COLLABORATION IN ACTION : EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSION

Lorna Idol, Ph .D .

October 6-7, 1994

Western Australian Association of Special Education

Perth, Western Australia

Dr . Lorna IdolP . 0 . Box 200910

Austin, TX 78720

Phone and Fax : (512) 338-4757Internet/emai .l : tx .lidol@GTEENS .com

SOURCE : Idol, L ., Nevin, A ., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P . (1994) ;Collaborative Consultation . Austin, TX : PRO-ED .

COLLABORATIVECONSULTATION

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIVE,INTERACTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS

INTRAPERSONALKNOWLEDGEBASE

/ I C3 /rte\

ATTITUDES

Key Questions Related to Inclusion andCollaboration in the Schools

1 .

So, what is inclusion?

2. .

Has the district developed a philosophical position oninclusion?

3 .

Does the district have parental support?

4.

Does the district have the money to do it?

5.

How are teachers being supported?

«««»»»

6.

Are faculty provided with sufficient time to collaborate?

7.

Can you count the number of ways that service delivery Isprovided to support Inclusion?

8 .

Is an effective school-wide discipline pldh in place?

9.

What about the attitudes and beliefs of the teachers?

10.

Are the other students prepared?

«««»»»

11 .

Does everybody know what they are supposed to do?

12.

Do teams and pairs know how to work together?

13 .

Do the faculty know what to do in the classrooms?

14.

Are faculty or parents particularly resistant to including studentswith certain types of handicapping conditions?

15.

What do we need to be keeping track of?

SOURCE : Idol, L . (1994) . Key questions related to inclusion and collaboration inthe schools . The Consulting Edge (Official Newsletter of the Association for

Educational and Psychological Consultants, Volume 6, Issue 1, Sorind/Summer .

DEFINITION OF SCHOOL CONSULTATION

BROWN (1979) -

"A process based upon an equal relationshipcharacterized by :

1 . mutual trust and open communication ;

2 . joint approaches to problem identification ;

(Idol, Psolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1986)

COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION IS AN .INTERACTIVEPROCESS WHICH ENABLES PEOPLE WITH DIVERSE EXPERTISE'TO GENERATE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO MUTUALLY DEFINEDPROBLEMS: THE OUTCOME IS ENHANCED, ALTERED, ANDDIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL SOLUTIONS THAT ANY TEAMMEMBER WOULD PRODUCE INDEPENDENTLY .

3 . the pooling of personal resources to identify andselect strategies that will have some probabilityof solving the problem that has been identified ;

4 . shared responsibility in the implementation andevaluation of the program or strategy _that hasbeen initiated."

DEFINITION OF COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION

1 .

STUDENT PERFORMANCE LEVEL VS . CLASSROOM INSTRUCTIONAL.STANDARD

2 .

CLASSROOM TEACHERS!' AND SUPPORT STAFFS SKILL IN ADAPTINGCURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

3 .

CLASSROOM TEACHERS AND SUPPORT STAFFS SKILL IN DESIGNINGINTERVENTIONS THAT ARE FEASIBLE FOR GENERAL CLASSROOMINSTRUCTION

KEY VARTABLES AFFECTING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY OF

NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH CHALLENGING LEARNING OR BEHAVIORPROBLEMS IN THE GENERAL CLASSROOM

5 .

TYPES AND SCOPE OF SCHOOL SUPPORT SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THECLASSROOM TEACHER

G .

EXISTENCE OF A QUALITY COLLABORATIVE PLANNING/PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS

7 .

LKGLTIMATE TIME TO CONSULT

INTERVENTION IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS

8 .

AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTED INSTRUCTIONAL. MATERIALS

9 .

SCHOOL. STAFF SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION IN THE MOST ENABLING ANDPRODUCTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

COLLABORATION IN THE SCHOOLS :

VEIIICLES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

A SCII001.-BASED MANAGEMENT TEAM

COMMITTEES QF EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS

TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING

CURRICULA, TEXTBOOKS, TESTING EFFORTS, ETC.

DEPARTMENT AND GRADE LEVEL INSTRUCTIONAL. TEAMS

TEACHER ASSISTANCE TEAMS AS PREVENTION

PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS

A COLLABORATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL. PROGRAM REQUIRING

COORDINATION BETWEEN SPECIAL. AND GENERAL. EDUCATION

AND TO INCLUDE :

1 .

CONSULTING TEACHER SERVICES (INDIRECT SERVICE)

2 .

COOPERATIVE TEACHING IN THE CLASSROOM (DIRECT. SERVICE)

:1 .

SUPPORTIVE RESOURCE PROGRAMS (DIRECT SERVICE)

SOURCE : Idol, L ., & West, J . F . (1991) . Educational collaboration :A catalyst for effective schooling . Intervention in School and Clinic,27(2), 70-78, 125 .

Re gular Classroom with Consultation Support Services

This instructional arrangement is designed to provide consultative supportservices to students with handicaps who receive the majority of theireducation in the general classroom . Such support services will be providedindirectly through consultation with the classroom teacher(s) by specialeducation personnel . Students in this instructional arrangement do notrequire substantial curriculum content modifications in their IndividualEducation Plan (IEP) . the special needs of students in this instructionalarrangement will, however, require specialized instruction/techniques andflexible grouping in the classroom . Although primary instructionalresponsibility for the student remains with the classroom teacher, theclassroom teacher and the consulting teacher will . work collaboratively toeffectively develop and implement each students IEP .

Consultation support services appropriate for this instructionalarrangement may include :

1 .

collaborative problem-solving of learning/behavioral problems ofthe student with handicaps in the general classroom .

2 .

diagnostic/demonstration teaching for brief periods of time tofacilitate the provision of appropriate education for the studentwith handicaps in the general classroom .

3 .

assistance in adapting or modifying the curriculum orinstructional methods to enable the student with handicaps toreceive an appropriate education in the general classroom inaccordance with the IEP .

4 .

assistance to general classroom teachers in developing andimplementing specialized instruction or behavioraltechniques/strategies to enable students with handicaps toreceive an appropriate education in the general classroom .

5 .

selection, location, and/or development of appropriateinstructional/testing materials and equipment needed to maintainthe student with handicaps in the general classroom .

6 .

assistance in modification of the classroom environment for thestudent with handicaps in the general classroom .

7 .

temporary assistance to the classroom teacher to facilitate thesuccessful tralisition of a student with handicaps from a specialeducation pull: -out-placement back into the general classroom inaccordance with the 1EP .

communication and collaborative planning through parentconferences t:o ensure coordination and successful implementationof the IEP for the students .

The successful implementation of this instructional arrangementdepends largely upon the willingness of t}ie classroom and consultingteachers, who work collaboratively to provide an appropriate education forspecial education students in the general classroom . Finally, support ofthis instructional arrangement by the building administrator is crucial toits success .

