Abstract
Class Within a Class (CWC) is a responsible inclusion model of service
delivery for students with mild to moderate disabilities. CWC is a
collaborative teaching model which pairs a special educator and a general
educator. These two professionals co-plan and co-teach. The general educator is
the curriculum expert and the special educator is the strategic expert when
co-planning. Planning also involves deciding which teacher is the lead and
which is the support for each lesson. Successful planning provides for the
education of all students who are in the CWC classroom.
This presentation
will examine the roles, effective practices, and successful methodologies used
in the CWC model. Specific strategies will be discussed as well.
Results of
the CWC model have indicated that all students benefit from this type of
teaching model. General education students achieve higher than peers in non CWC
classrooms on standardized tests and general grade point averages. Special
education students achieve higher academically and socially when educated in
the CWC model.
Presenters for this session have successfully implemented
the CWC collaborative model for students with learning disabilities, students
with language impairments, and students who are deaf/hard of hearing. When
implemented correctly, CWC benefits all learners.
In the United States of America the right to a free appropriate education (FAPE) for all children was granted in 1975 with the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA or PL 94-142). This was based on the Civil Rights Law of 1964 (Daniel & King, 1997) which gave additional power to those who would be affected based on the individuals right to equal access. In this case the equal access was for special education services and provided all children identified with special needs the right to be included in the least restrictive environment (LRE). As part of equal rights legislation the right to challenge this law in the form of litigation has resulted in modifications and redefining the LRE in subsequent versions of IDEA legislation.
Ten years after the original law was passed, the assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education, Madeleine Will, gave a report on the status of special education in December, 1985 (Will, 1986). She reported that programs meant to provide the most effective programs for students with special needs were falling short of their intended goal. Programs designed to provide intensive interventions in isolated setting were actually "watering down" the curriculum and leaving student progress far behind expected levels. The isolated settings were subjecting students to teasing by peers and socially isolated. As a result of teasing, the self-concept of students were also lowered. Programs developed with the best of motivations were falling short of the intended goals of providing an intensive and better educational program and resulting in added social stigma for students already disadvantages because of learning difficulties.
Will's concerns were reflected in IDEA, 1990 (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1998) which required inclusion to be explained as part of each student's individualized educational plan (IEP). Now with IDEA, 1997, the "least restrictive environment" is now interpreted as the neighborhood school and students' progress must be shown within the general education curriculum (IDEA, 1997). The law now requires that the child's disability be explained as to how the disability "enables" the child in the general education classroom and that progress is shown from the child's grade level curriculum. Simply including students identified with special needs in the general education classroom is not sufficient to meeting the needs to gain access to grade level curriculum.
Several model of inclusionary practices were developed and include Adaptive Learning Environments Model (ALEM) (Wang & Birch, 1984); Integrated Classroom Model (ICM) (Affleck, Madge, Adams & Lowenbraun, 1988); Class Within A Class (CWC) (Hudson, 1989); Success for All (Slavin, 1990); cooperative teaching programs (Walsh, 1992); and resource/consulting teachers (RCT) (Idol, 1989). All of these models focus on supporting instruction for students in general education classrooms and each has an effective teaching component. The Class Within A Class Model has fourteen years of data that shows the successful practices of collaborative - co-teaching practices can benefit students with disabilities in the general education classroom settings.
Class within A Class Model
The CWC model (Hudson, 1989) is applicable to students who are categorized as having mild and moderate handicaps. For these students, the special education teacher works with the general education teacher in a collaborative setting to co-teach. The general education teacher provides grade level curriculum knowledge while the special education teacher provides strategic modifications and presentation techniques to mediate the content of academic subjects. Together these two professionals design lessons and activities to accommodate students with mild and moderate handicaps to afford these students access to understanding the curriculum. Emphasis is on equalizing learning opportunities through effective teaching strategies and not curriculum adaptations (Hudson, 1989). As a result, the curriculum is presented so all students can understand and use the concepts presented.
