Collaboration+Overview

WHAT IS TEACHER COLLABORATION, AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO OTHER CURRENT SCHOOL PRACTICES? A Definition

When teachers say that they collaborate, they may mean many different things. Sometimes they may be referring to working together in a classroom to instruct a group of students that includes students with disabilities. At other times they may be describing meetings they attend to discuss students who are transferring to the school. They may also be reporting on the efforts of the school's staff development committee or any other situation in which they work closely with other teachers. The use of the word collaboration may lead to confusion because it refers to how teachers are carrying out a specific task or activity, not the nature or purpose of the activity. Friend and Cook's (1992) definition of collaboration is intentionally general and takes this into account: "interpersonal collaboration is a style of direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal" (p. 5). They clarify this definition by detailing several defining characteristics. The following characteristics can be used to further describe teacher collaboration: It is voluntary. Teachers may be required to work in close proximity, but they cannot be required to collaborate. They must make a personal choice to work collaboratively in such situations. Because collaboration is voluntary, not administratively mandated, teachers often form close, but informal, collaborative partnerships with colleagues. It is based on Parity Teachers who collaborate must believe that all individuals' contributions are valued equally. The amount and nature of particular teachers' contributions may vary greatly, but the teachers recognize that what they offer is integral to the collaborative effort. It requires a shared goal. Teachers collaborate only when they share a goal. If they are working on poorly defined goals, they may be unintentionally working on different goals. When this happens, miscommunication and frustration often occur instead of collaboration. It includes shared responsibility for key decisions. Although teachers may divide their labor when engaged in collaborative activities, each one is an equal partner in making the fundamental decisions about the activities they are undertaking. This shared responsibility reinforces the sense of parity that exists among the teachers. It includes shared accountability for outcomes. This characteristic follows directly from shared responsibility. That is, if teachers share key decisions, they must also share accountability for the results of their decisions, whether those results are positive or negative. It is based on shared resources. Each teacher participating in a collaborative effort contributes some type of resource. This has the effect of increasing commitment and reinforcing each professional's sense of parity. Resources may include time, expertise, space, equipment, or any other such assets. It has emergent properties. Collaboration is based on belief in the value of shared decision making, trust, and respect among participants. However, while some degree of these elements is needed at the outset of collaborative activities, they do not have to be central characteristics of a new collaborative relationship. As teachers become more experienced with collaboration, their relationships will be characterized by the trust and respect that grow within successful collaborative relationships. Teacher Collaboration in Current School Practices Many trends in schools are encouraging teacher collaboration. For example, peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1988) and interdisciplinary curriculum development (Brandt, 1991) are premised on teachers' collaborative relationships, as are current trends in the design and delivery of professional development programs (Barth, 1990). Many aspects of currently recommended school reforms call for greater collaboration among teachers (Goodlad, 1984). The trend toward school-based decision making is also consonant with the recognition that collaboration is becoming an essential ingredient in successful schools. Smith and Scott (1990) have asserted that the collaborative school is easier to describe than define. Such a school, they suggest, is a composite of beliefs and practices characterized by the following elements: The belief, based on effective schools research, that the quality of education is largely determined by what happens at the school site. The conviction, also supported by research findings, that instruction is most effective in a school environment characterized by norms of collegiality and continuous improvement. The belief that teachers are professionals who should be given the responsibility for the instructional process and held accountable for its outcomes. The use of a wide range of practices and structures that enable administrators and teachers to work together on school improvement. The involvement of teachers in decisions about school goals and the means for achieving them (p. 2). Administrators often find that their discussions of collaboration focus on sharing authority with teachers and involving teachers in school decisions. While these are important aspects of school collaboration, it is teachers working together for the purpose of improving their teaching that distinguishes a truly collaborative school from a school that is simply managed in a democratic fashion. Little (1982) found that more effective schools could be differentiated from less effective schools by the degree of teacher collegiality, or collaboration they practiced. She observed that collegiality is the existence of four specific behaviors. First, teachers talk frequently, continuously, and concretely about the practice of teaching. Second, they observe others’ teaching frequently and offer constructive feedback and critiques. Third, they work together to plan, design, evaluate, and prepare instructional materials and curriculum. Finally, they teach each other about the practice of teaching. As Cook and Friend (1991b) have noted, collaboration appears to be the unifying theme that will characterize many of the new developments in the successful schools of the 1990s. Recognizing that collaboration refers to the professional working relationship among teachers establishes a fundamental understanding for leadership personnel who want to foster teacher collaboration. When creating structures that rely on collaboration, at least two sets of issues must be addressed. The first concerns the quality and integrity of the intervention, activity, or program that is being executed collaboratively. The second concerns the knowledge, skills, and readiness of teachers to work collaboratively. The former topic is the focus of the next section. The latter is addressed in the final section on developing collaborative structures and services. 