NO OR LOW-COST STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING TEACHERS' CONSULTATION TIME

" REGULARLY BRING LARGE GROUPS OF STUDENTS TOGETHER FOR SPECIAL TYPES OFEXPERIENCES (EG . FILMS, GUEST SPEAKERS, PLAYS)

" HAVE PRINCIPAL AND OTHER SUPPORT STAFF/SUPERVISOR TEACH A PERIOD A DAY ONON A REGULARLY SCHEDULED BASIS

" WHEN STUDENTS ARE DOING INDEPENDENT PROJECTS/STUDY, ARRANGE FOR THEM TOBE CLUSTERED TOGETHER IN LARGE GROUPS (EG . IN LIBRARY OR MULTIPURPOSEROOM)

" HIRE A PERMANENT "FLOATING" SUBSTITUTE

" UTILIZE CROSS-AGE PEER TUTORS

" UTILIZE VOLUNTEERS (EG . PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS, COMMUNITY/BUSINESS LEADERS/RETIRED TEACHERS)

" PRINCIPAL ASSIGNS SPECIFIC TIME EACH DAY OR WEEK FOR COLLABORATION ONLY(WRITTEN LOG REQUIRED)

" ALTER THE SCHOOL DAY FOR TEACHERS, WITHOUT STUDENTS,ON A REGULAR BASIS

" UTILIZE STUDENT TEACHERS

" PRINCIPAL SETS ASIDE ONE DAY PER GRADING PERIOD DESIGNATED AS "COLLABORATION"DAY"'( NO OTHER ACTIVITIES CAN BE SUBSTITUTED ON THIS DAY)

FACULTY VOTES TO EXTEND THEIR INSTRUCTIONAL DAY TWO DAYS PER WEEK FOR20 MINUTES TO PROVIDE COLLABORATION PERIOD FOR STAFF (DAYS CAN BE STAGGEREDAS WELL AS TIME PERIOD EACH DAY OF THE WEEK TO FREE STAFF AT DIFFERENTTIMES)

SOURCE :

West, J" F ., & Idol, L . (1990),

Collabbrative consultationin the education of mildly handicapped and at-risk students,REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, 11(1), 22-31 .

r

Basic Lesson Structure

1 .

Have a clear objective, oftenderived from a task analysis,

2 .

Diagnose learners to makesure instruction is targeted atthe correct level ofdifficulty .

3 .

Gain the learner's attentionby focusing activities .

4 .

Review relevant pastlearning,

5 .

Provide an "anticipatory set"by providing an overview, aswell'as the objective andpurpose of the lesson .

Basic Lesson Structure, cont'd

6 .

Provide information in smallsteps, with modeling andchecking for understanding .

7 .

Provide guided practice withimmediate feedback and highsuccess rates .

8 .

Provide opportunities forindependent practice andreteaching, if necessary .

9 .

Provide a final review of thelesson and an appropriateclosure activity .

A POORLY ALIGNED ('TYPICAL) CURRICULUM

Widely Used Grade 6 Mathematics Textbook(103 Objectives Covered)

Widely UsedAchievement Math Test

Grade 6

Mathematics Curriculwn Objr "dives(63 Objectives Covered)

(100 Objectives Covered)

Source : Komoski, K . (199( 1) . "Needed : A Whole Curriculum Approach ." Educational Leadership, 47(5), p . 73 . Reprinted by permission .

Source: Komoski, K. (19911) . "Needed: A Whole Curriculum Approach ." I?ducatioual Leadership, 47(3),1). 78 . Reprinted by permission .

COMPARISON OF CURRICULUM GOALSIOBJECTIVEWITH TEXTBOOK COVERAGE

2nd Grade 41h Grade 6th Gracie IIth Grade

Number of goals/objectives inthe school's curriculum(mathematics) 42 52 80 52

Number of goals/objectivescovered by the textbooks 40 49 72 _16

Percentage of goals/objectivescovered in the textbooks 95% 94^% 90% 6996

Total number of lessons in thetextbooks 170 1111 175 105

Textbook lessons dim address theF

goals/objectives 121 00 06 59

Textbook lessons that do notaddress the goals/objectives 49 101 09 46

Percentage of textbook lessonsthat address the goals/objectives 70% 44% 49'% 5696

Percentage of textbook lessonsthat do not address thegoals/objectives 30% 56% 5196 4496

'Findings derived from a curriculum analysis study carried out for a local school disuirl by the Genesee Intermediate Sehad District, Flint, Michigan,using EPIC Institute's Integrated Instructional Information Resource (IIIRI .

Alternative TaskSelection (Same

Curriculum)

Instructional Activities andMaterials

INSTRUCTIONAL ADAPTATIONS MATRIX / MANFIELD, TEXASAlternative

Task Selection(Different

Curriculum)Manipulatives Modify directions Math - Simpler problems Teacher reads -Hi-lighted text Rephrase Multiplication table studentSpell check Oral prompts extended time Give student a copy of notes gives oralFolding paper (see 1/2 of assignment) Restate modified tests / that class is copying answerCharts Peer Tutors/Instruction modify grade Easier level of worksheetRulers Layout sequential steps use smaller #'s Shorten assignment Research in libraryReading Block Guide Overhead partial credit PromptsGames Chalkboard omit words from outline Highlighted texts Do alphabetVariety of activities Taped information Visual aids - charts, graphsEnlarging Drama activities centers Shortened assignments Special equipment - taped SequencesTapes Learning bulletin boards Cooperative groupings texts, word processorOverhead Computers Modified write-up Calculators, rulers, scalesChalkboards Oral & written directions Highlighted text Modified lab write upCenters Shared instruction Oral text Give timelinesPuzzles Number lines / Time lines Taped text Leave for Content MasteryMusic Small group instruction Provide multi-sensory material assistanceComputers Word banks/vocabulary boxes Eliminate answer choice(s)Art Incorporating art/music for Laminated Materials

instructionEasier level of materialsHead phones Give copy of other students notesOwn copy of notes 1 on 1 assessmentsMore structured format Teacher as facilitatorConcrete, whole-body activities Visual presentationSpecial equipment (adaptive devices) State objectivesTape Measure, boxes, calculator, work Modeling

sheet MonitoringLab §heet, mineral kits Oral directions/dictationTime line Preferential seatingWord processorHigh-lighted textbooksWord banks

Alternative TaskSelection

Same Curriculum

Alternative TaskSelection

Different Curriculum

Instructional Activitiesand Materials

INSTRUCTIONAL ADAPTATIONS MATRIX INSTRUCTOR'S KEY

I Give different test w/lessdetails

Test modification

End product assessd dif-ferently i.e ., written vol-cano report -*- picture/model of volcano, etc.

I Hands on projects

I Fill in outline/advancedorganizer

List of words given tofill in blanks

Cloze procedure

Learning Lab

Abbreviated tests oc.assignments

Choose different dev-elopmental level andinstruct to that level

Transitional school

Computer-basedprogram

Different level readers

Curriculum enrichment

Separate curriculum --program

Copy of class notes Resource teacher assist in Selective gradingcontent areas

NCR paper Oral testsGive directions in native

Oral Testing I language Read & explain tests

Tape recorded notes Visual clues Give more time to com-plete assignments

Using lower level text books I Change lecture to visualpresentation Take test in another room

Underlining the verbs in writtendirections Peer tutoring Reduce work load

(Ex: # of Spelling Words)Use of a calculator to complete Groupingtask requirements Tell them where to look for

Pre-reading activities answerBrainstorm discussion beforeessay Sign language Cut assignment in half

Preferential seating Individual Instruction Answer on tape instead ofwriting

Games Creating more solving activitiesPeer recorder

Tape chapter Contrast/comparison activitiesAssignments on computer

Give notes to student Student interpretive activities (Word processing)

Give study guide/reference sheet Discovery activities Non-competitive grades

Different level readers Critical thinking Gradual increase of taskrequirements

Computerized Instruction OutliningUntimed tests

Peer note-taking Panel instruction

Activities take learning styles Preferential seatinginto account

Cooperative TeachingVideo-taped instruction(for review, etc.)

EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION OF DIFFICULT-TO-TEACH STUDENTSAn inservice and preservice professional development program for

classroom, remedial, and special education teachers .Lorna Idol & J. Frederick West

EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL DECISION MAKINGThe concept of usinf levie of intenesity of intervention in maing appropriatedecisions in Instructional planning for difficult-to-teach students is presented.Participants learn to use the ACID Test (Analysis of Clasroom and InstructionalDemands) as an instructional decision making tool in determining which specificskills or school behaviours are necessary for a difficult-to-teach student tosuccceed in a particular classroom .

