New Teacher Teams to Support Integrated Comprehensive Services

Abstract

Most educators agree that students with disabilities should spend as much time as possible in the general education classroom. However, this expectation frustrates many educators because they do not receive support in ways that ensure the success of students. This article describes an integrated comprehensive service (ICS) delivery model that uses four teams to provide educator support for the benefit of all students in general education.Our extensive research and practice with an ICS delivery model over the past 12 years-in 10 different schools, at the elementary, middle, and high school levels and located in rural, suburban, and urban districts-indicates that educators need to rethink the team structures in their schools to implement and sustain ICS (see box, "What Is an Integrated Comprehensive Service Delivery Model?"). These new team structures are necessary because research suggests that sustaining inclusive practices over time is difficult. For example, in their 4year-long study of a middle school, Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, and Liebert (2006) focused on the sustainability of inclusive education. The study indicated that changes in leadership, teacher turnover, and changes in state and district assessment policies resulted in failure to sustain inclusion. Those 16 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Principal preparedness for leading in demographically changing schools

“…According to Frattura and Capper (2007), separate pull-out programs typically segregate and track students of color, low-income, ELL, and students with disabilities. The researchers noted a lack of acknowledgement by the principals regarding separate programs within their own buildings in addition to the aforementioned programs.…”

Preparing educators to partner with families

“…Expanded partnering content would include more specific, evidence-based family-schoolcommunity strategies known to support learning at school, home, and in the community (Blank & Berg, 2006;Epstein et al, 2009;Hiatt-Michael, 2010;Henderson et al, 2007). Indeed, there is a burgeoning literature that links students' school success to educators' ability to recognize, and discuss student and family strengths and collaborate on the development of innovative assistance and resources, especially with highly stressed and vulnerable populations (Frattura & Caper, 2007;Friend & Cook, 2003). Educators of the future must appreciate both school and nonschool-related barriers that can interfere with the ability to learn and to participate in schooling (Adelman & Taylor, 2010;Cauthen & Fass, 2009;Douglas-Hall & Chau, 2008).…”

A Learning Architecture

“…Educators far and wide claim to value equity, from leadership preparation programs within institutes of higher education, to research published in journals and presented at conferences, to the foci of practitioners at district and school levels and language of state and national administrator standards. Structures to enact these commitments include equity audits (Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004Skrla, Scheurich, & McKenzie, 2009) and integrated service delivery models (Frattura & Capper, 2007a, 2007b. Empirical scholarship describes how leaders expand educational opportunity: building professional capacity, providing strong instructional guidance, creating a robust learning climate, and cultivating parent-school-community relations (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010) A limitation of this body of scholarship, however, is its failure to articulate coherent theories of action through which school leaders actually apply social justice praxis.…”