competing factors. Lori stated, “So, I almost feel like sometimes

when they build the master schedule, it can be very limiting in terms of not looking at special ed that

piece of it.” Taking the complexity of the schedule a step beyond is the ability of the leadership to

identify other times at which meaningful conversations can occur around the co-teaching methodology.

Participants have been creative in the use of Professional Learning Communities (PLC), Faculty and

Department or Grade-level meetings, and professional development time. As an administrative strategy,

all of the participants referenced using time over the summer for professional development. Participants

spoke about leveraging time with other district leadership to embed co-teaching methodology into

other district initiatives or back the co-teaching professional development fiscally. Donna identified the

next influential leader mentioned as the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, as this

is the person usually planning professional development and developing district initiatives. One principal

and two administrators of special education identified using the Assistant Superintendent as an ally,

holding other administrators accountable for committing to co-teaching, including implementing a

walkthrough-feedback cycle with integrity.

64

Clear Expectations. Administratively, leadership must communicate clear expectations for the

use of planning time as well as provide structure for implementing the expectations, which is imperative

to providing feedback on meeting the identified expectations. Stephanie set expectations, “People have

to come to that conversation prepared. I found when people are not prepared for that conversation. It

trends towards unproductive time.” Lori valued the co-planning reflection tool because it “forces you to

look at each of the different areas as far as planning.” Then, also for feedback, because it “helps them to

realize ‘So that's what you're looking for.’ And they would try to reproduce that the next time.” A

principal referenced, with their co-administrator, the co-planning tool supported the conversation to ask

co-teachers, “Where in the co-planning did you decide this? What did that look like?” The co-planning

reflection tool guides conversations to start with wondering versus judgment. The focus of the

discussion became less about checking a box and more about advancing the process of learning and

student engagement.

Accountability. There is additional accountability for the administrators and the co-teachers. In

some participating school districts, the co-teachers must document their planning using a protocol,

which administrators must monitor. One district has co-teachers produce a protocol sharing completed

work after the professional development session. One administrator of special education reviews the

weekly grade-level English Language Arts (ELA) and Math documents, asking questions and providing

feedback. One principal reflected on the co-planning tool as a guide to “help me do my job better.”

Administrative oversight ensures that the co-teaching models are accurately incorporated into

classroom activities, principles for UDL to make the lesson accessible to all learners, barriers are planned

for, and the identified learning objective is met.

Conclusion

The intent of this research was to identify the strategies that advance co-teaching teams to

develop multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

65

Through the co-creation of administrative reflection tools, administrators of special education and

principals described their lived experiences of co-teaching methodology implementation. The process-

driven Action Research created opportunities for the participants to reflect upon their district's status of

co-teaching implementation to plan strategies to increase the efficacy of their co-teaching model. The

strategies identified are centralized around three themes: a philosophy of inclusion, implementing co-

teaching methodology, and sustainable administrative strategies. Each theme builds upon the prior

theme to develop action steps that close the gap between pedagogy and practice in general education

classrooms.

Districts and schools can implement strategies in their context with (a) the flexibility to consider

the variability of their educational community; (b) enough structure that the expectations of co-teaching

methodology are transparent, explicit, and transferable to administrators and co-teachers; (c) simple

enough to support any co-teaching team or teams independent of where they are in the

implementation phase, and (d) build to creating in-house professionals increasing sustainability. Using

strategies to implement co-teaching with intentionality creates clear expectations that honor the

commitment and dedication to increasing outcomes for students with disabilities.

Utilizing active strategies that are concrete, explicit, and visual assists both the educational

leaders and co-teachers in implementing co-teaching methodology and instructional practices with

fidelity and sustainability. The Cycle 2 findings are steeped in distinct actions from which to ground

pedagogy in practice. Supreme in the strategies are tools for accountability that build continuity and

consistency by even more importantly communicating the unwavering philosophy of inclusion. As

described, each tool has the purpose of articulating strategies that advance the co-teaching teams’

development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the general education

classroom. The Co-Teacher Dynamics tool examines co-teacher work habits, inclusion philosophy,

planning style, in the classroom, and communication style. The Co-planning tool divided each domain

66

into two parts, planning and delivery of instruction, as each of these areas is intertwined as part of the

co-teaching methodology. The domains of this tool were standards, scope and sequence, co-teaching

methodology, instructional strategies, and student engagement. The reflection tools are designed to

consider the strengths and areas of growth for the school or district’s implementation of co-teaching

methodology and instructional practices. Post this community of practice, a third tool for Administrative

Strategies was developed based on the student researcher’s analysis of the community of practice

session one. The Administrative Tool considered Inclusion Philosophy, Instructional Leadership, and

Professional Development. The reflection tools developed and implemented in this study provide the

construct for clarity and cohesiveness, from which to root all of the other strategies that advance co-

teaching teams’ development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the

general education classroom building fidelity and sustainability of inclusive practices.

67

Section Three: Literature Review

This action research study investigated the strategies that advance co-teaching teams’

development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. The

problem of practice examined the lack of collaborative educational leadership to eliminate the barriers

created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and deficit approaches to instructing students with disabilities,

limiting access to the general education curriculum and classroom. Ableist practices intentionally and

unintentionally create deficit mindsets, impeding the implementation of pedagogy, methodology,

frameworks, and instructional practices that combat the marginalization of students with disabilities.

This research developed a sense of urgency for the administrator of special education, in collaboration

with the principal, to address barriers to equity and inclusion in the general education classroom for

students with disabilities. By examining a district or school’s implementation of research-based

interventions rooted in culturally sustaining pedagogy, co-teaching methodology with instructional

practices, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL), school leaders can close the gap between the

application of pedagogy and practice. This research explored the missing element of sustainability as it

applies to the specific elements of co-teaching pairing for stronger relationships and co-planning

processes. Through the identification of strategies that advance the implementation of co-teaching,

approaches to planning and delivering daily instruction can overcome barriers and obstacles to equity

and inclusion at the classroom level and, ultimately, for the entire school community..

This body of literature analyzes the existing research to provide context for the problem of

practice. The literature examines the leadership and instructional facets that fail to cultivate inclusive

and equitable environments for marginalized student populations through three major themes. The first

theme examines the lack of collaborative educational leadership. This theme explores the impact of

school administrators on the development of actions for sustainability through collaboration. The

second theme identifies barriers created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and deficit approaches to

68

instructing students with disabilities. The third theme seeks to understand the impact of limiting access

to the general education curriculum and classroom. This theme brings the pedagogical and theoretical

frameworks to instructional practices by focusing on co-teaching methodology.

Articles for all themes in this review were retrieved from Scholar One Search, Education

Research Complete, JSTOR, Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and ERIC using keywords

such as co-teaching methodology, administration, inclusion, special education, students with disabilities,

inclusive instructional practices, learning walks, and teacher self-efficacy

Lack of Collaborative Educational Leadership:

When Bill Clinton was the Chairperson of the Educational Commission of the States, he said,

“Leadership is the most important aspect of school reform, yet least understood” (Murphy,

1988). Administrative oversight over special education programming is one of the most critical

responsibilities of the principal due to the legal complexities of policies and practices implemented to

comply with state and federal regulations. The principal is just one of the school leaders responsible for

ensuring the appropriate administration of inclusive practices. One central office executive, the

administrator of special education, of equal importance, if not more so, assumes this role with the

principal. As outlined in their professional standards, administrators of special education and principals

must have the knowledge, skills, and character to promote effective and efficient programming for

special education. The professional standards expect school administrators to ensure equitable access to

high-quality educators, curriculum, and instruction for all marginalized populations (Massachusetts

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, n.d.). The school administrators must be

intimately familiar with the special education administrative responsibilities required to meet the

foundational elements of the law, including reporting on the data for State Performance Plans (SSP) and

Annual Performance Reports (APR) on graduation rates, suspension rates, state assessment data, least

69

restrict data and disproportionality. Most importantly, the administrative climate cultivates inclusive

and culturally sustainable practices and sets student expectations (Gilson & Etscheidt, 2022).

Collaboration between School Leaders

Administrators are obligated to develop the district and building structures to carry out the

instructional practices that drive inclusivity and equity by applying the understanding that pedagogy

entails a theory of teaching and learning, and methodology is the system of teaching and learning.

Grounding the theoretical underpinning of inclusion to specific instructional methodology and

instructional practices addresses skill deficits and increases outcomes with fidelity and sustainability.

Educational leaders at the district and building-based levels have the oversight necessary to intertwine

the threads of culture, structure, systems, resources, and stakeholders to tie the strategy and theory of

change together to strengthen the instructional core. Using intentional administrative strategies to build

structures to advance co-teaching methodology creates a culture of belonging for students with

disabilities (Perry & Richardson, 2022).

The unification of school leaders through developing critical self-awareness of the values and

beliefs when serving marginalized populations brings cognizance to the work necessary to advance the

equity agenda for students with disabilities in the context in which they lead. To understand the

leadership skills necessary to advance teaching and learning for improved student outcomes, central

office leaders need to assess the organization's baseline capacity for developing philosophies of

inclusion to increase the efficacy of administrators of special education and principals as instructional

leaders. School leaders must integrate the edicts and expectations for students with disabilities in the

classrooms with actual instructional methodology and instructional practices. A solution-oriented

approach to developing a growth mindset assists every teacher in performing at their highest level

(Honig, 2019; Murawski & Dieker, 2013). It has been rare that the focus has been on the development of

Central Office Administration and Principals collaboratively as educational leaders in terms of building

70

coherence, developing theories of action, and bringing pedagogy to practice strengthening the

instructional core (Honig, 2019; Perry & Richardson, 2020). Using toolkits and processes highlights not

only areas of growth but also the strengths for celebration.

Central Office

Central office leadership needs to be more direct and targeted in designing systems of

collaboration, capitalizing on the strengths, talents, and knowledge of the principal and administrator of

special education to grow as instructional leaders. Without this targeted approach, inconsistencies

affect leaders’ ability to follow a theory of action model embedded in a systematic and data-driven plan

into practice with sustainability and fidelity, particularly co-teaching in the forefront. Therefore,

administrators of special education and principals have not designed a system of support for their co-

teachers based on their understanding of teachers as learners, which negatively impacts culture (Perry &

Richardson, 2022). Therefore, co-teachers are inconsistent with their ability to develop lessons aligned

to co-teaching methodology, incorporating UDL, specially designed instruction, and differentiation of

instruction to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. As a result, students with

disabilities' learning are negatively impacted by inconsistent lesson development, limiting access to the

curriculum in the general education classroom. Despite the well-articulated plans, school leaders are

often not methodical in applying the skills necessary to complete the monumental juggle of vertical and

horizontal cohesion, cultivating community support, and building the collective efficacy of staff for

students. School leaders may have efficiently run organizations with perfunctory opportunities for

participation. However, the opportunities to develop a culture to meet the agreed-upon mission, values,

and goals for inclusion are still greatly lacking. The district’s central office executives, in collaboration

with the school-level leadership, can develop the coherence necessary by aligning their philosophy of

inclusion to consistent practices that communicate a unified and unwavering message for school reform,

71

moving the equity agenda forward for students with disabilities (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Perry &

Richardson, 2020).

Role of the Principal

A school principal holds one of the most pertinent roles in a district situated at one building,

their understanding of resources, and the level of empowerment given by the Central Office. As a result,

the principal can have the most profound impact on the cultural responsiveness of instruction and

student learning (Khalifa et al., 2016). Principals are responsible for balancing conflicts and establishing

coherence to the district structures and systems for teaching and learning with the idiosyncrasies of the

school. Principals know and understand the district’s leadership, which at times can be in direct conflict

with the views of the body of educators (Perry & Richardson, 2022). Principals are also responsible for

creating conditions that seek out opportunities for growth and excellence and enhance the school's

capacity to respond to opportunities as they arise, intensifying positive school culture. Depending upon

the variables of the school district, such as organizational structure, size, and the number of buildings

(i.e., multiple elementary schools), the principalship may have minimal control over some of the factors

suggested by Kruse & Louis (2008), as crucial to their particular building. A school principal has a multi-

faceted role in creating organizational change to cultivate a genuinely inclusive environment

(DeMatthews et al., 2020). Principals, as educational leaders, can create inclusive schools by challenging

the status quo of special education and the existing ideologies that continue to promote racism and

ableism (DeMatthews et al., 2020).