STRATEGIC AND COGNITIVE INSTRUCTIONParticipants learn to identify general and specific types of thinking skills and whatthe role of the teacher is in developing these skills in students who are not usingthese skills . Demonstration and sample lessons are included and participantsdevelop their own lessons.

CURRICULM ADAPTATIONCurriculum adaptation is viewed as both a process and a product. Participantslearn to assess and to make necessary adaptations to ensure congruence amongfive aspects of curriculum using levels of intensity of intervention framework .Participants develop and apply skills in curriculum mapping and textbookrearrangement, adapting to supplementing textbooks and other curricularmaterials.

INSTRUCTIONAL ADAPTATIONParticipants learn several skills critical to the development and implementation ofeffective instructional adaptations for difficult-to-teach students : aligning instructionand assessment, designing and implementing instructional adaptations that areboth feasible and effective in the genereal classroom environment, anddetermining the least intensive instructional adaptations . This module culminateswith an integrated case study.

22

REGARDLESS OF THE type of instructional arrange-ments, as exemplified by the various papers in this

issue, collaborative consultation may be appropriatelyincorporated as a problem-solving process among pro-fessionals . This problem-solving process is applicableboth for mildly handicapped students (learning disabled .mildly retarded, mild behavior disorders) and for at-riskstudents (those who are functioning below grade levelbut who are not eligible for special education) .

In this paper we describe the need for and what ismeant by collaborative consultation, with emphasis onhow it is applied in the field as a special education ser-vice delivery option via consultative support, as well asa problem-solving process to be used by various groupsof educational professionals . We describe the concep-tual foundations that aided us in our thinking about col-laborative consultation and our views of collaborativeconsultation as a scientific art . We identify the threemajor purposes of collaborative consultation : (a) to pre-vent learning and behavioral problems, (b) to remediatelearning and behavioral problems, and (c) to coordinateinstructional programs . We then identify and explain thestages in the collaborative problem-solving process .Alternative approaches to training of teachers, supportstaff, and administrators in collaborative/consultationskills are discussed . We also present various planning andproblem-solving options that may be utilized in schoolseither as a service delivery option or as a problem-solving process . Low-cost or no-cost strategies currentlyused in schools for increasing the availability of col-laboration time are identified . Finally, future applicationsof educational collaboration in the context of educa-tional reform are discussed .

Special Series

Collaborative Consultation in the Educationof Mildly Handicapped and At-Risk Students

J. Frederick West and Lorna Idol

In this paper The autbors describe collaborative consulta-tion as a projissional problem-solving process. as well asa service delivery option Ji)r educating mild/P bandi-cappec/ and cu-risk students. They explain boa, collabora-tive consultation as a problem-solving process can beused in ctrl , of the various service delimri , optionsdescribed in IN.,; topical issue Jnr mild/1' duucdicapped andtit-risk students. Critical issues in developing collaborativeeducational support services are identified. and Jittitreapplications of educational collaboration in lbe contextoJ" scbool rcyiirtn are discussed.

The Need for Collaborative Consultation

The need for some type of collaboration in the schoolshas become increasingly evident in recent years . For ex-ample, the need for collaboration is evident from a com-prehensive Special Education Cost Sttidy published bythe Decision Resource Corporation for the U.S . Depart-ment of Education for the 1985-19136 school year (U.S .Department of Education, 19135-1986) . One report find-ing, which is no surprise to those well versed in specialeducation, is that approximately 5 % of all the nation'sstudents are assessed each year under special education,and these assessment services account for 12 cents ofeach dollar spent for special education or about $ 2billion per year or S 1,273 per assessment . As an alter-native to the refer-test-place paradigm, collaborativeproblem solving among school professionals aimed atprevention of student learning and behavior problemsis being initiated in many school districts . The goal ofthese school-based support services is to meet the in-dividual needs of students prior to the need for referralfor possible placement in a specialized program .The need for collaboration is also clearly woven

within the outcomes of studies of effective schools . Forexample . after conducting one of the more comprehen-sive reviews of the effective schools literature, Purkevand Smith (1985) concluded that several key processvariables must be present in effective schools ; twovariables relevant to discussion of collaboration werecollaborative planning and collegial relationships . Like-wise . in his conclusions of a major synthesis of researchon effective schools, Cohen (1983) reminds us thatteaching is a profession in which %york is typically per-

Volume 11 Issue 1 January/February 1990

in iiolatkm from one's colleagues, resulting inundcwirable consequences, one of which is t6c.41codification ofsuccessful practices and a tender-

Albr tuchers to treat uncertainties inherent in thehing role as being due to personal problems ratherto collective problems . He suggests that by faculty

,weloping collegial working relationships, effectivepools tend to alleviate this problem and its conse-uences with teaching becoming shared work .A clear indication of this need to share is evident in

the results of a recent survey of members of the Coun-cil for Exceptional Children to determine needed areasof professional development (see Survey of CEC Mem-bers' Professional Development Needs, 1989) . The threetop-ranked items, listed in order of perceived priority,were : (a) collaborating with regular education teachersand teachers in other special programs, (b) coordinatingspecial education and other programs or services, and(c) the relationship between special education and reg-ular education. When respondents were asked to indi-cate topics that were so important that they would bewilling to pay to attend training sessions, the top-rankedpriority area was "collaborating with regular educationteachers and teachers in other special programs."The need to collaborate, as well as the desire of faculty

to do so, is evident . The intent of this paper is to de-scribe more precisely what we mean by collaboration,and how school-based collaboration can be used to builda more effective interface between general education andspecial education . Following is the conceptual founda-tion for how consultation and collaboration have de-veloped into a problem-solving process that is used bygroups ofeducation professionals . These bases have in-fluenced us as we have developed curricula for helpingschool-based yams improve the education of at-risk andmildly handicapped students (Idol . West . & Cannon,1989 ; West, Idol, & Cannon, 1988) .

Collaboration in the Schools:Conceptual Foundations

There is a rich literature (see reviews by Idol & West,1987; West & Idol, 1987) on school consultation thatbuilds a base for the conceptualization of collaborationin the schools . Consultation itself has been used to definea myriad of collegial activities that occur among schoolprofessionals . A key distinction to make is whether therelationship is simply consultative (with one professionalconferring with another in seeking guidance) or whetherit is collaborative (with two or more professionalsworking together with parity and reciprocity to solveproblems) .

In 1979, an influential definition of school consulta-tion emerged that serves the interests of collaborationwell (Brown, Wyne, Blackburn,,* Powell . 1979) . Brownand colleagues describe school consultation as a processbased upon aq equal relationship characterized by (a)

Remedial and Special Education

mutual trust and open communication, (b) joint ap-proaches to problem identification, (c) the pooling ofpersonal resources to identify and select strategies thatwill have some probability of solving the problem thathas been identified, and (d) shared responsibility in theimplementation and evaluation of the program or stra-tegy that has been initiated . This definition moves therole of consultant away from that of an expert advisingand guiding others, to that of a facilitative collaborator,skilled in drawing others into shared and mutual prob-lem solving, program implementation, and programevaluation.