Effective teaching techniques are co-presented by both professionals. Using classroom materials, charts can be made for presenting concepts using visual images or graphic organizers to compare and contrast characters and concepts or sequence events from a story. Exploring a concept with the group allows all students to take part in the discussion and provides a model for age- and grade-level academic subjects. In addition, the students with the best understanding of the concept can summarize and model language behavior needed by those with less developed verbal skills. These methodologies represent the effective teaching components of the CWC model (Hudson, 1991) that are based on the principles set by Vygotsky (Palincsar & Klenk, 1992) for providing special education services in the collaborative/inclusive setting. As changes are considered, attention must be given to the quality of services received by students.
With a focus on making the curriculum understandable, and on developing tasks that all class members are expected to complete, including students identified for special services, curriculum topics serve as the intervention content. Using curriculum-based components with adapted presentation provides methodologies that follow the constructivist principles (Poplin, 1988) which advocate using the curriculum to prepare activities that will involve all students in assignments. Engaging all students in learning tasks results in intentional learning, which requires metacognitive knowledge (Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). Therefore, just one expectation for all students to master content, taught with effective practices, is the key component to adapting classroom material in a meaningful way, thus equalizing learning opportunities for all students (Hudson, 1989).
Research Data
Much of the data was collected from studies completed in Belton, Missouri. Belton is a town of 25,000 people with 4,500 students 30 miles south of Kansas City, Missouri. There are 9 schools (one high school, one middle school, four elementary schools, one pre-school center and an alternative school that serves students from 16 districts). Data collected includes performance on the criterion-referenced Missouri Mastery Achievement test (MMAT); peer rating scales; peer nomination scales; self-concept scales; and parent, student and teacher satisfaction surveys. Data collected from this school district has consistently shown that student grades, MMAT scores, social acceptance and use of learning strategies were enhanced by participation in the CWC model.
Several dissertation studies have been completed on the CWC model by students of Floyd Hudson during their study at the University of Kansas. Klamm (1989) found that the CWC was a viable alternative to traditional "pull-out" programs. The CWC model resulted in increased academic, social, and peer status when instruction was received as part of the general education classroom program. Yeager (1994) had similar findings in the area of global self-concept and academic self-concept. She found similar results as Klamm (1989). They both found a significant mean difference between students with and without disabilities in general education classes on subtests on the MMAT. In addition, attendance was positively influenced by inclusion in the CWC model (Yeager, 1994).
Myers (1988, 1994) found that teachers' roles needed to be delineated in the early stages of collaboration, but that as time in a collaborative setting increased, the more the lines blurred between "my job" or "your job" and became more "our job". This cohesiveness resulted in fewer conflicts (Myers, 1994). Myers study supported the findings of Dissinger (1988) who found that general and special education teachers agreed for the majority of time on items perceived to be important elements of CWC. In another study (Olson, 1994) it was discovered that the more experienced teachers were the more compatible they would be in a collaborative setting. Experienced teachers were found to be more organized, prepared and open minded. They were also found to be better able to co-plan, work collaboratively, and blend teaching styles as well as accept suggestions from their collaborative partner.
Black (1993) studied effective teaching practices that were used in the CWC setting in the general education classes. She did not find any differences between effective practices used in CWC as compared to effective practices that were used in the general education setting. Effective teaching practices are as effective with students with disabilities as they are with students without disabilities.
The strategic methodologies are a specific component of the CWC model between two different school districts. The effects of the CWC model with an inclusionary model with no strategic methodology and found the CWC model to be more effective for elementary-aged students with learning disabilities (Beal, 1998).
The strategic methodologies specific to this model make it equally appropriate to serving students for language interventions. Swenson (1998) studied the social integration, self-concepts and language skills and compared groups of students served in the collaborative setting with students. Students served in the collaborative setting make greater gains on clause density, which is one feature that shows integration of language concepts, when students matches did not make comparable gains when the same curriculum based interventions were given in an isolated setting. Strategic interventions co-presented with the general education teacher at the time the curriculum was presented in the classroom were found to have been differences in the instructional discourse that could have made the differences in these results.
An early fear by parents of students with normal performance was that their children would receive a lesser or watered down education as compared to their peers who were not in the CWC model. Quite the contrary has been proven. A study considered the effects of the achievement of general education students in third, fourth and fifth grades. Over a three year period the students served in the CWC model consistently produced higher achievement scores on MMAT tests than grade level peers who had not been exposed to the CWC academic interventions (Southwick, 1998).