Building Culture through a Coherence Framework:

The district and building-level leadership can influence change and the impact on student

performance. Imperative to the central office, with principals as instructional leaders, build a culture

that drives the instructional core forward, meeting the needs of the most needy and diverse learners to

achieve the equity agenda for all students to perform at their highest capacity. Vital to organizational

72

development, educational leaders must understand the technical aspects of addressing change and the

adaptive leadership skills entrenched in a double-loop growth process (Heifetz & Linsky, 2004; Perry &

Richardson, 2022). Using a coherence framework as a theory of action can serve as a tool to focus

direction by stating the district's beliefs and values, cultivate collaborative cultures, deepen learning by

focusing on the instructional core, and build relationships for accountability and shared responsibility.

Building cultural competence extends beyond the classroom through school-wide instructional (a

program of studies, language immersion, and teacher development programs to increase personal and

pedagogical knowledge) and structural supports (cohesive and collaborative vision, decision-making,

community) (Hargreaves et al., 2007; Perry & Richardson, 2022; Tichnor-Wagner, 2019). A coherence

framework incorporates the processes necessary to align efforts for the shared vision of increased

student access and equity. Successful leadership is embedded in setting the direction via a shared vision

and priorities, developing people through capacity-developing activities, and reforming the organization

through collective efficacy (Perry & Richardson, 2022; Tichnor-Wagner, 2019)

Educational leaders need to ensure that the organizational elements and stakeholders are

leveraged to develop and strengthen the critical lens to enact change (Cheatham et al., 2020). No one

educator can close the gaps caused by racial inequality in schools despite their best intentions and

considerable efforts. Advancing equity depends on developing a critical mass of equity warriors to push

past the covert and overt existing systems and structures to educate all students well (Perry &

Richardson, 2022). To develop this critical mass, districts and schools must develop employees’ intrinsic

motivation and a sense of organizational stewardship through a new level of self-awareness and shared

responsibility. It will be necessary to not only describe the faults of others but also be truthful about

their behavior and motivation (Argyris, 1994). The concepts of diplomacy and moral persuasion are most

striking from Perry & Richardson (2022) are the concepts of diplomacy and moral persuasion. The equity

agenda is moved forward by having stakeholders use the power of persuasion to connect with their

73

sense of “doing the right thing” through building trust and support. When building relationships,

authentic lived experiences or “stories” can shape the understanding of the data collected and

presented. Using a narrative that appeals to the heart and develops meaningful connections where

educators and the community can understand one another’s perspectives (Fernandez, 2002). As a

Central Office leader, the special education director has both the content knowledge and social

collateral to make impactful change. The burden of execution of the co-teaching model seems to rest

most heavily with the building-based leadership (McCaw, 2020; Sinclair et al., 2018).

Conclusion

The school administrator's role includes critical evaluation of their context for strengths and

areas of growth. Action plans developed using a theory of action and coherence framework to elevate

stakeholders' voices with an intentional focus on sustainability. Educational leaders possess some

influence and control over the context and components of efficacy, providing opportunities as learning

teams with educators to change policies and practices, minimizing the adverse effects of marginalizing

practices (Schwarz, 2013). Strength-based frameworks can change the ways we think about teaching

and learning in the context of race and ableism (Alim et al., 2017).

Lack of Inclusive Pedagogy and Deficit Approaches to Instructing Students with Disabilities

When examining the barriers to equity and inclusion, one must start with the historical

oppression and normative assumptions of ableism that impact the access of students with disabilities in

general education classrooms. Additionally, to assist students in examining the world in more racially

just ways, stakeholders need to dig deeper into the instructional practices and procedures for educating

students (Matias & Newlove, 2017). Schools can analyze their practices more accurately for their

contribution to societal-level racial disparity (Blaisdell, 2016). Utilizing culturally proficient pedagogy to

examine organizational structures empowers school leaders to implement and sustain equitable

practices in the school and district, disrupting the processes that create educational gaps (Welborn,

74

2019). Educators must understand how their identities evolve and influence their response to biases,

either countering or perpetuating social injustices. Teachers are better able to be change agents when

provided with opportunities to reflect and investigate their assumptions and the realities of their biases

(Samuels, 2018). When principals, as instructional leaders, frame educational discourse based on

structures and evidence-based practices, it minimizes the narrative of students’ perceived lack of

performance, thereby working to eliminate ableist discourse and practices (Cheatham et al., 2020;

Giangreco, 2019). Education leaders can use critical consciousness and knowledge to change school

experiences within the local context (Kozleski et al., 2017). Educational leaders as change agents must

carefully plan and facilitate the integration of reflexivity on barriers to equity and inclusion,

incorporating culturally sustaining practices as the framework for high-quality instruction and utilizing

robust professional development to increase the ways of knowing for educators to create equitable and

inclusive environments for students with disabilities. (Kozleski et al., 2017; Sinclair et al., 2018).

Lack of Inclusive Pedagogy

When examining the barriers to equity and inclusion, the lack of inclusive pedagogy creates

oppression and normative assumptions of ableism that impact the access of students with disabilities in

general education classrooms. A cultural disconnect between teachers and students leads to teachers

employing a pervasive deficit mindset, blaming students and their families for perceived inadequacies

and lower academic achievement (Samuels, 2018). Educational leaders must focus on intersecting forms

of oppression that overtly or covertly condone racism or ableism (Alim et al., 2017). Unfortunately, very

few educators are well-equipped to bridge cultural differences within the classroom to ensure all

students have opportunities to learn and succeed (Bottiani et al., 2017). Indeed, some classrooms view

students with disabilities as the sole responsibility of the special educators. Hence, teachers' attitudes

towards inclusive education are primary barriers to its successful spread and enactment (Schlessinger,

2017).

75

Access and recognition require systematic work to allow all students to participate and learn.

Educational leaders must employ various leadership practices and strategies to build systems and

routines that cultivate a teaching and learning environment that values students and staff (DeMatthews,

2019; Tracy-Bronson, 2020; Welborn, 2019). As a result of increasingly controlled curriculum delivery

and standardized practices across school districts, many educators are losing the position of a reflective

intellectual and being relegated to that of a technician. Educators must have the opportunities and

platforms to develop intellectual communities that facilitate autonomy and decision-making

(Schlessinger, 2017).

On the other hand, institutional and personal biases can impact the comfort or willingness to

engage in cultural responsiveness. Educators may fail to recognize the existence of oppression and

discrimination in educational practices. Lack of access to pedagogical strategies, methodological

techniques, and resources can limit access to information or curriculum materials (Samuels, 2018).

Educators report minimal educational training that teaches them how to talk about current events and

issues related to diversity in their classrooms. Moreover, a teacher’s limited knowledge of the strategies

to effectively incorporate culturally sustaining pedagogy—from which to anchor co-teaching

methodology—can impact student self-efficacy, decreasing the likeliness of student achievement. On

the other hand, understanding the individual’s perceptions and relational needs to interact with the

environment will lead to effective planning to enhance the developmental process of acquiring new

skills (Eun, 2018). Currently, schools' lack of culturally sustaining and inclusive pedagogy impacts

students by oppressing and marginalizing them while holding the power to emancipate and empower

them (Yosso, 2005).

Deficit Approaches to Individuals with Disabilities

Deficit approaches to teaching and learning, firmly in place before the 1960s and 1970s, viewed

the languages, literacy, and cultural ways of being of many students and communities of color as

76

deficiencies to overcome; and provided learning that demanded and legitimized dominant language,

literacy, and cultural ways of schooling (Paris, 2012). Under federal law starting in the mid-1970s,

federal laws guarantee individuals with disabilities certain rights and protections, such as entitlement to

a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Despite the

40 years of expected inclusion and equitable participation, students with disabilities, particularly those

of color, still continue to be removed from equal opportunities for instruction educationally and socially

(DeMatthews, 2019). In the US, policies to address inequities in school outcomes have been long-

standing, yet racism and ableism dominate our culture, viewing differences as something that requires

intervention and remediation (Kozleski et al., 2020). The only way forward is to address ableism and

racism in tandem because addressing one or another will not entirely change the systems and structures

(Alim et al., 2017). Entrenched in normative aspects of the white and able-bodied, racism and ableism

are simply measured and noted. The relationships between these constitute the foundation for the

experiences and ideas, based on the dominant group (Annamma et al., 2017; Matias & Newlove, 2017).

While the framework is already present for challenging the inequities that individuals with

disabilities face in the workforce and schools, ideological and cultural oppression is very much alive with

prejudice and discrimination. These elements of oppression are socialized and rationalized as normal

(Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2019). Ableism is different from racism; racism judges people who are physically

able to do the same job in the same way as somebody in the dominant power. On the other hand, some

individuals with disabilities are physically or cognitively unable to do the same job in the same way as an

able-bodied person. While both prejudices and discrimination are unfair, the lack of understanding of

what a person with disabilities is capable of doing requires much more intensive remediation. The need

to challenge the discourse around the normalization of the able-bodied is even more critical.

Ableism devalues individuals with disabilities in favor of able-bodied people, based on the

prejudices of the dominant social group that sees individuals with disabilities as biologically incapable.

77

Ableism classifies and defines individuals with disabilities as “less than,” and inferior. Alan Raskin (2018),

a middle school student, most astutely described the need to address ableist oppression by saying,

We as a society minimize ableism as lesser of a problem. That's why you probably never heard

of it. We look at African Americans, women, and homosexuals and think: They're no lesser of

people, and they deserve equal rights, pay, and respect. Any violation of that is discrimination,

and it won’t be tolerated … But when it comes to someone with a disability, without even giving

a second thought to it. We simultaneously think that because they can't perform a certain action

or do a certain job, these basic and fundamental rules of equality do not apply to them when in

all reality, they should.

The impact of ableism is incredibly damaging as individuals are dehumanized and devalued as

something to be fixed or pitied. Raskin (2018) identified the conscious hegemonic acts of his peers as

the most egregious. For educational leaders, the most significant concern should be the unaware and

unconscious hegemonic actions, as doing good deeds and kind acts establish an internalized dominance

communicating superiority over the minority group (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017).

For a change agent, the blatant discriminatory acts are more straightforward to target because

they are visible and identifiable, whereas the unintentional acts require more savvy social justice reform.

Leaders, as change agents, should strive to bring knowledge and awareness to the hegemonic acts, the

micro-aggressions that continue to act as barriers to students with disabilities learning in an equitable

and inclusive environment.

Professional Learning

Educational gaps are created and perpetuated when deficiencies in educators’ knowledge and

skill sets render them unable to meet the students’ cultural, academic, and behavioral needs in the

general education environment. Developing a collaborative vision and goals in partnership with

educators builds trusting relationships with which to develop a sense of urgency to problem-solve

78

challenges such as pedagogical, methodological, and strategy knowledge development for staff,

resource allocation, and value equity-based inclusion. When educators provide students with a one-size-

fits-all approach to instruction instead of using evidence-based practices to meet the personalized

learning needs of all students in the classroom, students are not participating in equity-based inclusion

in the classroom (Choi et al., 2018; Hollingsworth, 2019). Co-teaching methodology should have both

qualitative and quantitative measures to determine efficacy. However, these are not always defined

clearly. Elements of co-teaching methodology, such as co-planning, should be well-defined with

consistent expectations. Co-teaching teams should receive ongoing direction and support, as this

instruction should look different than that of other classes (Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015; McCaw, 2020;

Sinclair et al., 2018).

Administrators who need to be more consistent with their knowledge base and practices require

professional development through training and observation practices. Administrators who empower

their educators find more positivity around the practices they are implementing. Left out of

consideration is the one stakeholder with the knowledge base to understand the vast and varied needs

of students with disabilities when addressing barriers and obstacles. The role of the administrator of

special education lacks representation in current empirical research (McCaw, 2020; Sinclair et al., 2018).