2. HOW DOES TEACHER COLLABORATION RELATE TO SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE DELIVERY? Teacher collaboration as it relates to special education services should not be considered in isolation from other aspects of a collaborative school. With educational improvement for all students as the overriding goal of collaborative schools (Smith & Scott, 1990), teacher collaboration regarding students with disabilities should be just another aspect of a school's collaborative ethic and an integral part of the school culture. Applications of Collaborative Principles Collaboration cannot exist by itself. It can only occur when it is associated with some program or activity that is based on the shared goals of the individuals involved. An examination of applications in which teachers work collaboratively is appropriate. Depending upon their shared programmatic goals, educators can work together in many diverse ways to deliver services to students. Laycock, Gable, and Korinek (1991 ) have described several alternative formats or configurations that facilitate collaborative efforts to deliver educational services. The following sections consider applications of collaboration that may be used for improving the delivery of educational services to all students, including those with disabilities. Co-Teaching. Co-teaching is becoming a viable approach for instruction in many school situations. For example, in some high schools history and English teachers are co-teaching classes that combine their subject matter into a course called American Studies. Similarly, in middle schools, teams of teachers are meeting regularly to discuss instructional issues and to monitor student progress. Many teachers, regardless of level, contact colleagues to engage in shared classroom activities either formally or informally. This service delivery approach is also receiving increasing attention as a means of integrating students with disabilities into general education classes. In co-teaching designed for this purpose, two teachers--one a general education teacher and the other a special education teacher--work primarily in a single classroom to deliver instruction to a heterogeneous group of students including students with disabilities. Many different types of co-teaching may occur (Adams, Cessna, Stein, & Friend, 1992; Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Friend & Cook, 1992). The following are several common approaches: One teach, one observe or assist. In this type of co-teaching, both teachers are present, but one--often the general education teacher--takes a clear lead in the classroom while the other gathers observational data on students or "drifts" around the room assisting students during instruction. This approach is simple; it requires little planning on the part of the teachers, and it provides the additional assistance that can make a heterogeneous class successful. However, it also has serious liabilities. //If the same teacher consistently observes or assists, that teacher may feel like a glorified aide and the students may have trouble responding to him or her as a real teacher. If this approach is followed, the teachers should alternate roles regularly.// Station teaching. In this approach, the teachers divide the content to be delivered and each takes responsibility for part of it. In a classroom where station teaching is used, some of the students may be completing independent work assignments or participating in peer tutoring. Although this approach requires that the teachers share responsibility for planning to sufficiently to divide the instructional content, each has separate responsibility for delivering instruction. Students benefit from the lower teacher-pupil ratio, and students with disabilities may be integrated into a group instead of being singled out. Furthermore, because with this approach each teacher instructs each part of the class, the equal status of both students and teachers is maximized. One drawback to station teaching is that the noise and activity level may be unacceptable to some teachers. Parallel teaching. The primary purpose of this type of co-teaching is to lower the student-teacher ratio. In parallel teaching, the teachers plan the instruction jointly, but each delivers it to half of the class group. This approach requires that the teachers coordinate their efforts so that the students receive essentially the same instruction. This type of co-teaching is often appropriate for drill and practice activities, projects needing close teacher supervision, and test review. As with station teaching approaches, noise and activity levels may need to be monitored. Alternative teaching. Team teaching. In team teaching, both teachers share the instruction of students. The teachers may take turns leading a discussion, one may speak while the other demonstrates a concept, one may speak while the other models note taking on the chalkboard, and so on. Teachers may role play, simulate conflict, and model appropriate question asking. This approach requires the highest level of mutual trust and the most commitment. It is an approach that some co-teachers may never enjoy. On the other hand, //many veteran co-teachers report that this is the type c of co- teaching they find most rewarding.