A follow-up study was conducted by Clutter (1997) and found student identified with severe learning disabilities during elementary school grades were successful in general education classes at the high school level. These students were socially integrated into athletic teams and activities like the National Honor Society. Post high school students were working in vocational fields comparable to peers at equal salary levels. Collaborative interventions show long term results that support the findings on interventions from studies that represented one to three years of data collection.
Summary
Including students with mild and moderate disabilities in the general education setting requires ongoing cooperative planning and teamwork. Dr. Floyd Hudson was very specific about accommodating the learning of students with disabilities in a responsible inclusive manner. Inclusion alone does not provide the setting special learners need. It is the collaborative team who can provide the strategic instructional setting to support learning with the potential of increasing the learning curve for all students. Teams take time to develop and to build the relationships for sharing space and instruction in collaborative settings. Dedication to the team process will result in positive results as those found in these studies which have been conducted over the past fourteen years in Belton, Missouri.
References:
Affleck, J. Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54 (4), 339-348.
Beal, H. A. (1998). An analysis of achievement and progress of students with learning disabilities and students without learning disabilities in the class-within-a-class (CWC) inclusion model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Black, M. D. (1993). Effective teaching practices identified for class within a class by program participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Clutter, S (1997). A follow-up study on the effect of Class Within A Class on the transition of high school students: Comparisons and perceptions of high school student sin the Belton, Missouri School District. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Daniel, L. G. & King, K. A. (1997). Impact of inclusion education on academic achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 91 (2), p 67-80.
Dissinger, F. K. (1988). The identification of critical elements of the class within a Class alternative service delivery model and the development of a teacher training package based on the critical elements identified. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Hudson, F.G. (1989) Class within a class staff development workshop: Module III and module IV. Jefferson City: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Hudson, F. G. (1991). Effective teaching lessons. Unpublished workshop materials. Kansas City: University of Kansas, Department of Special Education.
Hudson, F. G., Colson, S. E., & Braxdale, C. T. (1984). Instructional planning for dysfunctional learners: levels of presentation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 17 (3), 1-12.
Hudson, F. G. & Klamm, K. (1991). Class within a class research report for Belton, MO P. S. District: G.P.A., self-concept, and peer status of students with learning disabilities. Kansas, City KS: Department of Special Education, University of Kansas.
IDEA (1997). Individuals with disabilities education act amendments of 1997 (IDEA). Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
Idol, L. (1989). The resource/consulting teacher: An integrated model of service delivery. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 38-48.
Klamm. K. (1989). An analysis of academic performance, self-concept, social integration, adaptive behavior, and consumer satisfaction in an elementary level CWC alternative service delivery model for students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Myers, D. (1994). Perceived task orientation of teachers in class within a class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Myers, D. (1988). Role and collaborative effort of special and regular classroom teachers in an elementary school alternative service delivery model: class within a class (CWC). Unpublished masters thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (4), 211-225.
Pehrsson, R. S. & Denner, P. R. (1988). Semantic organizers: Implications for reading and writing. Topics in Language Disorders, 8 (3), 24-37.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). General education under the regular education initiative: How must it change? Remedial and Special Education, 11 (3), 40-50.
Southwick, K. E. (1998). The effects of the class-within-a-class collaborative co-teaching model on the achievement of general education students in grades three, four, and five. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Swenson, N. C. (1998). Effectiveness of language interventions in collaborative co-teaching classrooms with elementary-aged students and impact on self-concept and social integration: In the Class Within A Class model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Walsh, J. (1992). Student, teacher, and parent preferences for less restrictive special education models - cooperative teaching. Case in Point, 6, 1-11.
Wang, M. C., & Birch, J. W. (1984). Comparison of full-time mainstreaming program and a resource room approach. Exceptional Children, 51 (1), 33-40.
Turnbull, H.R., III & Turnbull, A. (1998). Free Appropriate Public Education (5th ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
Will, M. C. (1986). Education children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52 (5), 411-415.
Yeager, N. (1994). Analysis of absenteeism, achievement, and self-concept of elementary students in an inclusive classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
 |
 |