As the extant literature's findings evolve, a more detailed focus will be given to the administrator of

special education and the principal's power to design the structures and strategies for inclusive

practices.

Conclusion

Olsen et al.’s (2016) definition of inclusion provides a description that includes details on

curriculum, instruction, and collaboration within instructional and social contexts, creating an

expectation of shared responsibility across the school community. Inclusion transcends the notion of

physical space, creating shared responsibility that means multiple individuals implemented complex

79

educational practices working together across educational levels and roles. An understanding of barriers

develops through reflecting on the administrators' and teachers’ perceptions contributing to the

marginalization of students within the classrooms (Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015; Olsen et

al.,2016). Understanding the discrepancy between expected inclusive practices and actual classroom

experiences requires the reader to lean into the barriers with a sense of urgency. The literature is rich

with the knowledge that ableist practices continue to marginalize students with disabilities in current

times. Philosophical, pedagogical, and methodological approaches outline the conceptualization of how

to meet the needs of students. A philosophy of inclusion needs to be embedded in the structures of

continuous improvement to bridge the gap between pedagogy and practice.

Limiting Access to the General Education Curriculum and Classroom

Employing a growth mindset to organizational change helps all stakeholders flourish by applying

strategies that advance the organization. When stakeholders apply co-teaching methodology to their

instructional practices, they increase their capacity as change agents, increasing outcomes for students

with disabilities in the classroom. General and special education teachers report that contextual factors

such as co-planning time and relationships with co-teaching team members impact the quality and

success of their abilities to support students with disabilities in the general education environment. The

collective agency combines the knowledge, strengths, talents, and resources to influence the benefits of

co-teaching for the students. When interdependency is lacking, the perceived benefits of co-teaching

suffer greatly. Social learning combines personal and environmental factors to develop collective

agency. When educators have high-quality relationships, time for co-planning instructional activities,

and equal responsibilities (parity), these pairs are more dynamic instructionally and interpersonally.

Research does not indicate the degree each of these factors plays in the success of co-teaching, making

it essential to examine these contextual factors further (Stefanidis et al., 2018). The establishment of

structures lends the stability necessary to implement strategies with fidelity and sustainability. When

80

stakeholders apply co-teaching methodology to their instructional practices, they increase their capacity

as change agents, increasing outcomes for students with disabilities in the classroom.

Co-teaching Methodology

Co-teaching is the coordinated efforts and actions of two or more educators working

collaboratively to instruct a heterogeneous group of students in the general education classroom

(Beninghof, 2020). Essential to co-teaching is co-planning, equitably sharing the instructional delivery,

and oversight of all classroom functions. The co-teaching team is defined as the general education

teacher, special education teacher, and instructional assistant. There are six models that co-teachers

apply to deliver instruction to the classroom (Cook & McDuffie-Lundrum, 2019; DeMartino & Specht,

2018). Strategies are the approaches co-teaching team members use when collaborating to develop

multimodal instruction that accommodates the needs and abilities of learners and reduces unnecessary

hurdles in the learning process. Educators and administrators need to have a shared understanding of

vision, goals, and expectations void of ambiguity.

Co-teaching integrates the sciences of specially designed instruction and effective pedagogy that

provides students with disabilities better opportunities to meet learning outcomes with success by

organizing the resources. Co-teaching is a service delivery model educating students with mild to

moderate disabilities that ensures students are in the least restrictive environment. Co-teaching

principles are designed to be applicable across all settings (McCaw, 2020). Based on the premise of co-

teaching, collaboratively, the general and special education teachers meaningfully plan and design

lessons incorporating the six types of co-teaching with intentionality. The elements of successful co-

teaching include both educators being present, contributing to the lesson development and execution,

possessing content knowledge for monitoring, and evaluating student performance, and behavior

management. School administrators must provide support and oversight to ensure these critical

81

elements are part of their co-teaching instructional model with efficacy (Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015;

Sinclair et al., 2018).

Co-teaching team members are the foundation for successfully maintaining students with

disabilities in inclusion classrooms. Educators’ philosophies and dynamics create opportunities to

overcome barriers and obstacles to a fully inclusive and equitable environment. Establishing and

maintaining effective co-teaching relationships can cause uneasiness for novice and veteran educators

alike when being responsive to the needs of a heterogeneous group of students. The co-teaching model

of instruction increases the outcomes for all students when highly coordinated, utilizing the talents of

both educators (Beninghof, 2020). Co-teachers often find that the decisions made by school leadership

diminish the effectiveness of their ability to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities in the

classroom while exposing them to content and instruction at their grade level. Federal mandates such as

IDEA 2004 educate students in the general education environment, aligned with their civil rights.

Common Core standards expect the instruction to be rigorous. School administrators are required to

address these multi-faceted dynamics of implementation in their schools and districts. School

administrators must manage the schedules, staffing needs, and service delivery models and be

instructional leaders to their educators (Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015; Sinclair et al., 2018).

Perceived benefits of co-teaching include sharing intellectual property between educators

learning content and pedagogy from one another, increased quality of instructional practices, and

increased time to support students. The shared role increases motivation for co-teachers by sharing the

responsibilities and the successes of students as they gain social and academic skills (Stefanidis et al.,

2018). Without appropriate and iterative professional learning on inclusion, collaboration, and co-

teaching, the co-teachers do not have the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to evolve to

meet the needs of students with disabilities (Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015; Stefanidis et al., 2018). There

is increased use of paraprofessionals across school environments to support inclusive classrooms.

82

Paraprofessionals, who typically do not have post-high school education or receive intense on-the-job

training, take on more responsibilities without the qualifications to do so (Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015;

Sobeck et al., 2019). When curriculum content knowledge is imbalanced between the general and

special education educators, classrooms are at risk of having the special education teacher function as a

paraprofessional versus an equitable counterpart. Co-teaching is not a special education-driven initiative

but a universal best practice increasing ownership and efficacy across the faculty, which needs to be

understood by the school community (Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015).

Co-teaching Team Partnerships

As educational leaders supporting the growth and development of our faculty, they require an

understanding of the principles of the interconnectedness of the setting as well as an understanding of

developmental diversity to be able to meet the needs of staff to support their growth and development

for the betterment of students. A developmental lens of teaming will allow knowledge to be acquired

through building on strengths and making challenges to normative assumptions (Dragon-Severson,

2009). Teaming and the development of teacher leaders increase the capacity of schools to respond to

the complex challenges of education today (Dragon-Severson, 2009). Bronfenbrenner (1979) posits that

the term development implies an enduring change that carries over to other environments. The

interaction of human beings with their environment and the interactions of multiple environments

drives psychological growth and development. There is a change in the characteristics of the person in

both perception and action that extends beyond any one environment to include the understanding of

the interaction beyond the immediate situation, as embedded in the culture and subculture belief

systems and ideologies (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

As intonated by Beninghof (2020), “Gracious professionalism refers to the blending of

determination, respect, high-quality work, and valuing of others. Teachers who embody the

characteristics of gracious professionalism will be most successful at co-teaching.” It is not realistic that

83

all educators will agree on all aspects of teaching and learning all the time. However, it is realistic to

have expectations for courteous and collegial interactions. To develop gracious professionalism,

involving teachers in the decision-making process is necessary for the success of co-teaching. Unpacking

the concept of equal and shared responsibilities in the classroom requires consideration for partnerships

greater than considerations for licensure. Teacher investment is paramount to success. Shared vision

and goals translated to shared responsibilities. Relational trust requires great vulnerability, predicated

on the capacity and openness of the individuals to learn. Professional and personal respect comes with

willingness to give and take (Beninghof, 2020; McCaw, 2020). Therefore, strategies for advancing the co-

teaching teams must include consistent methodologies and practices that allow co-teachers to self-

select participation and partnerships.

There are other factors impacting the co-teaching dynamics that require consideration to

achieve the intended results. As many educators’ voices in determining their co-teacher partners are

missing, this administrative decision dramatically impacts the quality of the educators' working

environment. Lack of access to resources, methodologies, and pedagogical strategies can pose

limitations to information or curriculum materials (Samuels, 2018; Sinclair et al., 2018). At the secondary

level, administrators must be aware of the number of content areas the special education teacher must

be an expert in to plan and execute lessons with proficiency, allowing for the special education teacher

to hone their content knowledge comparatively of their general education counterpart. Otherwise, the

lack of training and understanding of evidence-based practices within a content area impedes

collaboration, limiting the co-teaching partnership's success. Without clearly defined roles,

responsibilities, and expectations, educators may not feel empowered as equal instructional leaders to

understand how to contribute effectively to the lesson, meeting the needs of all students.

Administrators need to facilitate the lesson planning process by incorporating the co-teaching models

and how to support struggling learners. School administration must provide professional learning for

84

educators with a shared vision of co-teaching and the ability to execute the model effectively (Sinclair et

al., 2018).

Co-planning Purpose and Time

Co-teaching methodology should layer planning with intentionality, the application of the co-

teaching models matched to student activities and delivered through methodical instructional strategies

to create meaningful opportunities for diverse kinds of learners. Careful integration of co-teaching

models, Specially Designed Instruction (SDI), and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) have the potential

for a more significant impact on student engagement. A component of the IDEA includes students in

special education receiving Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) embedded in their service delivery. SDI

requires co-teachers to adapt content, methodology, and the delivery of instruction to address the

unique disability-related learning needs, ensure access to the general education curriculum, and support

the students to meet the educational standards for all learners (Beninghof, 2020). UDL does not address

the concept of capabilities, yet mindset implies that all participants can achieve when designing learning

to meet the needs of all. The UDL framework considers the students currently in the classroom, not

necessarily as a tool to include students in the classroom. Therefore, some interpretation of all is

exclusive inclusion versus inclusion of all. While CAST focuses on the goals, methods, and materials

when designing the educational experience, the ambiguity of design creates inconsistencies in the

design of lesson plans, curriculum, and the learning environment. Integrating UDL into the co-teaching

methodology will support the growth of UDL practices, further enhancing co-teaching efficacy (Alim et

al., 2017). Understanding the charges of SDI, integrated with co-teaching methodology, lends itself to

using UDL as instructional practices to seamlessly design and develop lessons that reach the needs of all

learners in the general education environments (Alim et al., 2017; Beninghof, 2020; McCaw, 2020).

The incorporation of these instructional pedagogies, frameworks, and instructional practices

requires an elevated level of knowledge and sophistication as part of daily routine instruction. An

85

element often overlooked in the implementation of co-teaching resides in the development of the

building-based schedule. Building-based leaders must prioritize scheduling special education and co-

teachers ahead of the rest of the building to solidify the time needed for successful co-planning

(Bernhardt & Murawski, 2015; Sinclair et al., 2018). Educators require dedicated time for co-planning

with set expectations for success. When school administrators invest deeply in the purpose and

functions of co-teaching, their commitment to setting the organizational structures to increase the

success of implementation brings more significant outcomes for students in the classroom (Moosa &

Shareefa, 2019; Shaukat et al., 2018; Sinclair et al., 2018).

Supporting Reflexive Practices for Co-Teaching

The work of transformative educational leaders intertwines through complex factors by

disrupting the practices that marginalize students. Educational leaders as change agents must carefully

plan and facilitate the integration of reflexivity on barriers to equity and inclusion, incorporating

culturally sustaining practices through well-developed co-teaching methodology as the framework for

high-quality instruction and utilizing robust professional development to increase the ways of knowing

for educators to create equitable and inclusive environments for students with disabilities. Facilitated

reflexivity by school administrators with educators creates opportunities for the institution to develop

and strengthen culture around instructional co-teaching practices, increasing positive outcomes for

students. Understanding the context for each school administrator varies, and using the collaborative

knowledge, skills, and dispositions of one another can support co-teachers in increasing their

effectiveness in applying strategies in the classroom (Alim et al., 2017).

