The Collaborative Model – Part Three

The Final Article in the Series on the BHPSNJ Implementation of the Collaborative Model

As mentioned in Part Two, more recent educational papers have begun to focus on the real-life issues that have arisen as “consultation and collaboration” have become commonplace in schools. Much of the information below is from a paper by Stephen Hernandez at Hofstra University. (Link at bottom of article.)

First up, let’s look at how this model is working for educators. “… general educators are nevertheless now expected to provide instruction to students with a much broader range of learning, behavioral, and developmental differences.” This is done by providing support services. In the case of our district’s implementation, at the middle and high school grades, this is a special education teacher who splits their time between two general education classes. Aside from the obvious – lack of time in the classroom – there are other drawbacks here.

Remember how painful group projects were? Or for some of us as adults, still are? A multitude of research is now showing that collaboration and consultation between educators is hard, is not being achieved on any wide-scale, and yet is a “crucial dimension to the planning, delivery, and evaluation of special education and related services… ” It is also noted that a lack of collaboration negatively impacts not only students with special needs, but the typical child as well. This isn’t talking about schools that haven’t implemented some form of collaboration, it’s talking about the success or failure of educators to achieve true collaboration. Of note, “while team members may demonstrate a desire to collaborate, the fact remains that “team
members typically lack the skills, tools, and support structures that would allow them to orchestrate significant pedagogical and curriculum changes through the collaborative work of the team” (Troen & Boles, 2011, p. 1).” Another study tells us that “a definition of teacher collaboration “is elusive, inconsistent, and often theoretical””.


Friend and Cook (2003) defined interpersonal collaboration as “a style for direct interaction between at least two coequal partners voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal”. That sentences clearly shows the potential for major problems. First, this is not something our educators are voluntarily doing. While some may be more enthusiastic than others, they don’t have a choice in whether to participate, and I’m fairly sure they don’t get to choose those whom they collaborate with. “Coequal” is also a common problem, as special education teachers are perceived to be the ‘expert’ in educating those with special needs, yet the general education teacher has a type of perceived ownership over classroom and curricular content.

Onward to student results. It has been well documented that there is a lack of documentation on the relationship between teacher collaboration and student achievement. (How’s that for helpful.) While studies suggest that there is a positive relationship, empirical evidence is limited, and bear in mind, that the relationship between collaboration and student achievement doesn’t exist where true collaboration isn’t happening. In addition, nearly all studies done to date have been at the elementary school level. Five separate studies done from 2005 -2013 have shown that the majority of literature around this subject deals with the effects on teachers and teaching, not students.

Although not specific to Collaboration, while trying to pinpoint the elusive empirical evidence I came across Hattie’s ‘Visible Learning’ – a way of evaluating different influences on learning. The average effect size of all interventions he studied was 0.40, so influences are ranked compared to that average. For “Mainstreaming”, we see a rating of 0.27, and for Co- or Team Teaching, there is a rank of 0.19; both below the average. As a point of interest, teacher efficacy is the number one influence, at 1.57, interventions for students with learning needs was 0.77, and a great number of the influences that were above average involved some form of repetition and review.

In the absence of any hard evidence that the Collaborative Consultative Model is actually being used correctly or that our students are better off for it, it may be worth pointing out those influences that fall into the negative category. ‘Students Feeling Disliked’ was at -0.19. For those students who indicated they felt “stupid” or those who were afraid to ask questions, any gains made by this model may well be wiped out by having placed them in an environment that might be spotlighting their learning disabilities.

It is my personal belief, based not only on having a child that falls into the special needs category but on working with youth in a variety of programs, that there are times and situations when resource classrooms and self-contained classrooms are better, and there are other times when inclusion is a wonderful and beneficial part of education. As with most everything this district has implemented over the last few years, this ‘all-or-nothing’ and ‘must-do-it now’ approach is contrary to best practices. Regardless of whether, eventually, this model can be tied to student achievement, making another decision without input from those affected might do more harm than good. Except maybe for the Superintendent, who will post about our inclusion on social media for some feel-goods.

Hattie Ranking: 252 Influences And Effect Sizes Related To Student Achievement

Collaboration in Special Education: Its History, Evolution, and
Critical Factors Necessary for Successful Implementation

Related Content:

THE COLLABORATIVE MODEL – PART ONE

THE COLLABORATIVE MODEL – PART TWO