Several years later, as collaborative consultation wasbeing conceptualized as a special education service de-livery option for handicapped students, the followingdefinition of collaborative consultation emerged :

Collaborative consultation is an interactive processwhich enabled people with diverse expertise togenerate creative solutions to mutually defined prob-lems . The outcome is enhanced, altered, and differentfrom the original solutions that any team memberwould produce independently . The major outcomeof collaborative consultation .is to provide compre-hensive and effective programs for students withspecial needs within the most appropriate context,thereby enabling them to achieve maximum constrtuc-tive interaction with their nonhandicapped peers .(Idol, PaoluCCi-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1986, p . I)

Evident in both definitions is the notion of mutualityand reciprocity . Nlutuality means shared oR'nership ofa common issue or problem by professionals . Reciproci-ty means allowing these parties to have equal access toinformation and the opportunity to participate in prob-lem identification, discussion . decision making, and allfinal outcomes (see West et al ., 1988) . This would meanthat in any of the service delivery options described inthis topical issue, collaborating groups of professionalswould be jointly responsible for the ultimate outcomefor a particular student, even though certain individualsmight have primary responsibility for actual programimplementation .

As we examine the issue of collaboration, it is impor-tant to make a distinction between collaboration andcooperation. Many school staffs make efforts tocooperate, but probably far fewer are actually collabor-ating . In' a synthesis of research on organizational col-laboration, Hord (1986) makes these important distinc-tions . Cooperation is a term that assumes two or moreparties, each with separate and autonomous programs,who agree to work together in making all such programsmore successful . A case in point might be a resourceteacher and a classroom teacher agreeing to make theirseparate programs successful for a particular handi-capped child . Each teacher has her own goals to ac-complish in her own separate program, and both arecommitted to generating a successful program .

2 3

24

In contrast, consider Hord's (1986) definition of col-horation . a term that implies the parties involvediared responsibility and authority for basic policy dcci-~n making . Now, couple this concept with those pre-ntedabove by Brown et al . (1979) and Idol et al . (1986)id consider the same two teachers responsible for:aching a handicapped student . Under these new con-itions, these two teachers are responsible for working)gether to define the problem, to design an appropriaterogram, to carry out their relevant responsibilities, and:> evaluate the impact of what they have done . Both.achers, together, own the problem and the ultimateolutions they might create to address the problem . Thiss collaboration between two individuals . This same typeof collaboration might occur among more than two per-ons, such as within a multidisciplinary team staffingneeting; within a school-based problem-solving team ;among a parent, a special education teacher, a classroom:rather, and a building principal, and so forth .As various collaborating groups work together they

:reate something very powerful, called mutual em-Dotcerment. Rather than one expert causing another ex-pert to feel threatened, disinterested, uninvolved, de-feated, defensive, and so forth, this process allows peopleto own problems together and to pool their varioussources of expertise to better solve the presenting prob-lem . In this context, mutual empowerment is a majorgoal of educational collaboration .

The Scientific Art of Collaborative Consultation

As we have worked to assist school faculties in thedevelopment of skills necessary to use collaborative con-sultation, we have come to view it as a scientific art . Aswe have described earlier (Idol & West, 1987), ,collabor-ative consultation, like effective teaching, has both ascientific base (the basic underlying knowledge that isbeing conveyed in the teaching/learning process or thetechnological knowledge used to design and evaluateteaching methodologies) and an art./id base (the com-municative/interactive and problem-solving, decision-making, and management skills necessary to ensurecollaboration among all team members) . Consulting col-laborators must possess a sound and empirically basedbody ofknowledge that can be applied in the identifica-tion of problems and in the design and implementationof effective instructional programs, as well as a demon-strable knowledge of proven strategies for using effec-tive collaborative consultation processes .

In regard to the scientific knowledge base, as well asimplementation of proven strategies for using an effec-tive collaborative consultation processes, the type ofexpertise may vary from individual to individual . Forexample, a learning disabilities teacher might be skilledin curriculum-based .assessment, applied behavior anal-ysis, learning strategies, and so forth, while a classroomteacher might bring a knowledge of curriculum scopeand sequence, child dcvclopniCnt, group instruction,

r.41

.' and so forth, to the problem-solving process . But regard-less of the various types of expertise brought to thecollaborative problem-solving process, all team membersneed to have skills in the various problem-solving, ap-propriate listening and responding, and decision-makingskills identified by West and Cannon (1988) .

Three Major Purposes of CollaborativeConsultation

There are three major purposes for using collaborativeconsultation in the schools : (a) to prevent learning andbehavior problems, (b) to remediate learning and be-havior problems, and (c) to coordinate instructional pro-grams (West et al ., 1988) . Many schools implement aprereferral system as a means of offering assistance toteachers in designing these learning environments . Theprereferral system described by Graden, Casey, andChristenson (1985) and the teacher assistance team ap-proach (Chalfant & Pysh, this issue : Chalfant, Pysh, &Moultrie, 1979) are examples of prereferral systems forwhich collaborative consultation may be appropriate .The second purpose of collaborative consultation is

to remediate learning and behavior problems . This couldoccur as a prereferral intervention for at-risk students ;the programs of remediation could be implemented byeither a classroom teacher or a remedial teacher or withseveral teachers working together . Collaborative con-sultation could also occur after a student has been placedin a special education program ; again, the role of theimplementor(s) of instruction might be performed byan individual or by a group of teachers working to-gether .The third purpose, to coordinate instructional pro-

grams, is one that is often overlooked when we createpull-out special education programs and separatist cur-ricula, especially when they have a mainstream compo-nent . It is critical that a student who is being educatedby a number of different professionals have the right toan integrated program of instruction-one that reflectsboth cooperative and collaborative planning and imple-mentation on the parts of the involved professionals .The reader is referred to Idol, West, and Lloyd (1988)for a more in-depth discussion of this critical feature ofcollaborative consultation .

In our staff development efforts, we have found thatsome school faculties choose to focus on all three ofthese purposes and others select a single one . Regardlessof the choice, the most important issue is for a facultyto reach consensus on and to have clear understandingof the purpose(s) for which they are using collaborativeconsultation .

Stages In the Problem-Solving Process

Regardless of the purpose for which collaborative con-sultation is used (whether it is being used as a process

Volume II Issue I January/February 1990

or as a special education service delivery option), theprocess itself is carried out more purposefully and effi-ciently if a formal set of problem-solving stages is use... 4�In collaborative consultation team consensus is reachedin each stage before progressing to the subsequent stage .The most commonly accepted stages in the school con-sultation literature, and as described by Idol et al . (1986)and West et al . (1988), include the following :

Stage 1: GoallEntry.

During this stage, roles, objec-tives, responsibilities, and expectations of the con-sultant and consultee must be negotiated . Formal orinformal contracts may be developed to reflect theagreements . (Note that this is not the goal , setting forthe student, but rather for the consultation team itself;the latter occurs during the Intervention Recommen-dations stage.)

Stage2: Problem Identification .

During this stage thenature and parameters of the presenting problem areclearly defined, so that all members of the team havea mutual understanding of the problem .

Stage 3: Intervention Recommendations.

During thisstage potential interventions are generated and theeffects of each are predicted . Recommendations areprioritized in the order in which they will be im-plemented, and the final recommendation is selected .Written, measurable objectives arc developed to (a)specify intervention details for each aspect of theproblem . (b) identify criteria for determining if the`problem has been solved, (c) delineate activities andprocedures for consultant, consultee, and client andidentify resources needed to implement interventionstrategies .

Stage 4: Implementation Recommendations.

Duringthis stage implementation occurs according to theestablished objectives and procedures . In this stage .each step in implementing the intervention selectedis specified along with timelines for completion andpersonnel responsible . Responsibility for implemen-tation, as determined in the previous step, may restentirely with the consultee or with the consultant, butin the ,collaborative model each generally has someresponsibility, often with the consultant assuming amodeling role that phases out as quickly as the con-suttee gains confidence in his or her ability to carryout the intervention .