An administrator’s supervisory process must move beyond the perfunctory summative

evaluation, which very often does not go deeper than the paperwork process. The summative

evaluation process, as mandated by the Department of Education, provides principals with a vehicle for

making judgments about the effectiveness of a teacher’s performance. Murawski & Dieker (2013) ever,

86

this formal process may not provide the same opportunity to reflect upon their self-efficacy (Balci &

�zkan, 2023; Mireles-Rios et al., 2019). Learning walks can be an opportunity for non-evaluative

manners from which to engage in a more meaningful cycle of feedback for impactful change. Learning

walks are short classroom observations by small groups of educators with intended “look-for”

instructional practices with a debriefing period. Learning Walks for co-teaching should be different from

that of a lone teacher. Co-teaching look-for should include the co-teaching models, which have

structured purposes for each of the co-teachers (Murawski & Dieker, 2013; Ross et al., 2023). Through

the design of effective and practical observation tools, conducting observations, and dispensing

constructive feedback, school leaders are not only able to identify problems within teaching and

learning but also develop solutions to increase the caliber of instruction (Balci & �zkan, 2023).

The school administrator delivering the feedback requires cognizance of not the message

delivered but how it is delivered. Worse than no feedback is poor feedback, which can lead to a

defeatist attitude of negative self-efficacy (Balci & �zkan, 2023). A prerequisite to delivering feedback to

the co-teachers concerning the co-teaching process is a trusting relationship (Beninghof, 2020). Balci &

�zkan (2023) recommend feedback be “timely, accurate, specific, behavioral, constructive and from a

reliable source.” (p 243). Most effective feedback allows the teacher to understand the relationship

between what they are doing and its impact on others. Focusing on positive elements of the observation

supports teachers in growth by deepening the understanding of expectations, connecting why the

instruction practice is sound to the practice itself, and explicitly recognizing when that practice is in

place. Using fact-based, positive, immediate feedback connected to instructional practices leads to

greater acceptance by the recipient (Balci & �zkan, 2023; Ross et al., 2023). The professional

development for administrators of special education and principals requires consideration to be able to

deliver effective feedback that is well received and guides the instructional changes to improve in-class

teaching (Balci & �zkan, 2023; Beninghof, 2020; Murawski & Dieker, 2013; Ross et al., 2023).

87

Thoughtful and intentional feedback communicated effectively to the co-teachers will bring

about the changes sought (Beninghof, 2020). Feedback can be structured from an inquiry standpoint to

support adult motivation, indicating a growth mindset. Feedback by administrators can increase teacher

efficacy when tailored to specific classroom factors such as classroom management, instructional

strategies, and engagement of students, as well as the individual teacher needs versus a one-size-fits-all

approach (Ginsberg, 2011; Mireles-Rios et al., 2019; Murawski & Dieker, 2013). If a teacher is unaware

of what they did well or need to improve on at the end of the lesson, in-class teaching will not improve.

Providing teachers with effective and constructive feedback can lead to more robust teacher

performance. Mistakes repeat without feedback to identify weaknesses in a meaningful way. Focusing

on the productive practices of co-teachers validates the successes of implementing the co-teaching

methodology by increasing student engagement (Balci & �zkan, 2023; Mireles-Rios et al., 2019).

Conclusion:

Co-teaching is a dynamic instructional practice whose success is reliant on the relationships of

the educators in the classroom. Although educators in the classroom have the most significant impact

on student learning outcomes in the classroom, the success of educators' ability to implement the best

practices related to pedagogy, frameworks, and instructional strategies is highly dependent upon the

school administrator. Even though the school administrator is responsible for the technicalities of

building management, including factors that impact co-teaching, the co-teaching team members have

insight and ideas on how to implement co-teaching more successfully. Delivering instruction to students

with disabilities requires more time and intensity to lesson design, as teachers need to have a strong

knowledge of the student’s ability levels before lesson development. Students with disabilities tend to

require more instructional support to access and progress through the curriculum (Shakut et al., 2019).

88

Summary

The research thus far has identified gaps in administrative and instructional practices that

impede the co-teaching teams’ efficacy in implementing co-teaching as conceptually designed. Building

the knowledge and capacity of school leaders to identify strengths and needs within their discrete

context requires intentionality to create a systematic approach to work collaboratively with their

stakeholders to ensure all the elements of the co-teaching instructional model are implemented with

fidelity and are of high quality. To support the development and implementation of best educational

practices for successful co-teaching, school administrators must rise as educational leaders, bringing

stakeholders together to cohesively understand the strengths and needs of their school to develop

action plans that eliminate oppressive and ableist practices systematically. An administrator’s lens must

be in tune with developing relationships among stakeholders that build trust and collaboration to focus

on solution-oriented work versus getting bogged down in the emotions that challenges bring. School

leaders as change agents must also be mindful of their relationships with their constituents as part of an

organizational movement. Within the frameworks of growth, there is immense value in building

reflexivity as part of lasting and meaningful change.

This body of literature sought to develop a sense of urgency for the education profession to drill

down into the barriers to equity and inclusion in the classroom. Ableist practices intentionally and

unintentionally create deficit mindsets, impeding the implementation of pedagogy, frameworks, and

instructional practices that combat the marginalization of students with disabilities predicated on a lack

of knowledge and understanding of the personal and professional actions that perpetuate low

expectations for student outcomes. Research-based interventions rooted in culturally sustaining

pedagogy, co-teaching methodology, and sound instructional practices, such as Universal Design for

Learning (UDL), address marginalizing practices in general education classrooms. The dynamics between

the adults themselves and the environment are where the discrepancies and ambiguities lie, creating

89

inconsistencies in practice. Each stakeholder owns a piece of making educational changes in philosophy,

professional knowledge, and collective agency to empower co-teachers to meet the unique needs of

students with disabilities with confidence. School leaders are transformative agents with the authority

and agency to cohesively develop staff members to reach their potential for the benefit of students.

Across all bodies of research, key elements necessary for successful co-teaching teams include

co-teaching dynamics and structures for co-planning with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and

expectations for co-teaching, facilitated and monitored by school leadership. There are many versions of

co-teaching methodology founded on the same six co-teaching models identifying specific roles and

responsibilities for each of the co-teachers. Various tools for monitoring these practices exist across the

United States. While the models and tools exist, the consistency of implementation of tools for

sustainability requires intentional integration into the strategies for advancement. This research study

seeks to investigate the strategies that advance co-teaching teams’ development of multimodal

instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. This research intends to explore the

missing element of sustainability as it applies to the specific elements of co-teaching pairing for stronger

relationships and co-planning processes. Focusing on the administrative strategies to advance co-

teaching, special education administrators and principals will expand their capacity to collaborate to

eliminate the barriers created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and deficit approaches to instructing

students with disabilities, increasing access to the general education curriculum and classroom in their

districts and schools.

90

Section Four: Contextualization

The problem of practice examined the lack of collaborative educational leadership to eliminate

the barriers created by the lack of inclusive pedagogy and deficit approaches to instructing students with

disabilities, limiting access to the general education curriculum and classroom. The purpose of this

action research study was to determine strategies that advance co-teaching teams’ development of

multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in general education classrooms. The co-

planning and development of multimodal lessons specifically identified learning targets, the

methodology to deliver instruction, how to minimize barriers, the roles of the co-teachers, and student

engagement. The consciousness of each of the elements during planning created a learning environment

where students with disabilities have equitable access to high-quality instruction for increased student

achievement (Beninghof, 2021). The primary question under investigation examined which strategies

advance co-teaching teams’ development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities

in general education classrooms. The participants and Cycle 1 data analysis revealed that the co-teachers

focused on the technical aspects of co-teaching, such as co-teaching dynamics, co-planning time, and

resources. The participants and Cycle 1.5 data analysis revealed that the application of co-teaching

methodology to lesson planning and execution impacts students with disabilities' access to the general

education curriculum. The administrator of special education must partner with the building principal to

oversee the implementation of co-teaching methodology with fidelity for the sustainability of practices.

The secondary questions stemmed from the need to look more extensively at the

administrator’s strategies that advance the co-teachers development of multimodal lessons, to include

students with disabilities in the general education classroom. The following line of inquiry focused on

the specific strategies of administrators, framing how administrators of special education, and building

principals collaboratively assess their context to meet the markers of inclusive practices for the elements

of co-teaching dynamics and co-planning. The last line of inquiry sought to identify how administrative

91

strategies support co-teaching teams to develop multimodal instruction. Using a Community of Practice

forum facilitated by the researcher, the Cycle 2 participants co-created tools to reflect on the

implementation of co-teaching, examining administrative practices, co-teaching dynamics, and co-

planning.

This section contextualizes the findings of the action research within extant literature, beginning

with an analysis of the research site context, and concludes with the implications of the study for the

researcher’s organization and professional practice.

Context Analysis

As the focus of the research was on administrative strategies, the administrative participants

were the administrators of special education and the principals. The context for research was public

school districts in a state within the Northeast. As set by state and federal regulations, each school

district has one Central Office executive filling the role of administrator of special education. Inherent to

the individuals fulfilling this role is the education, knowledge, responsibility, and power to make

decisions that overcome the barriers to students with disabilities accessing an inclusive and equitable

learning environment. This research has no fixed site and wide geographical scope, to obtain a mass of

administrators of special education to contribute to the elements of research currently missing in this

field, as made apparent by the lack of literature. Inclusion criteria to participate in this research study

included one of three public school models: traditional Prek-12 schools, charter schools, or vocational-

technical high schools. The public schools have, or are seeking to have, a co-teaching model of

instruction; this includes a general education teacher and a special education teacher together in a

physical general education classroom, instructing a mix of students with, and without, disabilities.

Due to a change in employment for the student researcher, the context for research changed.

Cycle 1 conducted research in a small suburban town with a robust co-teaching model, in which the

researcher was the administrator of special education. Cycle 1.5 conducted expanding research using

92

administrators of special education from communities within 4 to 23 miles of the original research site.

One participant was from a vocational-technical public school, and the others were from traditional

Prek-12 public schools. Cycle 2 conducted research using administrators of special education and

principals from communities across this state located in the Northeast. Distances from the original

research site ranged from 4 to 94 miles. Two of the participants were from the original Cycle 1 research

site, one of whom no longer works there. One of the Cycle 2 participants was from a public charter

school. Eight of the ten participants from Cycle 1.5 and Cycle 2 worked professionally with the student

researcher.

The focus of this research has remained on the strategies that advance the co-teaching teams’

development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. The goal of

this study is to make impactful changes to classroom planning and delivery of instruction to produce

meaningful and lasting changes for students with disabilities. Asking participants to provide feedback on

the quality of their relationship with a colleague within a small instructional setting can be off-putting,

especially when the success of students is dependent on the relationship of two professionals working

together. Teachers are passionate about their craft and are careful not to diminish that passion for

others. The researcher carefully crafted this study with sensitivity to the professional relationships of co-

teachers by focusing on lesson planning when implementing co-teaching methodology.

Given that the planning and delivery of instruction with co-teaching methodology reside with

the general education and special education teachers, these educators are the nucleus of this research

within the framework of lesson design. The focus on procedures versus people provided the safety to

speak about lived experiences without discord. The Cycle 1 co-teachers spoke their truths about the

successes and challenges of implementing co-teaching with a primary focus on the technical structures.

The overarching finding indicated that the co-teachers’ ability to implement co-teaching with efficacy

93

centers on factors beyond their control, implying friction in the building-level systems that support

students with disabilities.

When considering the potential factors for addressing the disconnect, the individuals holding

the authority and power for change became the new center for investigation. More significantly, the

need for people in positions of power with knowledge of special education became even more

predominant. As the researcher held the role of administrator of special education for 15 years, the

intimate understanding of the power, knowledge, and reach of the individual in this role made them the

next logical participant group. Upon finishing the Cycle 1 data collection, the researcher left the site’s

employ. While the researcher no longer worked for a public school district, they did possess professional

connections to the other professionals in this role across the state. The administrators of special

education from Cycle 1.5 spoke to the same challenges as the co-teachers. However, these participants

spoke more positively about the ability to make educational changes embedded in methodological

frameworks and instructional practices.