// Some of these approaches require close collaboration on (e.g., team teaching) while others do not (e.g., one teaching while the other observes or assists). For all the approaches, Redditt (1991) has offered the following important points to keep in mind: All members of the school community (i.e., teac hers, administrators, parents) must understand that a co-taught class is not a duplication of effort or a waste of one teacher; the two teachers are accomplishing together what neither could do alone. Co-teaching is not for everyone. Some teachers simply will be too uncomfortable with a colleague present in the teaching situation to perform effectively. Co-teachers must be both flexible and committed to the co-teaching process. For co-teaching to be successful, each teacher gives up a little and gains a great deal. Scheduling is one of the greatest challenges in co-teaching. Teachers not only need a shared time to teach (whether on a daily, weekly, or occasional basis), they also need time to plan instruction, especially for the models in which more coordination between the teachers is needed. White and White (1992) have also noted that __selection of students, parent notification, staff training, and__ __program evaluation are essential components of coteaching__. They have suggested that care be taken so that individual classrooms have a manageable mix of students and that parents receive a full explanation of the goals and instructional approaches used in a co-taught class. According to White and White, teachers should have the opportunity to learn about co-teaching options prior to beginning their own efforts. Finally, //schools designing co-teaching programs should systematically gather the information that will make the program accountable.// Teams. Another school application of collaboration is teaming. Although much of the information presented in the following paragraphs could apply to any type of team, the emphasis will be on two types in particular: **prereferral teams** and **multidisciplinary teams**. Prereferral Teams. Prereferral team is a term used to refer to all the team approaches that address students' academic and behavior problems prior to any consideration for special education eligibility. Some teams consist of only teachers, while some include others who can assist in assessing student difficulties and supporting teachers. On all such teams, the procedures used are generally consistent with those of the prereferral intervention system proposed by Graden, Casey, and Bonstrom (1985): Stage 1: Request for consultation. In this stage the teacher requests assistance for a student, sometimes through an informal contact with an individual who functions as a consultant and sometimes through presentation of student concerns at a team meeting. Stage 2: Consultation. During this stage, strategies to address the problems raised by the student's teacher are suggested and systematically implemented. Generally, the teacher has the primary responsibility for most of the strategies. Stage 3: Observation. Feedback on the strategies being implemented is sought to determine their effectiveness; alternative strategies may also be suggested. On some teams Stages 2 and 3 are combined. Stage 4: Conference. At this stage, the team meets to consider the information gathered. The team may decide to continue or adapt interventions, determine that a full assessment is needed, or determine that no additional intervention is warranted. If the team recommends referral for full assessment to determine eligibility for special education, the team process is extended and involves a multidisciplinary team. There is some debate about the membership and scope of prereferral teams. Some argue that no specialists should be on the team to void creating the impression that the team is just the first step in a referral to special education. Others argue that eliminating these specialists prevent the team from using their specialized expertise. Phillips and McCullough (1990; 1992) have suggested two types of members: core and auxiliary. In this approach, general educators serve on all cases and are designated as core members. Other personnel, \ /ho serve on a case-by-case basis, are identified as auxiliary members. Another debate that occurs on teams concerns "how ~ much is enough." On some teams, the outcomes of simple classroom modifications (e.g., calling the parents, changing the student's seat, conferring with the student) are considered an adequate basis on which to determine whether or not full assessment is needed. On other teams, interventions include systematically implemented modifications that last several weeks. 3. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF FOSTERING COLLABORATION AMONG TEACHERS? When reading about the possibilities that collaboration provides for professionals to form productive working partnerships, it is tempting to see collaboration as a panacea for a broad array of educational issues. Conversely, if administrators begin calculating the costs of collaboration in terms of staff time, they may decide it is not worth the effort before even piloting a collaborative project As one teacher reported, "We were going to do teams to support students in our c school. As we began planning, people realized how much time they would have to contribute. We quit before we even started." Clearly, the costs and benefits collaboration are serious considerations. In this section, a sketch of typical costs and benefits is provided in the hope that it will lead to balanced decision making. Benefits of Collaboration for Schools One of the most promising benefits of teacher colic collaboration is the increased opportunity it gives teachers to interact with one another regarding instructional issues. Specifically, teachers who collaborate are more likely to discuss with their colleagues areas of the curriculum they have difficulty teaching. They are also likely to obtain ideas and feedback from their peers to help solve these instructional dilemmas. As a result, teachers learn skills from one another that they can then use in their classes. As more school staff members participate in collaborative efforts, a ripple effect of shared knowledge and skills may spread through the school. A related schoolwide benefit to collaboration is increased teacher sensitivity to others' roles and responsibilities. In some schools it is common to hear professionals suggesting that their jobs