Stage 5: Evaluation .

During this stage the success ofthe intervention strategies designed to solve problemsis evaluated . Evaluation of consultation services in-cludes measurement of (a) child, (b) consultant andconsultee, and (c) systems change .

Stage 6: Redesign .

During this stage the interventionis continued, redesigned, or discontinued on the basisof the evaluation of the intervention strategies .

Adherence to these stages helps individuals and teamsto focus directly on the presenting problem and to goabout solving the problem in a systematic and efficient

Remedial and Special Education

fashion . We have found this process to be particularlyfacilitative when cou13led with use of a structured,problem-solving worksheet (see Knackendoffcl, no date ;West et al ., 1988; Zins, Curtis, Graden, `Sc Pond, 1988,for examples) .

A Problem-Solving Process and a SpecialEducation Service Delivery Option

Collaborative consultation may occur simply as aproblem-solving and decision-making process that canoccur in a variety of different contexts as described inthe section below . It may occur between two individualsor among a number of individuals . These contexts canbe either as formal as within decision-making teams, oras informal as between two individuals who choose towork together . Collaborative consultation may alsooccur as a special education service delivery option con-sisting of the provision of consultative support by aspecial educator to a classroom teacher (Deno, 1970 ;Reynolds, 1962) . Certificated special educators servingin this role may be either consulting teachers or re-source/consulting teachers (see the Idol paper in thisissue) . When collaborative consultation is used as aspecial education service delivery option, personnel aresubject to all of the rules and regulations governingspecial education programs .

Examples of Collaborative Consultation

As consultation has emerged into practice, one en-counters various terms that imply that school-based con-sultation is occurring . According to Zins et al . (19138),such terms include prereferral intervention, pree%alua-tion activities, intervention assistance teams . and teacherassistance or support teams . Zins et al . refer to any ofthe examples of consultation as intervention assistanceprocesses, which they define as :

(a] system wide consultation-based model of servicesdelivery intended to meet the special needs of indi-vidual students through the systematic and collabor-ative provision, evaluation . and documentation ofproblem-solving strategies in the least restrictive set-ting prior to referral for consideration of a morerestrictive placement . (pp . 5-6)

We have observed our trainees in collaborative con-sultation as they carry out the practice in their respec-tive schools . The ways in which they do this are quitevaried . F4)r purposes of discussion, we have organizedthese variations into three categories : (a) individualteaching roles, (b) team roles, and (c) other professionalroles . The' individual teaching roles have included con-sulting teachers, resource/consulting teachers (as they arcdescribed by Idol in this same issue), and resource

2 5

rteachers (as they are described by Wiederholt and Char+berlain in this same issue) . Application by some type ofteam role is also commonly selected by our trainees . Wehave observed this team role in at least five differentteaming arrangements : teacher assistance teams (asdescribed by Chalfant and Pysh in this same issue), in-tervention assistance teams, school-based resource teams,student support teams, and child study teams . Refer toFigure 1 for definitions of each of these teaming ap-proaches, being reminded that each is a suitable vehiclefor use of the process of collaborative consultation .We have also seen other education professionals use

collaborative consultation as a means of improving theprocess in which they engage while working with othereducational professionals . For example, school psychol-ogists often provide consultative support to teachers andparents in designing child behavior management pro-grams . Social workers frequently offer consultativeassistance in identifying and locating related services pro-vided by agencies outside of the schools and in work-ing with families . Another common example of col-laborative consultation has been used by those havingsome type of supervisory responsibilities over others(often referred to as program supervisors, methods andmaterials specialists, supervising teacher consultants,etc .) . Another role is when teachers or administratorsare-working with parents of their students . Our obser-vation has been that it is less important which vehiclethey use for implementation and more important thatit be one that all involved feel comfortable with . allgenerate and maintain enthusiasm for, and that resultsin desired outcomes .

What Collaborative Consultation Is Not

The field of education is constantly in a state of re-form . Along with various reform movements emergevarious terms to describe a variety of innovations . We

Teacher Assistance Teams

Intervention Assistance Teams

School-Based Resource Teams

Student Support Teams

Child Study Teams

26

have encountered some terms that people seem to con-fuse with the term collaborative consultation . Therefore,we would like to provide clarification of what collabor-ative consultation is not . Collaborative consultation isnot equal to any of these popular terms : team teaching,cooperative teaching, content mastery, cooperativelearning, or the Regular Education Initiative .To wit, team teaching is when two or more teachers

agree to teach together or to cooperate in their teaching ;cooperative teaching is another term to describe nearlythe same arrangement, although some use cooperativeteaching to describe a cooperative team teaching rela-tionship specifically between classroom and specialeducation teachers (see Bauwens, HOUrcade, & Friend,1989) . One outcome of either of these cooperative ef-forts could be that the . teachers simply engage in parallelteaching, each teaching his or her own lessons and notworking together in a collaborative fashion . Of course,collaborative consultation could be an outcome ofcooperative or team teaching if that is the desired in-tent of the parties involved .

Likewise, the content ntctsterlp approach . commonlyused in resource rooms at the secondary level . does notnecessarily mean that collaboration is occurring . In thisapproach the resource teacher serves as a content areatutor helping students complete assignments requiredin their content area courses . This approach often in-volves little preplanning or collaboration among teachers .but rather is offered in a reactive way to students com-ing to the special program and stating that they have acertain assignment to complete . Again, this is not to saythat collaborative consultation could not be used withthe content mastery approach.

Collaborative consultation does not equal cooperativelearning . Cooperative learning is a group instructionalstrategy for combining heterogeneous groups of low andhigh ability students into cooperative learning groups .Cooperative learning is, however, a technical interven-tion that might be used by a collaborating team of

. ..where problem-solving teams are formed by representative classroom teacherswho serve in an advisory or facilitative capacity to other teachers in the samebuilding .

...where teams are formed on an as-needed basis and because each member hasexpertise in a particular type of teaching or child management strategy; membersmay come from both within and outside of an individual building .

. ..where teams are formed within a building, and like intervention assistance teams,are formed to solve a particular type of problem; any type of professional may serveon the team including classroom teachers, administrators, and support staff .y. ..where teams are formed specifically for an individual student and team membershave responsibility for the educational program of that individual support.

. ..where teams are formed specifically for an individual student, as with studentsupport teams, but the sole purpose of the team is to study the student and thepresenting problems ; often used as placement teams in special education.

Figure 1 . Definitions of various team approaches using collaborative consultation .

Volume 11 Issue 1 January/February 1990

teachers as a means of accommodating difficult-to-teachstudents in the general classroom . .y

And, finally, collaborative consultation does not equalthe Regular 1idntcatiou Initiative . The latter is a publicpolicy effort initiated by the former Assistant Secretaryof Education, Will . The intent of this initiative was toencourage sharing of expertise and resources amonggeneral and special educators in attempting to gainmutual responsibility for the education of handicappedand low-achieving students . While school-based col-laborative educational support services would be con-sonant with this initiative, they are only one componentin this broad effort . In fact, numerous school districtshave operated consultation support services to the gen-eral classroom as one service delivery option in the totalcontinuum of special education services for a numberof years prior to the Regular Education Initiative . There-fore, to equate the perception ofsome regarding a pres-ent "consultation movement" (a rather base term, wemight add) with the Regular Education Initiative is bothinaccurate and reflective of a lack of historical knowl-edge regarding the longevity of consultation support ser-vices in the schools .