The administrators of special education communicated an elevated level of understanding of

the impact of multimodal lesson design on students with disabilities to be included in the classroom.

Any administrator of special education has district-level oversight, which includes responsibilities over

every school in the district. This range of oversight makes the execution of initiatives at each building

more challenging without collaborators. The collaboration between the administrator of special

education and the principal closed the gap between the district and building-level ability to support co-

teachers. As a result, the Cycle 2 research examined the administrative strategies that advanced the co-

teaching teams to develop multimodal lessons to include students with disabilities in the general

education classroom.

94

The favorable results of this study embed a unified and unwavering philosophy of inclusion

through structures and systems of continuous improvement for sustainable change in the general

education classroom. The following discusses these findings as they relate to extant literature.

Finding One: Combating Ableism with an Unwavering Philosophy of Inclusion

The first finding of this research, as backed by extant literature, answered the first research

question: What strategies advance the co-teaching teams' development of multimodal lessons to

include students with disabilities in the classroom? The result was that a unified and unwavering

administrative philosophy of inclusion is the foundation for the successful implementation of co-

teaching methodology that fosters a culture of belonging. The requisite strategy is the development of a

shared philosophy of inclusion by the administration that includes participant voices and is at the

forefront of all communication and the anchor for all other actions.

Belief Systems

Findings indicated that leadership must communicate messages of inclusion and equity with

intentionality. Inconsistencies in belief systems create inconsistencies in the approaches and practices of

the school districts, creating frustrations at the disconnect, impacting the morale of teachers, and

bleeding into the classroom (Perry & Richardson, 2022). Participants identified the lack of knowledge

specific to co-teaching methodology as a barrier to the development of a comprehensive philosophy of

inclusion. Without this knowledge, school administrators, particularly the principal, make building-based

decisions and develop and execute plans, such as co-teacher pairing or schedule development, that do

not match the needs of co-teaching methodology. As a result of this lack of knowledge, the structures

developed and implemented continue to be barriers to inclusive classrooms. Through the social justice

development of knowledge and application of strategies, the role of school administrators brings forth

the necessity for the social justice mission to address the barriers in existing structures created by the

historical marginalization of individuals with disabilities (Tracy-Bronson, 2020). As described in the

95

extant literature, deficit approaches to students with disabilities are a barrier to accessing the general

education environment. Ableism is the perception of what a person with disabilities can and cannot do

based on normative assumptions (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017; Van Aswegen & Shevlin, 2019). The

historical deficit mindset is veiled in practices of help and support, masking the fact that these practices

sustain exclusion. A capabilities approach—a social justice framework—focuses on human dignity,

enabling the individual the freedom to value as they choose for goals and life plans, which separates

individual choice from the needs of the district. A capabilities approach defines the individual based on

values, beliefs, and preferences. The capabilities approach aims to inform policy through an agency

perspective of a constructive, participatory role (Van Aswegen & Shevlin, 2019). When using a

capabilities approach, particularly in education, stakeholders value the achievement of skills over fitting

into already established systems. An inclusion philosophy is the inherent values and beliefs that all

students can learn in the least restrictive environment grounded in a depth of knowledge that

penetrates barriers, where actions mean more than words to foster a culture where everyone is

welcome (Alim et al., 2017; Kozleski et al., 2020; Schlessinger, 2017). Billingsley et al. (2018) describe the

standard for inclusion as

Equity-based inclusive education means all students, including those with the most significant

support needs, are educated in age-appropriate classes in their neighborhood schools. Students

receive the help they need to be full members of their general education classrooms. Every

member of the school community is welcomed, valued, and participates in learning. Inclusive

education means that districts support schools, and schools and families support one another as

ALL students are welcomed and included in their communities (p. 67).

For students with disabilities, deficit mindsets need to evolve to close the disconnect between the

capacity for student achievement and educational practices. Educational leaders' responsibilities are

96

multi-faceted, considering the balanced need to build culture and the structures to anchor philosophical

underpinnings for continuous improvement.

Shared Philosophy of Inclusion

The first strategy for organizational change is to foster the collaboration necessary to involve the

district and building-level stakeholders in developing shared meaning as to why well-planned initiatives

are paramount to student achievement. The goal of school administrators is to develop a shared

philosophy of inclusion from which to anchor systems and strategies for continuous improvement. To

develop the philosophy, school administration should start by applying reflexivity to their own biases,

viewing the structures and systems in place. The development of a shared vision for the philosophy of

inclusion builds capacity and ownership amongst participants (Heifetz & Linsky, 2004; Perry &

Richardson, 2022; Welborn, 2019). New information from the findings, not widely available in the

research, explains the role of the administrator of special education. Special education leaders need to

show up physically to district-level discussions and meetings to problem solve and, at times, make

complex decisions that align with the district's vision. Strategic action is to consciously ensure that

decisions align with the vision and guiding principles (Tracy-Bronson, 2020). At the same time, Special

education leaders’ advocacy at the district level needs to penetrate the building-based structures. Even

though participants have processes for collaboration between the Central Office and the principals,

these processes needed to be more specific to co-teaching methodology and implementation. The

participants spoke about the need for school administrators to have a shared vision of inclusion in the

district and schools before implementing co-teaching when possible.

Examining participants' way of knowing and their development of knowledge as shaped by their

lived experiences, school leaders as change agents can facilitate stakeholders to understand other's

perceptions and perspectives, thinking abstractly to develop shared meaning and visions (Dragon-

Severson, 2009). The participants stated that the co-created administrator reflection tool sparked

97

conversations to explore ideologies that may or may not be aligned. The reflection tool provided to the

administrators of special education and principals a framework from which to begin or refine

conversations around co-teaching and inclusive practices. Reviewing the three reflection tools together

assisted participants in understanding how closely aligned the stakeholders in their districts were with

one another. If not aligned, where were there differences and why? Drago-Severson (2013)

differentiated informational learning from transformative learning. Learning moves beyond information

gathering and skill development to learning by exploring one's knowledge and that of others for growth

(Drago-Severson, 2013). Participants identified that learning should come by understanding differences.

When school administrators create opportunities for stakeholders to develop shared belief systems,

they create opportunities for expanding mindsets.

Once school administrators develop a unified and unwavering philosophy of inclusion, they can

implement practices that communicate the philosophy of inclusion as expected behaviors. Through the

transparency of the vision, which is not open for debate, other stakeholders can still be part of the

conversation to provide clarity about the intended steps as part of the change (Perry & Richardson,

2022). Special education leaders need to be transparent with the changes that may occur as a result of

challenging the status quo (Tracy-Bronson, 2020). Participants modeled an inclusive philosophy by the

way they communicated in writing and orally. They also called out others on any language used that was

not inclusive. The shared philosophy gives the school administrators a lens from which to examine

school districts and building structures to develop strategy plans for continuous improvement.

Finding Two: Educational Leadership to Develop and Implement Co-Teaching

The next finding of this research, as backed by extant literature, answers the second research

question of how administrators of education and building principals can assess their context to meet the

markers of inclusive practices for the elements of co-teaching dynamics and co-planning. This finding

indicated that leadership must be explicit and intentional when defining expectations for the utilization

98

of co-teaching methodology when developing multimodal lessons and delivering multimodal instruction

within systems of continuous improvement. The pedagogical philosophy of inclusion will be executed

through co-teaching methodology. The requisite strategy to address the finding is the development and

implementation of structures for continuous improvement that ground the theoretical underpinning of

inclusion to specific instructional methodology and instructional practices to address skill deficits and

increase outcomes for students with fidelity and sustainability. The second strategy examines the role of

the school administrator to apply a coherent framework as a strategy for change, communicating clear

examples for co-teaching.

Educational Leadership

The philosophy of inclusion speaks to the belief systems held by all stakeholders that positively

or negatively impact student access to the general education classroom. While the shared positive belief

system creates an expectation of ownership by all stakeholders for all students, the responsibility for

execution lies with the school and district leaders. School administrators are responsible for addressing

technical and adaptive challenges standing in the way of equitable environments. School administrators

are responsible for drawing the through line of the philosophy of inclusion to actions (Perry &

Richardson, 2022). The participants spoke about technical challenges, like finite resources such as staff

and the burden of the building-based schedule. Technical challenges can be solved using existing

expertise or resources, even though the solutions might be complex. Adaptive challenges are much

more sophisticated, requiring a level of accountability and interdependence to achieve the targets and

goals for a unified philosophy of inclusion (Perry & Richardson, 2022). School administrators can use

discourse and collaboration as a means to increase consciousness and a shared sense of responsibility

for students with disabilities (DeMatthews et al., 2020). Educational leaders must consider the

contextual elements and dynamics of their organization as they relate to the personal and historical

factors that influence the development and implementation of strategies for change (Cheatham et al.,

99

2020). Even though the participants were from different school districts with different organizational

structures and access to resources, the approach to integrating co-teaching methodology was the same.

Each participant spoke about having accountability measures built into the structures and frameworks

at the administrative and teacher levels for the fidelity of implementation and sustainability of the

practices.

Uncovered in the research was the participants' challenge with using the reflection tools in an

assessment. The participants took exception to the term assessment as it was their opinion that an

assessment meant a final, a conclusion, or an endpoint. It was their interpretation that the term

assessment perpetuated a fixed mindset. The position of participants was that the process is one of

reflection for growth, not assessment and finiteness. By design, the Cycle 2 action steps created

opportunities to make changes to the reflection tools based on the participants' feedback. The

participants also gave targeted feedback on the language used in the reflection tools. Some of the

phraseology communicated that co-teachers needed to meet standards and expectations, indicating an

evaluation of the skills of educators. Evaluation processes are subject to collective bargaining. The

Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) are contracts between the teacher's union and the school

committee. The researcher and participants were highly vigilant to ensure that the Cycle 2 data

collection did not violate the CBA, placing participants in situations where they could receive a

grievance. One participant was provided with a letter from the CBA unit and had to pause data

collection for a brief time. As a result of the research, when developing and implementing administrative

strategies, school leaders need to be cognizant of the processes used to shape instructional practices.

School leaders need to be methodical in their systems and approaches to growth.

Coherence Frameworks to Build Culture

Using reflexivity within a conceptual framework provides school administrators the structure for

examining the systems for transformative change, by evaluating the connections between policies,

100

pedagogy, instructional practices, data, improved school improvement, and better outcomes for

students (Welborn, 2019). Perry & Richardson (2022) identify that building culture relies on being

strategic about knowing who to push, when, and how far. Collaborative inquiry strengthens professional

learning communities when school administrators create opportunities for risk-taking by empowering

adults to learn from each other. Interpersonal relationships build trust on which to exchange ideas and

consider other perspectives, fostering a growth mindset (Perry & Richardson, 2022). When educators

feel safe to exchange ideas, they are willing to consider alternatives to instruction that differ from their

traditional approaches. Developing co-teaching relationships creates a dynamic, welcoming the

exchange of ideas versus feeling threatened. Participants acknowledged that co-teachers may feel

threatened when needing to consider alternative instructional methods in the classroom. Central to the

cycles of research is the work done by classroom educators to increase student outcomes in the

classroom, as they are the daily practitioners planning and delivering instruction. Their prowess is

dependent upon cycles of continuous improvement via feedback and professional development (Balci &

�zkan, 2023; Miller, 2023). As part of the action research cycles, the participants used the co-planning

reflection tool to engage administrative stakeholders in discussions connecting the planned integration

of the six models of co-teaching into the delivery of instruction in the classroom. Participants shared the

co-planning reflection tool with co-teachers in their district for transparency of expectations. The

administrators supervising co-teaching must develop and implement structures to be able to provide

professional development that is consistent, timely, and relevant (Balci & �zkan, 2023; Miller, 2023).