are the most difficult in the school while others have less burdensome assignments. These conversations often include special education teachers. When collaboration is fostered, however ever, the ongoing communication tends to increase awareness that every professional in school is working diligently and that everyone has difficult tasks to do. When this understanding is combined with sharing of knowledge and skills, teachers perceive that they are supported in their work. __Collaboration has a direct impact on students__, too. For one thing, they receive the benefits of instruction planned by two teachers. It is quite likely that the combined efforts of the teachers are more powerful than any plans hat could have been developed by a single teacher. In addition, teachers are modeling collaborative behavior for students, whether it is through co-teaching in the classroom or by participating as members of a school team. A middle school student captured the wonderful understanding that only children are capable of when he said about the team, "Oh, yeah. The teachers meet at least once a week to talk about us kids. You know, it's like L.A. Law--those lawyers find out what's going on when they have those meetings. The teachers find out what's going on with all us kids in their meetings." Another type of benefit accrues to students from collaboration. When teachers are working closely together, they gain perspective about student learning and behavior problems and a better understanding of which students need specialized assistance and which might benefit from more intensive interventions within general education. In fact, in many schools in which collaboration is stressed, the number of referrals to special education decreases and the proportion of students determined to be eligible for special services once assessed becomes appropriately very high. Finally, a collaborative ethic in schools is consistent with the major direction in school programming and human services, as well as societal trends in business and industry. The emphasis on collaboration in organizations has developed to improve the quality of products and services as well as the morale and career satisfaction of the individuals within the organizations. Improved educational outcomes and increased professional retention and career satisfaction are certainly appropriate goals. Benefits of Collaboration for Special and General Educators The benefits of collaboration for schools generally hold true for the collaborative efforts among special education and general education teachers. In addition, the following positive effects may be experienced: Increased contact between special and general education teachers decreases their sense of isolation and improves their understanding of each others' programs and services. This understanding of each others' roles, responsibilities, and approaches helps to develop a framework upon which a collaborative ethic can be built. Stigmatization of students with disabilities can be reduced. Collaboration is often associated with programs in which students with disabilities spend an increased amount of time in mainstream settings. In these situations, effective teacher collaboration helps to ensure that the special needs of a student are not highlighted unnecessarily and that the student is accommodated within the classroom context. Collaboration is essential when assisting students with disabilities to make the transition from a more restrictive to a less restrictive environment. For example, a student who had been receiving services in a self- contained special education class and who is going to receive services in a resource program next year will probably have fewer difficulties in the transition if teachers work closely to plan the change. Many students who are not eligible for special education services benefit when teachers collaborate. Depending on the approach used by the collaborating teachers, some students with special needs who are not eligible for special education services may occasionally be grouped for instruction with students with disabilities and thus benefit from specially designed instruction delivered in the general education classroom. At the very least, the knowledge and skills that special education and general education teachers learn from one another can be applied to other students. Program integrity for students with disabilities may be enhanced. As teachers share instructional goals, plan and deliver instruction, and jointly monitor student progress, students with disabilities may receive instruction that is less fragmented. For example, if teachers have ongoing contact, skills that might be taught outside a general education classroom can be related to those being presented in that class. Costs of Collaboration

If collaboration had only benefits, everyone would be participating in collaborative efforts. However, this is not occurring. Undoubtedly, the costs of collaboration are a significant consideration for educators. If all the school districts in the country that are emphasizing collaboration were to ask teachers what the primary barrier is to teacher collaboration, the answer would be "time." Time has been highlighted in numerous reports about collaboration (e.g., Cook & Friend, 1991a; Idol & West, 1991; Redditt, 1991). In some schools, collaboration becomes so important that significant time is taken from pupil instruction. In others, the lack of adequate time leads to hasty problem solving and unsuccessful "quick fix" ideas. In yet others, the absence of time prevents teachers from employing many of the more sophisticated co-teaching approaches available. Although there is no ideal response to the problem of not having adequate time to collaborate, schools are beginning to find creative ways to make time within busy schedules. A sample of these innovative solutions to a chronic dilemma is presented in Figure 2. A second major cost of collaboration arises from the need to prepare teachers for collaborative approaches. A dilemma many schools encounter is this: When collaboration is first discussed, perhaps in a teachers' meeting or at an Administrative Council session, professionals look at one another and