Developing Collaborative SupportServices: Critical Considerations

Over the last 5 years . we have provided systematictraining and technical assistance in developing .collabor-ative educational Support services to over i .t)t)1) profes-sionals in local, intermediate, and state education agen-cies in 2-i states and provinces . Although there arenumerous factors to be considered in the developmentof successful collaborative Support services in a schoolor district, space does not permit an in-depth discussionof each in this paper . For additional discussion of con-siderations and guidelines for establishing collaborativeconsultation programs and services involving generaland special educators, readers are referred to Idol (19813)and Idol et al . (1988) . Using a systems perspective . thissection will focus on three critical considerations indeveloping collaborative support services for at-risk andexceptional students : (a) staff development, (b) planning/problem-solving vehicles, and (c) scheduling/time toconsult . These factors apply to program and servicesdevelopment aimed at prevention of student learning/behavioral problems as well as to collaborative problemsolving focused on instructional remediation and co-ordination .

Staff Development.

Too often we have beenasked to provide "post-hoc" technical assistance toschools or school districts who convey that they arc ex-periencing implementation problems with their teamprohicm-solving support services . In many cases, thesesupport services included either assistance. to classroomteachers in accxmunodaing students with special learn-

Remedial and Special Education

ing/behavioral needs or a resource/consulting teacherservice delivery option designed to maintain exceptionalstudents in mainstreamed classrooms. The majority ofthese cases have revealed that the school or district in-itiated such services without systematically and pro-actively assessing staff coninnnicative/interactive andcollaborative probleni-solving skills essential to Suc-cessful collaborative consultation (West & Cannon.1988) . Staff competencies in providing technical inter-ventions (e.g ., academic . behavioral, social-emotional,life skills) for accommodating and effectively instructingat-risk and mildly handicapped students in mainstreamedenvironments have often also not been appraised (Can-non, Idol, & West, 1989) .Once the goals and structure of the collaborative

problem-solving/support services option(s) have beenclearly articulated, an initial program development con-sideration is to design and conduct a comprehensive staffdevelopment needs assessment . This staff needs assess-ment should focus on those skills necessary for success-ful consultative problem solving and the developmentand implementation of adaptive instructional interven-tions for educating at-risk and exceptional learners ingeneral classroom programs . In addition, for those staffmembers primarily responsible for implementation ofSuch service delivery initiatives or changes, a needsassessment of their skills in systems change, team facilita-tion and management, organizational/individual resis-tance management. and program effectiveness evalua-tion is in order.Once a comprehensive staff needs assessment has

been completed, we have found several options for sys-tematic training to be successful in developing profes-sional skills essential for effective collaborative/consulta-tive problem solving and decision making in school-basedsettings . Larger school districts have been successful inusing a trainer-of-trainers model in which teams ofdistrict-level staff development . instructional . and Sup-port services leadership personnel have been systema-tically trained in (a) essential skills involved . in thecollaborative consultation process, (b) technical teachinginterventions discussed earlier, and (c) effective presen-tation of needs assessment-driven skills training forschool-based staff members . Note that the compositionof the district-level teams should include membershipfrom genera education, remedial and special education,and staff development in order to maximize system-leveljoint ownership of the initiative .Another successful staff training model utilized by

both small and large school districts has been to focustheir systematic training efforts on school-based leader-ship teargs (West & Idol, 1989) . These teams have ty-pically included (again, to maximize joint ownership byall components of the school staff) two to three class-room teachers, a resource teacher, other appropriateSupport staff person, and alevaiw(!) the building admin-istrator . Our experience has consistently been that unlessthe building administrator is integrally involved in the

2 7

team training, the likelihood of success in progfar~,implementation is diminished . Systematic training hasusually consisted of 3 to 5 consecutive days of initialtraining, with follow-up training or site technical assis-tance throughout the year . Training topics and durationwill vary, of course, based upon the staff needs assess-ment data .

Following systematic training of the school-basedleadership team (in many instances we have served asinitial trainers of district-level or school-based teams), theteam provides "turnaround training" for their faculty .Although faculty members often indicate a desire toreceive training from an "outside expert," we have seensuccess occur more readily when training is providedby internal district-level or school-based trainers . Readerswishing to contact district- or school-based individualswho have served in leadership roles in providing inter-nal systematic training as described above may inquireof the authors . There are various designs and formatsfor conducting training of district-level or school-basedstaff in both the essential collaborative consultation pro-cess skills and those skills required for effective teachingof at-risk and exceptional students in mainstreamed class-rooms . Regardless of the design, format, or content ofthe training workshop(s) or training curricula used toprovide instruction in such skills for professionals andparents, we strongly urge that such workshop packagesor. training materials have a sound research-based devel-opment and be thoroughly field-validated . Two suchtraining curricula have been developed and field-vali-dated by West, Idol, and Cannon (1988) and Idol . West,and Cannon (1989) . The first training curriculum . Col-laboration in the Sc/)ools . contains -i7 training modulesdesigned to enhance the communicative/interactive . col-laborative problem-solving, and change agentry skills ofteachers, support staff, and administrators . The secondtraining curriculum . also in modular format . focuses onthe technical intervention skills necessary for effectiveteaching of at-risk and mildly handicapped students ingeneral classrooms . Training modules provide instruc-tion in six areas: (a) assessment/diagnosis, (b) instructionalpractice, (c) instructional content, (d) student behaviormanagement, (e) planning and managing the teaching/learning environment, and (f) monitoring/evaluationprocedures . A third training package . developed byKratochwill, VanSomeren, and Sheridan (1989) . utilizesa competency-based approach to train behavioral con-sultants in interviewing skills .

Planning/Problem-Solving Options

In general, we have experienced greater success indeveloping and implementing collaborative educationalsupport services for both at-risk and mildly handicappedstudents in those schools that employ multiple planningand problem-solving options . (Note: that we use the termplanning and problem-solving options to emphasizesystematic, proilactive pl:inning as well as prohlcm-solv-

28

ing functions of the options .)In developing an utilizing various planning;/problem-

solving vehicles in schools, we have used four generalguidelines :

I . An assessment Ybrmal or informal) of.the areas

of staff teaching specialty (e.g ., curricular, social/behavioral skills) should be conducted anddocumentedprior to implementation . We often suggest a resourcefile be developed in which staff members self-recordarea(s) of expertise they would be willing to share in acollaborative relationship with a faculty colleague . Forthose reticent or modest staff members, peer nomina-tion (with permission, of course) may be used . Also, thestaff expertise resource file should be updated at leastannually and be placed in an easily accessible location(e.g ., teacher workroom) .

.2. Based on our experiences, uve recommend that a

system be used that matches the problem/issue to theavailable resources and expertise needed to solve theproblem. Operationally this means that initially theclassroom teacher, for example, may use the resourcefile or personal knowledge of staff skills areas to marcha perceived problem/issue with an individual peer col-laborator . Additional collaborative problem-solving teammembers are utilized only as needed to address the per-ceived problem/issue . Using this system in which aproblem/issue is matched with available expertise andresources usua11y increases the time and cost efficiencyand effectiveness in bringing about a desired solutionto the issue or problem being addressed . We shouldnote, however, that procedures should always be avail-able to assemble several support persons as is necessaryin initial attempts to address an issue or problem . Thisprocedure is especially critical when the issue or prob-lem is broader than an individual student or classroomand/or involves school-wide or system-level considera-tions . Finally, in some cases, direct instruction of theschool staff .in how to match a problem/issue with ap-propriate resources/expertise may be necessary .3. All issues or problems nuast be addressee!from a

sYstems perspective. Using this guideline, dyads or teamsengaging in collaborative planning or problem solving;recognize and respond to continuous and interdepen-dent interactions among student, teacher . curricular, andorganizational variables . This orientation is reflected inall six stages in the collaborative problem-solving pro-cess identified earlier (West & Idol, 1987 ; West, in press) .4. To the extent possible. existing vehicles or struc-

tures already in operation in the school should be used.Otherwise, the school staff may view the planning/problem-solving options as "another new add-on re-sponsibility cooked up by central office administration ."Using these four operational guidelines, alternative col-laborative planning/problem-solving options currentlyutilized in schools are briefly discussed .