Co-Teaching Methodology in the Classroom

Educational leaders need to possess the knowledge and skills within their repertoire of assets to

lead educational growth. School leaders have the expertise to implement the technical aspects of co-

teaching, but they also need to know the content knowledge of co-teaching methodology for the

systems to be effective. To communicate expectations clearly, a school leader must possess

101

foundational knowledge about co-teaching to hold co-teachers accountable for inclusive practices

(Miller, 2023; Murawski & Dieker, 2013). Some participants, who's in-district administrators needed to

be better versed in co-teaching methodology, identified challenges with the building-based schedule

and time available for co-planning. Without understanding the role of co-planning as the vehicle to keep

students with disabilities in the general education classroom, school administrators are not able to ask

co-teachers to connect the delivery of instruction to a purpose. This became clear as the reflection tools

were utilized.

The original intent of the reflection tools was for administrators to use with their administrative

counterparts. However, through the Community Practice sessions, the participants used the tools with

co-teachers directly. The participants expressed that to be fair to co-teachers, the teacher should know

what the expectations are. The participants identified the reflection tools, which clearly state the

expectations for co-planning and delivery of instruction across the domains of co-teaching. Clear

expectations for co-teaching foster a culture of growth by creating opportunities for administration and

co-teachers to have an open dialogue about a shared set of instructional practices (Beninghof, 2021;

Drago-Severson, 2009; Perry & Richardson, 2022).

Finding 3: Strategies for Sustainability

The third finding of this research, as backed by extant literature, answered the third research

question about how administrative strategies can support co-teaching teams to develop multimodal

instruction. The results indicated that administrative strategies must target the development and

implementation of school-based systems with fidelity, for co-teaching methodology to be implemented

with sustainability. This third finding tethers the research, the extant literature, and the implications to

the most critical aspect for students: changes in instructional practices. Without the theoretical and

methodological foundations, instructional practices do not possess the potency of systematized

interventions. The juncture between expectations and reality is where the participants spent most of

102

their scrutiny. Pivotal to the third strategy is the concept of accountability. However, as phraseology

matters, the term accountability underrepresents the power of the process of reflection. The third

strategy centers on reflexivity in systems that provide clear expectations with cycles of discourse for

continuous improvement.

Reflexive Practices

The findings of this research reinforce the importance of professional learning for growth, as

identified in the literature (Balci & �zkan, 2023; Bottiani et al., 2017; Drago-Severson, 2020) The first

administrative strategy provides feedback using a reflective stance, not an evaluative stance. The

literature and participants identify value in the large-scale educator evaluation system and one-day

professional development sessions. However, of equal value and, at times, more impactful are the non-

evaluative structured feedback cycles for professional learning (Balci & �zkan, 2023; Mireles-Rios et al.,

2019). The smaller-scale cycles of professional learning impact classroom instruction in real time,

strengthening the sustainability of practices (Drago-Severson, 2020). Murawski and Dieker (2013)

discuss the benefits of the formal observation and evaluation process. During the pre-conference, the

administrators and co-teachers discuss what will be seen, conduct the observation, and provide

feedback during a post-conference session. However, Murawski and Dieker (2013) speak to the

discomfort co-teachers may experience from the observation process. Moreover, Balci and �zkan (2023)

suggest that earning walks provide a purpose greater than meeting perfunctory expectations for a legal

process. Ginsberg et al., (2018) explain further, that learning walks demystify and de-privatize teaching

and learning, using structured conversations as the means for improving practices. In the current study,

participants articulated the culture of learning walks as a means of engaging in conversation about

educational practices without the pressure of evaluation. The districts of all the participants already had

an established process of conducting learning walks, which meant that this gentle version of the

feedback loop was already in place.

103

Administrator Consistency

The second administrative strategy identified close attention to the timing of the observation-

feedback loop. Participants held administrator consistency with the observation-feedback loop as

paramount to holding educators responsible for the change in their instructional practices. The

administrator must deliver feedback that is meaningful and timely. Balci and �zkan (2023) opined that

school administrators could increase the efficacy of collecting and reporting observational data by using

observation tools and protocols, highlighting the participant experience using the reflection tools as part

of the research study. The co-created reflection tools target the co-teaching dynamics, explicitly

describing the expectations of the co-teaching partners and the co-planning process.

Debriefing

The third administrator strategy brings attention to how school administrators deliver feedback.

Debriefing around shared notices strengthens the community of practitioners. It also enhances

reflection about practices aligned with achievement. The debriefing may look different between two

administrators than between administrators and teachers. Of course, school administrators must be

cognizant of the way in which they deliver feedback. Feedback that is empathetic and supportive

increases the likelihood that the recipient is available to process the information (Balci & �zkan, 2023;

Miller, 2023; Ross et al., 2023). The participants here were critical and selective about the language used

to describe co-teaching in the reflection tools. They were also conscious of how these tools would be

read and interpreted by co-teachers. The feedback for changes around language exemplified the

awareness of how feedback could be received. The participants spoke to their tracking systems of the

feedback provided, to ensure the next observation-feedback cycle followed up on the feedback

provided as part of the prior debriefing, noticing changes in the instructional practices embedded in the

co-teaching methodology.

104

Conclusion

The findings systematically corroborate and extend the literature’s critical elements for

eliminating the barriers to inclusive and equitable classrooms, by providing school administrators with a

series of strategies that advance the co-teaching teams’ development of multimodal instruction to

include students with disabilities in the classroom. This research indicates the need for leadership to

take on the role of instructional leader to support educators better, in carrying out their mission to

combat ableism (Cheatham et al., 2020). As the historically oppressive structures have been both

intentional and unintentional, culturally responsive leaders need to develop staff to create school-wide

climate shifts to create safe places that are welcoming and inclusive (Khalifa et al., 2016). Educational

leadership is imperative for social justice and human development, requiring vital changes to policy and

practices for lasting positive outcomes that move vision to action (Santamaria & Santamaria, 2015). The

findings and extant literature call to action administrators of special education and principals to develop

philosophies of inclusion that embeds into frameworks for reflective change. Co-teaching methodology

grounds the philosophy of inclusion into instructional practices that increase the engagement and

achievement of students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

Through the findings here, administrative strategies that answer the research questions

emerged. The first administrative strategy expects school administrators to develop a shared philosophy

of inclusion by the administration that is at the forefront of all communication and the anchor for all

other actions. The first strategy for organizational change is to foster the collaboration necessary to

involve the district and building-level stakeholders to develop shared meaning as to why well-planned

initiatives are paramount to student achievement. The second addresses the development and

implementation of structures for continuous improvement that ground the theoretical underpinning of

inclusion to specific instructional methodology and instructional practices, to address skill deficits and

increase outcomes for students with fidelity and sustainability. There are three steps to the second

105

strategy examining the role of the school administrator to apply a coherent framework as a strategy for

change, communicating clear examples for co-teaching. The third strategy addresses the juncture

between expectations and reality. This last strategy centers on reflexivity in systems that provide clear

expectations with cycles of discourse for continuous improvement; it also addresses the structures for

using feedback as a tool for instructional change. Feedback needs a reflective stance, not an evaluative

stance, and the timing of the observation-feedback loop requires close attention. School administrators

must be deliberate in how they deliver feedback. Strategies that advance the co-teaching teams’

development of multimodal lessons marry the theory of inclusive pedagogy with the action of co-

teaching methodology to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

Implications for The Organization

The most significant concern is the unaware and unconscious hegemonic acts, as the doing of

good deeds and kind acts establish an internalized dominance communicating superiority over the

minority group (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). The blatant discriminatory acts are more straightforward to

target as a change agent because they are visible and identifiable. The unintentional acts require more

savvy social justice reform. As the change agent for students with disabilities, this research strives to

bring knowledge and awareness to the hegemonic acts of microaggressions that continue to act as

barriers to students with disabilities learning in an environment that is equitable and inclusive. The

findings of the research extend and add new knowledge to the field of education regarding inclusive

education for students with disabilities.

Identification of the administrative strategies that advance the co-teaching teams’ development

of multimodal instruction for students with disabilities in the general education classroom creates a

roadmap of actionable steps that school administrators can implement by utilizing existing resources

within the district for the sustainability of instructional practices. The findings of the research confirm

the strategies identified in the extant literature as appropriate methods for institutional growth that

106

address the marginalization of minority populations. More significantly, research findings from this

study target administrative strategies to apply co-teaching methodology to overcome the barrier of

ableism. The findings of this research specifically add the role of the administrator of special education

to support actionable change for students with disabilities.

Throughout the student researcher’s employment in the role of special education administrator,

and in consultation with other school administrators, the sustainability of strategy implementation

lagged several years after costly professional development from national and local experts in the field.

Despite districts and schools speaking about the pedagogical practices for including students with

disabilities in the classroom, when first embarking on this journey, the instruction observed did not

consistently implement co-teaching methodology in classrooms. The gap between pedagogy and

practice is hard to close. This research therefore intended to utilize the talents and expertise of the

current school administrators in a simplistic and systematic approach to examine co-teaching for direct

impact on the classroom in a realistic and timely manner. The participants spoke to the reflection tools

as beneficial to the school district’s ability to engage in discussion about the philosophy of inclusion, the

implementation of teaching methodology within classroom practices, and the ability to support the co-

teacher dynamics. The co-created reflection tools were simple in design, using language accessible to all

stakeholders, and were applicable to a variety of contexts and co-teaching teams.

The researcher intends to continue the exploration of the administrative strategies that advance

the co-teaching teams’ development of multimodal lessons to include students with disabilities:

1. In their role as a middle school principal, the researcher intends to engage with the other

administrators, assistant principals, and special education coordinators at the building level to

apply the strategies identified through the findings to increase the implementation of co-

teaching methodology in the building.

107

2. The researcher was a member of the executive board for administrators of special education for

the State. The researcher will contact the board to inquire about presenting the findings of this

research at one of the three conferences in the upcoming school year.

3. Through their role as a professional consultant, the researcher will incorporate the findings and

strategies as recommendations to administrators of special education seeking to engage in

service for professional learning.

Areas for future research include (a) further examination of the impact of the Cycle 2 reflection

tools on the implementation of co-teaching methodology to change instructional practices and increase

the engagement of students with disabilities in the classroom, (b) further examination of the role of the

administrator of special education to overcome barriers to inclusive education for students with

disabilities, and (c ) strategies that advance the collaboration of the administrator of special education

and principal to increase the implementation of co-teaching methodology with efficacy and

sustainability.

108

References

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7–

24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010102

Alim, H. S., Baglieri, S., Ladson-Billings, G., Paris, D., Rose, D. H., & Valente, J. M. (2017). Responding to

“Cross-Pollinating Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an

Inclusive Pedagogy That Accounts for Dis/Ability.” Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 4–25.

https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.1.4

Allen, R. E. S., & Wiles, J. L. (2015). A rose by any other name: Participants choosing research

pseudonyms. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(2), 149–165.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1133746

Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2016). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using

dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society.

Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837

Argyris, C. (1994, July/August). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review. 77-

85. https://hbr.org/1994/07/good-communication-that-blocks-learning

Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New

York University Press.

Balcı, S., & �zkan, H. (2023). Development, implementation, and evaluation of an effective feedback

program for school principals to improve in-class teaching. Shanlax International Journal of

Education, 11(S1-July), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v11is1-july.6283

Beninghof, A. M. (2020). Co-Teaching that works: Structures and strategies for maximizing student

learning. John Wiley & Sons.

Beninghof, A. M. (2021). Specially designed instruction: Increasing success for students with disabilities.

Routledge.

109

Bernhardt, P., & Murawski, W. (2015). An administrator’s guide to co-teaching. Educational Leadership,

73(4). https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/an-administrators-guide-to-co-teaching

Billingsley, B., DeMatthews, D., Connally, K., & McLeskey, J. (2018). Leadership for effective inclusive

schools: Considerations for preparation and reform. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive

Education, 42(01), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.6

Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and

processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68-75.

https://doi.org/10.1177/174498710708125

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking. Qualitative Health

Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

Blaisdell, B. (2015). Schools as racial spaces: Understanding and resisting structural racism. International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(2), 248–272.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1023228

Bottiani, J. H., Larson, K. E., Debnam, K. J., Bischoff, C. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2017). Promoting

educators’ use of culturally responsive practices: A systematic review of in-service interventions.

Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 367-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117722553

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.

Harvard University Press.

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action research, 1(1), 9–

28. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030011002

Center for Educational Leadership. (2021, March 14). Central office transformation toolkit. University of

Washington. https://k-12leadership.org/tools/central-office-transformation-toolkit/

Cheatham, J. P., Baker-Jones, T., & Jordan-Thomas, E. (2020). Note on racial equity in school systems.

Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University, PEL(096).

110

Choi, J. H., McCart, A. B., Hicks, T. A., & Sailor, W. (2018). An analysis of mediating effects of school

leadership on MTSS implementation. The Journal of Special Education, 53(1), 15–27.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918804815

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology (pp. 1947–1952).

Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_311

Cook, S. C., & McDuffie-Landrum, K. (2019). Integrating effective practices into co-teaching: Increasing

outcomes for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(4), 221–229.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219855739

Coghlan, D. (2006). Insider action research doctorates: Generating actionable knowledge. Higher

Education, 54(2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-5450-0

Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing.

Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53–87. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.571520

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

DeMartino, P., & Specht, P. (2018). Collaborative co-teaching models and specially designed instruction

in secondary education: A new inclusive consultation model. Preventing School Failure:

Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(4), 266–278.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2018.1446413

DeMatthews, D. (2019). Addressing racism and ableism in schools: A DisCrit leadership framework for

principals. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 93(1), 27-

34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2019.1690419

DeMatthews, D. E., Serafini, A., & Watson, T. N. (2020). Leading inclusive schools: Principal perceptions,

practices, and challenges to meaningful change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(I)3-

48(57), 0013161X2091389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x20913897

111

Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our schools. Corwin

Press.

Eun, B. (2018). Adopting a stance: Bandura and Vygotsky on professional development. Research in

Education, 105(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523718793431

Fern�ndez, L. (2002). Telling stories about school: Using critical race and Latino critical theories to

document Latina/Latino education and resistance. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 45–65.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800402008001004

Finnerty, M. S., Jackson, L. B., & Ostergren, R. (2019). Adaptations in general education classrooms for

students with severe disabilities: Access, progress assessment, and sustained use. Research and

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(2), 87–102.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919846424

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative

research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717–732.

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x

Giangreco, M. F. (2019). “How can a student with severe disabilities be in a fifth-grade class when he

can’t do fifth-grade level work?” Misapplying the least restrictive environment. Research and

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 23–27.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919892733

Gilson, T., & Etscheidt, S. (2022). Preparing administrative leaders to support special education programs

in schools: a comprehensive multi-dimensional model. International Journal of Education

Leadership Preparation, 17(1), 41–55

Ginsberg, M. B., Bahena, O., Kertz, J., & Jones, N. (2018). Motivation in motion: Learning walks benefit

teachers and students in a dual-language primary school. Learning Professional, 39(3), 38.

112

Hargreaves, A., Hal�sz, G., & Pont, B. (2007). School leadership for systemic improvement in Finland A

case study report for the OECD activity: Improving school leadership. www.oecd.org.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2004). When leadership spells danger: Leading meaningful change in

education takes courage, commitment, and political savvy. Leading in Tough Times, 61(7), 33–

37.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2014). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty.

SAGE Publications.

Hollingsworth, S. M. (2019). Multi-tiered system of supports as collective work: A (re)structuring option

for middle schools. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 24(2).

https://doi.org/10.20429/cimle.2019.240204

Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2019). Supporting principal supervisors: What really matters? Journal of

Educational Administration, 57(5), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-05-2019-0089

Johannesson, P. (2020). Development of professional learning communities through action research:

Understanding professional learning in practice. Educational Action Research, 30(3), 411–426.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100

Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership. Review of

Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

Kozleski, E. B., Stepaniuk, I., & Proffitt, W. (2020). Leading through a critical lens: The application of

DisCrit in framing, implementing, and improving equity driven, educational systems for all

students. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(5), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-

12-2019-0220

Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (2008). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change. (pp. 73-100)

Corwin Press.

113

Ladkin, D. (2005). ‘The enigma of subjectivity.’ How might phenomenology help action research

negotiate the relationship between ‘self’, ‘other’, and ‘truth’?. Action Research, 3(1), 108–126.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750305049968

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Resources. (n.d.). Rubrics. Last

updated June 5, 2023. https://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/rubrics/

Matias, C. E., & Newlove, P. M. (2017). The IllUSion of Freedom: Tyranny, whiteness, and the state of US

society. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(3), 316–330.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1336951

McCaw, J. (2020). Special education administrative supervision of integrated co-teaching. Journal for

Leadership and Instruction, Fall, 24–32.

McIntosh, P. (2004). White Privilege: Unpacking the invisible backpack. In P.S. Rothenberg (Ed), Race,

class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (pp. 188-192) Worth Publishers.

McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.

SAGE Publications.

Miller, L. (2023). Supervision to support reflective practices. Journal of Educational Supervision, 6(1), 1–

18. https://doi.org/10.31045/jes.6.1.1

Mireles-Rios, R., Becchio, J. A., & Roshandel, S. (2019). Teacher evaluations and contextualized self-

efficacy. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 4(1), 6–17.

https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v4i1.1938

Moosa, V., & Shareefa, M. (2019). Implementation of differentiated instruction: Conjoint effect of

teachers’ sense of efficacy, perception and knowledge. Anatolian Journal of Education, 4(1).

https://doi.org/10.29333/aje.2019.413a

114

Murawski, W. (2020). Ensuring co-teaching continues virtually: A school leader’s imperative. Journal of

School Administration Research and Development, 5(S1), 21–29.

https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v5is1.2631

Murawski, W. & Dieker, L. (2013). Leading the co-teaching dance: Leadership strategies to enhance team

outcomes. Council For Exceptional Children.

Murphy, J. T. (1988). The Unheroic Side of Leadership: Notes from the Swamp. Phi Delta Kappa

International, 69(9), 654–659.

Olson, A., Leko, M. M., & Roberts, C. A. (2016). Providing students with severe disabilities access to the

general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(3),

143–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916651975

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12441244

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A

loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

Perry, G. S., Jr., & Richardson, J. (2022). Equity warriors: Creating schools that students deserve. Corwin

Press.

Raskin, A. (2018, February). The discrimination you never heard of [Video]. Ted Conferences.

https://www.ted.com/talks/alan_raskin_the_discrimination_you_ve_never_heard_of

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2007). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and

practice. SAGE.

Reason, P., & Torbert, W. (2001). The action turn. Concepts and Transformation, 6(1), 1–37.

https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.1.02rea

115

Ross, D., Lamb, L., & Johnson, J. (2023). Using affirming learning walks to build capacity. Journal of

School Administration Research and Development, 8(1), 47–54.

https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v8i1.4783

Roulston, K., & Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods.

Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803

Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.

Samuels, A. J. (2018). Exploring culturally responsive pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives on fostering

equitable and inclusive classrooms. SRATE Journal, 27(1), 22–30.

Santamar�a, L. J., & Santamar�a, A. P. (2015). Counteracting educational injustice with applied critical

leadership: Culturally responsive practices promoting sustainable change. International Journal

of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i1.1013

Schlessinger, S. L. (2017). Reclaiming teacher intellectualism through and for inclusive education.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(3), 268–284.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1362598

Schwarz, R. M. (2013). Smart leaders, smarter teams: How you and your team get unstuck to get results.

John Wiley & Sons.

Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2019). What is knowledge? In O. Sensoy & R. DiAngelo (Eds.), Is everyone

really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in social justice education, second edition, (pp. 1-

34) Teachers College Press.

Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Oppression and Power. In O. Sensoy & R. DiAngelo (Eds.), Is everyone

really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in social justice education, second edition, (pp. 60-

79) Teachers College Press.

116

Shaukat, S., Vishnumolakala, V. R., & Al Bustami, G. (2018). The impact of teachers’ characteristics on

their self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A perspective from teachers engaging students with

disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(1), 68–76.

Shields, C.M. (2012). Critical advocacy research: An approach whose time has come. Critical qualitative

research reader, 2, 2-13

Sinclair, A. C., Bray, L. E., Wei, Y., Clancy, E. E., Wexler, J., Kearns, D. M., & Lemons, C. J. (2018).

Coteaching in content area classrooms: Lessons and guiding questions for administrators. NASSP

Bulletin, 102(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636518812701

Sobeck, E. E., Robertson, R., & Smith, J. (2019). The effects of didactic instruction and performance

feedback on paraeducator implementation of behavior support strategies in inclusive settings.

The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919858989

Spillane, J. P. (2012). Distributed leadership. John Wiley & Sons.

Stefanidis, A., King-Sears, M. E., & Brawand, A. (2018). Benefits for co-teachers of students with

disabilities: Do contextual factors matter? Psychology in the Schools, 56(4), 539–553.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22207

Stringer, E. T., & Arag�n, A. O. (2020). Action research. SAGE Publications.

Tichnor-Wagner, A. (2019). Globally-Minded leadership: A new approach for leading schools in diverse

democracies. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 15(2).

https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2019v15n2a869

Tracy-Bronson, C. P.(2020). District-level inclusive special education leaders demonstrate social justice

strategies. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 33(2), 59–77.

Van Aswegen, J., & Shevlin, M. (2019). Disabling discourses and ableist assumptions: Reimagining social

justice through education for disabled people through a critical discourse analysis approach.

Policy Futures in Education, 17(5), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318817420

117

Welborn, J. E. (2019). Increasing equity, access, and inclusion through organizational change: a study of

implementation and experiences surrounding school district’s journey towards culturally

proficient educational practice. ICPEL Education Leadership Review, 20(1).

Yosso, T. J. (2020). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural

wealth. In Critical Race Theory in Education (pp. 114–136). Routledge.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/97810030059958

118

Appendix A: Research Design

The purpose of this appendix is to illustrate the research design choices made by the researcher

conducting this study. Through exploration of the qualitative research paradigm and the Action

Research methodologies, it will become clear how Action Research was applied to this problem of

practice and why this was appropriate. The appendix demonstrates why these methodologies were

germane to this study, which examined the impact of the roles and relationships of various stakeholders

on the success of implementing strategies that advance the co-teaching teams’ ability to develop

multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the classroom. The pursuit of creating

inclusive and equitable classroom environments through transformative change drove the necessity and

urgency for this research. The specific research design and action steps for Cycle 1, followed by Cycle 1.5

research design and steps, are discussed to provide context for the research design and steps for Cycle

2. The appendix concludes with the ethical considerations, trustworthiness, and limitations related to

the study.

Qualitative Research Approach

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a systematic approach to gathering and analyzing data to provide insight

into a societal phenomenon by using a holistic lens to acknowledge the lived experiences of the

stakeholders; and to examine the historical context that led to the problem, in order to design more

effective solutions to the complex arrays of issues that occur as a result of the dynamic nature of the

real world (Fossey et al., 2002; Stringer & Aragon, 2021). When choosing qualitative research, the

individual's stance on the ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical, and methodological

philosophical assumptions will influence the research design (Creswell, 2013). The researcher’s

worldview reflects the research paradigm used to generate knowledge. Paradigms are a set of

assumptions, research strategies, and criteria for rigor used to observe and measure the phenomena

119

generating knowledge (Fossey et al., 2002). The epistemology of the philosophical perspectives and

paradigms differ on what constitutes knowledge.

Social constructivism posits that knowledge creation cannot be separated from the social

environment in which it is formed, emphasizing human relationships in learning through participation.

Social and historical origins are embedded in the context of meaning. Therefore, truth is socially

constructed (Creswell, 2013; Fossey et al., 2002). The problem of practice here examined the

administrative and instructional practices and relationships between co-teaching team members to

create opportunities to cultivate inclusive educational environments for students with disabilities. The

researcher’s understanding the epistemology of the philosophical perspectives and paradigms of the

educators involved in supporting the development and implementation of co-teaching pedagogy

necessitated a research approach that explored the dynamic nature of the real world of the classroom

and the lived experiences of those in that context. This foundation grounded the current study in the

elements of qualitative research.