say, "So? It's all just common sense." However, as Benjamin Franklin so aptly noted, "Common sense isn't." The point is, even though many teachers are intuitively skilled at working collaboratively, the demands of ongoing professional collaboration often require sophisticated skills for communication and conflict resolution that teachers may never have needed before. They may also need information on how to run efficient meetings, how to listen, and how to manage resistance. Without adequate time to develop these skills, time to discuss instructional philosophies, and so on, collaboration is unlikely to be sustained. Thus, staff preparation costs should figure significantly in decisions to promote collaboration. A third cost of fostering collaboration is the threat it may pose for teachers who are most comfortable with an isolated approach to education (Friend & Cook, 1992). The traditional culture of schools has rewarded teachers who were satisfied with working alone and receiving few benefits and little input from others. As collaboration is considered, teachers who are comfortable with traditional schools may find collaboration frightening. They may fear that they do not have a significant contribution to make; they may be concerned that the personal cost in terms of time is too dear; or they may worry that others will be evaluating their skills (Cook & Friend, 1990). Administrators who would like to foster teacher collaboration are likely to need to devote considerable attention to this matter. Another cost of collaboration is the possibility of increased conflict among teachers. When the adults in schools work more closely with one another, it is more likely that their differences will emerge (along with their similarities). Many teachers are uncomfortable with conflict; they may find it awkward and may prefer to avoid tackling issues instead of participating in a conflict (Friend & Cook, 1992). However, conflict could just as easily be placed on the list of benefits of collaboration, since conflict indicates that professionals are sharing real ideas with conviction. Figure 2 Ten Ways to Create Time for Collaboration These are just a few of the ways in which schools are making time for collaboration. This list illustrates how innovative strategies can assist in solving the time dilemma. 1. Implement a peer tutoring program across two classes; students assist each other while one of the two teachers is released to work with a colleague. 2. Ask a local business to sponsor a substitute teacher for a specified number of days during the school year. Employ the substitute teacher to provide release time for teachers. 3. Work with the Parent Teacher Organization to plan and implement a "volunteer substitute teacher" program in which qualified substitute teachers donate their time to the school to release teachers. 4. When assemblies or other large-group student activities are scheduled, release a few teachers to work together. Supervision of the students for which they are responsible is managed by other staff. 5. Revise the school schedule to provide shared planning time to the teachers who most work together. 6. Initiate bi-weekly student activity periods in which community volunteers and some teachers instruct students on specialized topics while other teachers have release time to meet with colleagues. 7. Add early release days to the school calendar. 8. Have professionals in the school who do not have assigned class groups (e.g., principal, social worker, counselor) plan and deliver instructionally relevant activities while teachers have release time for planning. 9. Use at least part of any professional development days in the calendar for planning for collaboration. 10. Release teachers who have extensive responsibilities for collaboration from other school duties (e.g., lunchroom supervision). 4. HOW CAN ADMINISTRATORS PLAN FOR AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT FOSTER COLLABORATION AMONG TEACHERS? A number of the other chapters in this text provide valuable suggestions related to program planning. The process of planning and implementing collaboration is the same or highly similar to the processes used for other types of programs. In this section, only the aspects of program planning that seem to have particular relevance to teacher collaboration are highlighted. Use Systematic Program Planning Steps Programs and services that emphasize teacher collaboration are somewhat unique in that they focus attention on the behaviors and attitudes of the adults involved in instructing students. For that reason, they may be viewed by some teachers as threatening. It is particularly important, then, that the steps for program planning be implemented systematically. This enables all involved to fee! ownership in the collaborative program and provides opportunities for them to become accustomed to the demands of collaborative programs and services. Friend and Cook (1992) have suggested the program planning steps that are outlined briefly in the list that follows. Readers are referred to this and other sources if more detailed planning information is needed (see, for example, Cook & Friend, 1990; Hall & Hord, 1987; Loucks-Horsley & Hergert, 1985). 1. Determine goals and initial structures. In this step, teachers should clearly identify the purpose and goals of the collaborative effort and tentatively outline the structures through which the goals could be reached. This initial step is especially critical, since the remaining planning steps are premised on mutually agreed upon goals. Although it is tempting to complete this step rapidly, administrators are well advised to proceed slowly at this juncture. The difficulties associated with problem solving when problems are poorly defined were noted earlier. The same difficulties arise when coworkers invest in planning to reach goals that are ill defined. 