Dyad.

As noted earlier, this option should be usedin schools in initial :utempts to address the I)crccivcd

Volume l l

Issue 1

January/February 1990

issue/problem . We have found that in instances whereexpertise and personal characteristics are well matchedto the problem, this option is both time- and c6st*effective and effective in bringing about desired ciut-come(s) . As described earlier, a key to successful educa-tional collaboration is reciprocity . For example, a class-roorn teacher and support services staff person maybring complementary skills/expertise areas to the col-laborative problem-solving situation . While the class-room teacher may have considerable expertise in cur-riculum content and large group instruction, the supportstaff member may specialize in adaptive instructional andbehavioral interventions . Together, they pool their ex-pertise to design intervention strategies that may berealistically implemented in a general classroom and/orpull-out setting, as necessary . For example, the supportservices collaborator may offer intervention suggestionsregarding instructional or curricular adaptations to theclassroom teacher, and the classroom teacher recipro-cates by sharing information regarding the curriculumcontent/format and feasibility of implementation of suchinterventions in a general classroom teaching/learningenvironment .

Although primary responsibility for intervention im-plementation may rest with the classroom teacher in thisexample, it is critical that both professionals joint!, ownthe plan of action developed by the consulting dyad .This means that support and follow-up (indirect ordirect) must be built into the plan of action on a consis-tent, planned basis throughout the collaborative process .It should also be noted that the next time these two pro-fessionals engage in collaborative problem solving, theclassroom teacher may play the major role in develop-ing intervention recommendations . The critical point,of course, is that in educational collaboration . no oneindividual is expected to be "the expert" with "theanswer." Quality intervention action plans are usuallythe result of the synergy generated by the pooling ofcollective expertise and resources of collaborative teammembers . This principle of role and functional recipro-city cannot be overemphasized as a critical element ina true collaborative relationship . This principle also ap-plies in any collaborative team relationship, regardlessof size .

Grade LevellDepartmental Team. In keepingwith the guidelines outlined above, a second possibleplanning/problem-solving option might be the gradelevel or departmental team . This option often has theadvantage of being an ongoing, existing team with reg-ularly scheduled meetings and operational procedures .As the issue or problem may dictate, additional supportstaff members may be called upon on an ad hoc basisto assist the team . Administrators are not usually in-volved at this level .

Teaching Team.

In this option, the individuals in-volved in delivering educational services to a given stu-

Remedial and Special Education

dent or group of students comprise the core member-ship of the team . These individuals should already becollaborating with each other regularly to ensure ap-propriate instructional coordination for the student orgroup (although we sadly report that this instructionalcoordination function remains seriously lacking in manyschools) . Again, additional team members could bejudiciously added as the situation dictates .

School-wide Team.

This option should usually beutilized in situations where an issue or problem cannotbe adequately addressed using vehicles closer to the con-text in which the issue or problem is occurring . Ideallythe school-wide team, with its potential to draw on allavailable resources and expertise in the school or schooldistrict, is most effectively utilized in dealing withsystem-level problems or issues and/or problems that areso complex as to need school-wide or district-wide re-sources and decision-making power .

Schools or districts utilizing school-wide teams shouldbe aware of time efficiency and subsequent cost/benefitissues surrounding their use and misuse . Often we haveencountered schools that routinely have prereferralteams or student placement teams with core member-ship exceeding eight individuals . %Y'hile a few of theseteam meetings we have observed or participated in haveneeded and utilized input from all of the team members,a majority of the problems could have been more ap-propriately and more time and cost effectively addressedby fewer persons more closely aligned to the contextin which the problem was occurring. For further discus-sion of the mechanics and issues surrounding the de-velopment and implementation of school-based problem-solving options, readers are referred to Zins et al . (19813) .

Scheduling/Time to Consult

Without exception . every school- or district-level teamwith whom we have n,orked has indicated a need toestablish legitimate time to consult . In our earlier works(Idol et al ., 1986 . Idol-Ntaestas & Ritter. 1985 ; NVest .1985 ; West & Idol, 1987), we have concentrated primari-ly on issues surrounding the need to provide legitimatetime to consult from the perspective of school supportstaff members and have provided specific suggestionsin Idol (1988) . In this section, however, a broader per-spective is utilized to suggest no-cost or low-cost strate-gies for increasing the amount of time that bothclassroom teachers and support staff have to collabora-tively consult with each other, rather than simply beingconcerned with time for the consultant .The strategies for increasing consultation time for

classroom teachers and support staff that follow haveactually been implemented successfully in schools at theelementary, middle, junior and senior high levels . Theyinclude (a) regularly bringing large groups of studentstogether for special types of school experiences (e.g .,

29

30

rguest speakers, films, plays) with fewer staff supcrvis :ing; (b) having the principal or other support staff/super-visor teach a period a day cm a regularly scheduled basis ;(c) when students are working on the same independentassignment or study activity, arranging for them to beclustered together in large groups (e.g ., in multipurposeroom or library) ; ((.I) hiring a permanent "floating" sub-stitute (this may be done at no cost to the school districtby business community school adopters) ; (e) utilizingaides or volunteers to guide or supervise groups/classesof students at class-changing time, lunch, or recess ; (f)utilizing volunteers (e.g ., parents, grandparents, com-munity business leaders, retired teachers) ; (g) the prin-cipal assigning specific time each week for staff colla-boration only (documentation logs required); (h) alteringthe school day to provide staff collaboration time with-out students (e.g ., last Friday afternoon in each month) ;(i) utilizing student teachers ; (j) the principal setting asideI day per grading period as "collaboration day" (noother activities can be substituted on this day) ; (k) thefaculty voting to extend their instructional day 2 daysper week for 20 minutes to provide collaboration periodfor staff (days can be staggered as well as time periodeach day of week to free staff on different days/times) .Of course, none of the strategies listed above are likelyto work successfully in every situation, nor are they evenneeded in all . However, we have repeatedly observedthat in schools where there is administrative support andstaff motivation to work collaboratively, suitable optionsand time for collaborative consultation among classroomteachers, support staff, administrators, and parents havebeen developed .

Future Applications ofEducational Collaboration

Nationally . schools and school districts are beginningto respond to the latest myriad of reports . proposals,and legislative mandates for educational reform (see . e.g .,Carnegie Forum, 1986: Darling-Hammond, 1988 ; HolmesGroup, 1986) . One recurring theme for school improye-mcnt focuses on the ways in which educational decisionsare made in schools and school districts for purposesof meeting the educational needs of all Students . In in-creasing numbers, educators in schools are moving toa new style of decision making called "school-basedmanagement," "site-based management," or "building-based management." School-based management is :

a process that involves the individuals responsible forimplementing decisions in actually making those deci-sions . In general, under school-based management,decisions are made at the level closest to the issuebeing addressed . School-based management is basedon two fundamental beliefs : (a) those most closely af-fected by decisions ought to play :t significant rolein making those (iccisions and (h) education :il reform

efforts will he most effective and long-lasting whencarried out by people who feel a sense of ownershipand responsibility for the process . (AASA/NAESP/NASSP School-Based Nlanagement Task Force, 1988,pp . 5-6)

As service delivery systems for students become in-creasingly more complex, the use of school-based man-agement appears to provide a systemic tool for profes-sionals and parents from all disciplines and areas ofexpertise to work together collaboratively toward thecommon goal of meeting the educational needs of allstudents (West, 1988) . The technology of educationalcollaboration and consultation has significant potentialto positively- impact the effectiveness of school-basedmanagement . A key to having a positive impact, how-ever, will be the ability of specialized support staff andothers who have engaged in the provision of school con-sultation support services in the past to provide school-based leadership in making two crucial shifts in servicedelivery : (a) from a specialized programs/services orien-tation to a school-wide or systems perspective in edu-cating all children and (b) from an ' -expert" orientationto a truly collaborative, shared ciccision-making andproblem-solving role . If these t ,~vo shifts can be madesuccessfully, we believe that the effective use of extanttechnology in school consultation can be constrtMiye-ly and efficiently used in current efforts to establish ef-fective school-based management (West, in press) .