Qualitative research assists in developing better knowledge in complex areas that are less

understood, particularly around the subjective experiences of individuals or groups. The philosophical

assumption is the underpinning of the methodological framework used for inquiry. The critical research

paradigm, more specifically, matched this study as it sought to understand the meanings of human

interactions, gaining meaning from their viewpoints. A researcher must select and apply one of the five

qualitative research categories, as this will dictate the approach used to explore the societal phenomena

investigated. Ethnography, narrative, phenomenological, ground theory, and Action Research each act

as a pivotal frame shaping a researcher’s questions, methods of collection, and how the data will be

analyzed. Using qualitative methodology will provide contextual data to elicit a more in-depth

understanding of the phenomena (Fossey et al., 2002). Action Research connects the researcher and the

participants to link theory to practice collectively, and so drive social change. Acknowledging non-

120

dominant groups can contribute to knowledge. The qualitative paradigm expounds that the experiences

of non-dominant populations are just as meaningful to study as those of the dominant population. It

shifts the balance of power by bringing the marginalized group to the center of discussion (Auerbach &

Silverstein, 2003). The critical paradigm of qualitative research assists in revealing the conditions and

social structures that help people make transformative changes for a better society (Fossey et al., 2002).

Qualitative Research for this Study

The choice to use qualitative Action Research for this project stemmed from the social nature of

school systems and the interconnectedness of the administrators of special education and principals, as

well as co-teaching team members, as vital to the success of students with disabilities in the general

education classroom. The social constructivism paradigm is the foundation of this research, embedding

the understanding that the lived experiences of the stakeholders are inseparable from the social

environment of the school. When educational leaders use DisCrit as a framework to examine the

practices of their communities, they create opportunities to understand profound biases that exist in

the policies established, regulated, and practiced that promote racism and ableism as constructs that

perpetuate the marginalization of students in the educational setting (Kozeleski et al., 2020). Utilizing a

critical lens to examine the historical impact of race and ableist practices, educational leaders can

transform education by stopping the reproduction of systems that reinforce power and privilege.

Administrators of special education and principals can use critical consciousness and knowledge to

change school experiences within the local context. The DisCrit framework can be applied to any school

district, enabling better outcomes for students with multiple identities. Using the theoretical

frameworks of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Disability Studies (DS), and DisCrit, educational leaders can

implement leadership practices to improve instruction and student achievement. These frameworks

assist administrators of special education and principals in challenging the social constructs,

organizational structures, and educator biases perpetuating racism and ableism (DeMatthews, 2019).

121

The critical perspective seeks to develop knowledge through discourse fostering self-reflection, mutual

learning, and empowerment via participatory Action Research approaches.

Action Research Methodology

Action Research

The tenets of Action Research are grounded in the constructivist paradigm, which fits within the

traditions of qualitative methodology. Action Research identifies knowledge as socially constructed and

recognizes that all research is embedded within a system of values and promotes some model of human

interaction (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003). Underlying the values of Action Research is the respect for

people and for the knowledge and experience they bring to the research process, a belief in the ability

of democratic processes to achieve positive social change, and a commitment to action (Brydon-Miller

et al., 2003). Action Research challenges unjust and undemocratic economic, social, and political

systems and practices (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003). As an Action Researcher, it is essential to bring

conscious awareness of a person's own perspective, lived experiences, and expectations, and of their

here and now, as these all influence what is known as truth (Ladkin, 2005). Action Research as a

methodology uses iterative cycles of identifying a problem, planning, acting, and evaluating for ongoing

sustainable change. An Action Research project intends to facilitate change by using transformative

measures targeting norms and values, distinguishing Action Research from other qualitative research

methods (Coghlan & Jacobs, 2005; Coghlan, 2011).

Action Researchers work on the epistemological assumption that the purpose of academic

research and discourse is not just to describe, understand, and explain the world but also to change it

(Reason & Torbert, 2001; Coghlan, 2011). If Action Research is seen as a social construction made

between the researcher and other actors, we cannot remove the active participation of the researcher.

The need is for a process of social construction that can encompass the challenge of reaching out in

scope (Reason & Bradbury, 2007). People from outside the research context who impose their theories,

122

without having a deep understanding of the nature of events in the dynamics of the context, are likely to

either misrepresent or misinterpret the situation (Stringer & Aragon, 2020). Lewin purposefully changed

the concept of participation through Action Research to have participants be actively integrated with

the researcher (Coghlan, 2011). Ethnographers have traditionally lived in their informants' communities

and have called what they do participant observation. They often develop close relationships with key

informants (Herr & Anderson, 2014). The research participants themselves are either in control of the

research or are participants in the design and methodology of the research (Herr & Anderson, 2014).

Making transformative changes in the context of general education classrooms for students with

disabilities cannot occur without the understanding of the social construct of knowledge of the

educators involved in the co-teaching development and implementation. It is these dynamics with which

the researcher and participants engage in a collaborative process to examine perspectives and lived

experiences to develop new knowledge to make positive social change, making Action Research an

appropriate method to explore this problem of practice.

Action Research for this Study

Within the determination of strategies that advance the co-teaching team’s development of

multimodal instruction, consideration was given to the administrative and co-teaching teams’ shared

responsibility to create inclusive and equitable educational environments. Extensive engagement with

all facets of the research assists in understanding the social worlds of participants, anchoring the

subjective meanings, and ensuring the research is responsive to the setting and participants (Fossey et

al., 2002). This participatory process here used field notes, interviews, and survey instruments as part of

the cycles of inquiry and data collection. The research questions guided the investigatory process into

the administrative strategies to support multimodal instruction, by developing and implementing

markers of efficient and effective co-teacher dynamics and co-planning for multimodal lessons, creating

a shared responsibility for students with disabilities (Shields, 2012).

123

Data Collection and Analysis: Cycle 1

Participants

The Action Research study must consider participants for adequacy and appropriateness.

Consideration must be given to the sampling strategies in connection to the ability of the participants

to inform the research, as well as the sufficiency in the sample size indicating to provide a thick, rich

description of the problem of practice (Fossey et al., 2002; Stringer & Argon, 2021). Purposeful

sampling considers the boundaries to be set and the connection to the research topic and questions.

The Action Researcher must justify the selection criterion in order to identify membership within the

context (Miles et al., 2020; Stringer & Aragon, 2021).

The purpose of this Action Research study was to determine strategies that advance co-

teaching teams’ development of multimodal instruction to include students with disabilities in the

general education classrooms at Dragon Public Schools. The co-teaching team was defined as the

general education teacher, special education teacher, and instructional assistants from the Dragon

Public Schools. These participants were selected to participate due to the function of their role in this

district, working with students with disabilities in the general education classroom. At this stage in

the research, strategies were the approaches used by co-teaching team members when collaborating

to develop multimodal instruction that accommodates the needs and abilities of learners and reduces

unnecessary hurdles in the learning process. Knowledge generated was expected to advance

educational practices in the general education classroom at the Dragon Public Schools. The primary

stakeholders identified were classroom educators, comprised of the general and special education

teachers. As these primary stakeholders were the ones in the classroom with students, they must

participate in the research, giving voice to their students’ needs in the classroom. Given most school

districts’ utilization of paraprofessionals to support students with disabilities in and out of the general

education classroom, it is important they are included in the primary stakeholder group.

124

There were 188 stakeholders recruited from elementary, middle, and high school levels,

functioning in the role of a general education teacher, special education teacher, or instructional

assistant who was co-teaching in the general education classroom. Recruitment resulted in ten

participants being general and special education teachers from the elementary and middle schools.

While 11 educators expressed interest in participating in the research, not all who expressed interest

pursued the interview process. All participants were female. Unexpectedly, several of the participants

were members of existing co-teaching teams established in the district. Additionally, seven out of ten

participants were from one building; therefore, these participants functioned within a similar co-

teaching model. The other three participants were from another level of the student age group;

therefore, their co-teaching team knowledge is of a similar co-teaching model. Excluded from the

sampling were educators not participating in the co-teaching model.

Procedures

Through in vivo coding, each of the individualized semi-structured interviews conducted with

special education and general education teachers were analyzed into five major codes with sub-codes of

contrasting attributes. Statements were coded into positive or negative, or effective or ineffective

classifications. Perspectives, relationships, self-awareness, strategies, and resources were categorized,

drawing out themes about factors impacting co-teaching.

Most notable when reflecting on the statements made by the participants were differences

between perspectives, relationships, and strategies as code definitions were either positive and

negative, or effective and ineffective. Perspectives were identified as attitudes overall with regard to the

co-teaching model. Relationships described the interactions between the co-teaching team members.

Strategies were the actions taken by the co-teaching team members individually or collaboratively that

impacted the effectiveness of co-teaching. The codebook assisted in providing clarity through the

definitions and examples so that the reader could follow the conclusions drawn by the researcher. These

125

code definitions began to lay the foundation for the classification of the codes: as social, emotional, or

technical factors that impede the advancement of co-teaching teams’ development of multimodal

instruction.

The codes of perspectives, relationships, awareness, strategies, and resources, when applied to

the overarching research questions and the directed questions, sub-codes emerged as a result of

patterns clusters. The latter had attributes that were either positive or negative factors related to the

effective or ineffective strategies used by the co-teaching team to develop and implement lessons.

These attributes are what further developed the code classifications into themes. In the responses to

the question about identifying essential elements to include in the development of multimodal

instruction, all three educators spoke to technical strategies and instructional practices for engagement,

representation, and expression of knowledge. One educator responded, “You need to have scaffolds so

that all students have what they need to be successful.” Another stated, “I always have a set structure

to this class.” Two educators spoke directly to differentiation and components for Universal Design for

Learning (UDL). Two educators spoke directly of using various forms of assessment with students.

However, not one educator connected multimodal instruction development to co-teaching or

inclusion of students with disabilities in general education. This lack of response was data, in and of

itself. Across all three responses to the question about recommendations for co-teaching teams, each

participant identified a technical piece to lesson development, specifically planning and material

development. One educator stated, “Make the time to plan with each other so that you're on the same

page.” A similar response from an educator, “Take out your calendars. Sit down together for an hour,

hour and a half, however long it takes, and say, this is what we need to be teaching each week.” In spite

of the technical elements not being applied to the co-teaching or inclusions, this data set is not the

priority concern when examining theme development. This was emotionally based statements classified

126

into perspectives, relationships, and awareness that led to the theme development and theme

hierarchy, increasing the sense of urgency and importance of this body of research.

Data Analysis

The Cycle 1 data analysis resulted in the following three themes: (a) a philosophy of inclusion,

(b) high-quality instructional practices, and (c) access to resources. Subthemes further supported why

each theme was essential to answer the research question: What strategies advance the co-teaching

teams’ development of multimodal lessons to include students with disabilities in the general education

classroom?

Relational factors such as belief systems, relationships, and communication, both positive and

negative, have a direct impact on the efficacy of strategies implemented in the classroom. Co-teachers

require additional support in the areas of high-quality instructional practices with direct attention to co-

teaching methodology to collaboratively develop the skills and strategies that will consistently meet the

needs of students in general education. The availability and access to resources impacted the co-

teaching teams' development of multimodal instruction. Cycle 1 data analysis demonstrated that the co-

teachers have very little ability to control the factors that act as barriers to the development and

implementation of multimodal instruction at a global level, affecting the ability to make effective,

transformative change.

At the Dragon public schools, five female general education teachers and five female special

education teachers participated in semi-structured interviews over two weeks. The three elementary

and seven secondary teachers were currently, or have been, co-teachers in the Dragon’s model of two

teachers instructing students with and without disabilities in the general education setting, which

provided co-planning time as part of the structure of co-teaching implementation. Interview questions

sought to gain information about the roles and responsibilities of the co-teachers, co-teacher dynamics,

lesson development, and the impact of co-teaching methodology on student achievement.

127

Data Analysis

The first cycle of coding was an iterative process requiring several attempts. For the first pass, in