Recapitulation

In this paper a-e have presented collaborative con-sultation both as a decision-making process and as anoption for service delivery in the special education con-tinuum of services . It is evident that as a process, it canhe applied within any of the alternative approaches toeducating mildly handicapped and at-risk students pre-sented in this topical series . We have attempted to clarifythe types of skills that educational professionals needin order to function as facilitative collaborators, as n- ellas to discuss the various ways in which our trainees haveapplied the concepts of collaborative consultation a - ithintheir various school scttings.r&

J. Frederick West is codirector of the institute jbrLearning and Development in Austin . Texas. Hebas authored numerous publications in the arect ofschool consultation and collaboration, includingCollaboration in the Scbools, an inserricelpresen-icetraining currictdum jbr general and specialeducators, support staff and administrators. Hiscurrent rescctrcb and tecl.7uical assistance interestsinclude development oj' instrumentation to evalutateboth tl.7e process and outcomes oj' educational col-laboration . Lorna Idol is an iuternlttiouall)'

Volume 11 Issue I January/February 1990

recognized speaker, author, and researcher in thearea of school consultation . She developed the

~-resource%nsulting teacher model and with col-leagues developed the collaborative consultationmodel in special education. She is codirector of theinstitute for Learning and Development in Austin,Texas, and senior editor of Remedial and SpecialEducation. Sbe writes extensively in the area ofschool consultation, as well as in remedial readingand learning disabilities. Address:

J. .Frederick

West, Institute for Learning and Development, 2201N. Lamar, Ste. 207, Austin, TX 78705.

References

AASAINAESP/NASSP School-Based Management Task Force .(1988). School-based management: A strategy for betterlearning. Arlington, VA : American Association of SchoolAdministrators .

Bauwens, J ., Hourcade, J ., & Friend, M . (1989). Cooperativeteaching: A model for general and special education integra-tion . Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 17-22.

Brown, D., Wyne, M.D ., Blackburn, J.E ., & Powell, W.C .(1979). Consultation: Strategyfor improving education.Boston : Allyn & Bacon .

Cannon, G., Idol, L., & West, J.F. (1989) . Essential teachingcompetenciesfor general and special educators collabor-ating to educate handicapped students in general class-rGbms (Tech . Rep . 104) . Research and Training Project onSchool Consultation, The University of Texas at Austin .

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy . (1986) . Anationprepared. Teachersforthe 21st century (The Reportof the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession) . Hyattsville,MD: Author.

Chalfant, J.C ., Pysh, M.V., & Moultrie, R . (1979) . Teacher as-sistance teams : A model for within building problem solv-ing . Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 85-95.

Cohen, M. (1983). Instructional management and social con-ditions in effective schools . In A.O . Webb & L.D . Webb(Eds .), Schoolfinance and school improvement. Linkagesin the 1980's. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1988) . The futures of teaching . Educa-tional Leadership, 46(3), 4-10.

Deno, S . (1970) . Special education as developmental capital .Exceptional Children, 37(3), 229-237.

Graden, J.L ., Casey, A., & Christenson, S.L. (1985). Implement-ing a preferral intervention system: Pan 1. The model . Ex-ceptional Children, 51, 377-384.

Holmes Group . (1986) . Tomorrow's teachers: A report of theHolmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author .

Hord, S.M . (1986) . A synthesis of research on organizationalcollaboration . Educational Leadership, 44, 22-26.

Idol, L. (1988) . A rationale and guidelines for establishing specialeducation consultation programs. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 9(6), 48-58.

Idol, L ., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P ., & Nevin, A . (1986) . Collab-orative consultation . Austin, TX : PRO-ED.

Idol, L ., & West, J .F . (1987) . Cunsultation in special education :Training and practice (Part 11) . Journal of Learning Dis-

S

Remedial and Special Education

abilities, 20(8), 474-497.Idol, L., West,J . F ., & Cannon, G . (1989). Effective assessmentand instruction of mildly handicapped and at-risk stu-dents: A preservice and inservice training curriculumforgeneral andspecial education teachers. Unpublished manu-script, Institute for Learning and Development, Austin, TX .

Idol, L ., West, J.F ., & Lloyd, S.R . (1988) . Organizing and im-plementing specialized reading programs: A collaborativeapproach involving classroom, remedial, and special edu-cation teachers . Remedial and Special Education, 9(2),54-61 .

Idol-Maestri, L ., & Ritter, S.A. (1985) . A follow-up study ofresource/consulting teachers . Teacher Education andSpe-cial Education, 8(3), 121-131 .

Knackendoffel, A. (no date). Problem-solving worksheet. Un-published document, Institute for Research in LearningDisabilities, University of Kansas.

Kratochwili, T.R., VanSomeren, K.R., & Sheridan, S.M . (1989).Training behavioral consultants. A competency-based modelto teach interview skills. Professional School Psychology,4(1), 41-58.

Purkey, S.C ., & Smith, M.S . (1985). School reform : The districtpolicy implications of the effective schools literature . Ele-mentary School Journal, 85, 353-389.

Reynolds, M . (1962). A framework for considering some issuesin special education . Exceptional Children, 28(7), 368.

Survey of CEC Members' Professional Development Needs .(1989). Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(3), 78-79.

U.S . Department of Education (1985-1986) . Patterns in specialeducation service delivery and cost. Washington, DC :Department of Education, Office of Special EducationPrograms .

,West, J.F . (1985) . Regular andspecial educators' preferences

for models ofschool-based consultation : A statewide study(Tech. Rep . No. 101) . Austin, TX : The University of Texas,Research and Training Project on School Consultation .

West, J.F . (1988) . The future of school consultation : Forces,issues, and strategies . In J .F . West (Ed .), School consulta-tion : Interdisciplinary perspectives on theory, research,training andpractice (pp. 213-234) . Austin, TX: Associa-tion for Educational and Psychological Consultants .

West, J.F . (in press) . Educational collaboration : A key to suc-cessful school restructuring . Journal of Educational andPsychological Consultation.

West, J.F ., & Cannon, G. (1988) . Essential collaborative con-sultation competencies for regular and special educators .Journal of Learning Disabilities. 21, 45-53. 28 .

West, J.F ., & Idol, L . (1987) . School consultation : An inter-disciplinary perspective on theory, models, and research .Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 388-408.

West, J.F ., & Idol, L . (1989) . The impact of training scbool-based teams in collaborative consultation skills: A firstyearfollow-up study (Tech . Rep . 105). Austin, TX : Research andTraining Project on School Consultation, The University ofTexas .

West, J.Fq Idol, L ., & Cannon, G . (1988) . Collaboration in theschools: Communicating, interacting, and problem solv-ing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED .

Zins, J.E ., Curtis, M.J ., Graden, J.L ., & Ponti, C.R . (1988) . Help-ing students succeed in the regular classroom. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass .

3 1