2. Plan for implementation Once goals and structures are outlined, the next step involves planning what will be needed in order to make the program or service a reality. Often this step includes identifying resources needed for the program or service, noting all barriers that might prevent implementation (e.g., schedule conflicts, teacher reluctance, parent concerns) and generating strategies for overcoming these barriers. At the same time, this step includes listing all of the existing resources that might assist in implementing the program or service (e.g., availability of teacher minigrants for innovative projects; adoption of a new curriculum that will require teachers to work together) and how those resources might best be accessed. A final major part of this step is beginning to identify the ways in which the program or service will be evaluated. 3. Prepare for implementation. The purpose of this step is to begin to overcome the barriers identified and to access the resources outlined in Step 2. It also involves completing detailed plans and designing specifications for the program or service. Often, this is the point at which others perceive that the program or service is likely to be implemented. For this reason, this step often causes teachers who might not have been actively participating to become more involved. Additional barriers or resources may be noted during this phase, and they should be addressed. This step also involves many pragmatic tasks: Parents should be informed of the planned program or service; materials should be ordered if they are needed; teachers should receive initial professional development related to the collaborative effort; and specific evaluation plans should be finalized. 4. Implement the program. When the program or service reaches this step, it is often piloted by a volunteer group of teachers. This pilot phase enables teachers to resolve minor problems prior to widespread implementation, and it providers an opportunity for teachers who are somewhat reluctant about the program or service to concretely observe how it operates. Evaluation data are gathered from the time that implementation begins so that needed modifications can be made. 5. Maintain the program Once a program has been implemented, it is easy to assume that it will immediately become self-sustaining. This is particularly true when participants have contributed a tremendous amount of time and effort to make the program or service successful, implementation seems to be occurring with few problems, and other projects and priorities are beginning to compete for everyone's attention. Even successful programs should be monitored and periodically assessed to determine their status. For example, teachers who are new to the school should be provided with information about the program. In addition, program results should be examined, and parents should regularly be asked for their input. The steps just outlined may seem very detailed, and some readers may question their necessity. However, experience has repeatedly demonstrated that it is well worth the effort to follow these steps carefully when planning a program or service that emphasizes collaboration. If this is done, the program reaches full implementation far more rapidly and smoothly than if the steps had not been followed. Conversely, when steps are not completed, we have found that either the project is abandoned before full implementation is reached or enormous amounts of time are required to resolve problems that could have been avoided. Distinguish the Program or Service from the Collaborative Requirement In the beginning of this chapter it was stressed that collaboration is how adults work together, whereas a program or service is what they are doing. This is mentioned again as a program planning topic because it is a critical concept. Teachers need to plan what the program or service will look like (e.g., a peer tutoring program, a co-teaching service, a weekly team meeting), but they also need to prepare for the requirement of working together (Gable, Friend, Laycock, & Hendrickson, 1990). Use Effective Leadership Strategies to Foster Participatlon One of the most frequent observations made by those working with groups of teachers to design, implement, or evaluate collaborative programs or services concurs with Barth's (1984) position that administrators need to both model desirable traits and to foster and encourage those behaviors in others. The following are examples of ways in which this can be done: Provide incentives to participating teachers. Arrange for substitute teachers so that the participants can be released for planning or evaluation activities. Encourage participants to attend professional meetings, and to find "seed SUMMARY

Collaboration is an exciting vehicle through which teachers can plan and carry out an array of services for students with disabilities as well as for other students. Establishing a strong collaborative ethic in a school has the additional benefit of enhancing teacher morale and providing teachers with a support network. However, fostering collaboration requires patience and careful attention to many details. By managing it carefully, administrators can ensure that collaboration becomes foundation for their school communities. REFERENCES

Adams, L., Cessna, K., Stein, P., & Friend, M. (1992). Teachers on co-teachinq: Qualitative study of experienced co-teachers. Unpublished manuscript, Colorado Department of Education, Denver. Barth, R. S. (1984). The principal and the teaching profession. The Elementary School Journal, 86(4), 1-22. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 17-22. Conoley, J. C., & Conoley, C. W. (1982). School consultation: A guide to training and practice. New York: Pergamon. Cook, L. (1992). Support groups for practicing special education professionals. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children, The National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1990). Pragmatic issues in the development of special education consultation programs. Preventing School Failure, 35(1), 43-36. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1991a). Principles for the practice of collaboration in schools. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 6-9. Cook, L., 8 Friend, M. (1991b). Collaboration in special education: Coming of age in the 1990s. Preventinq School Failure, 35(2), 24-27. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1 (1), 69- 86. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. White Plains, NY: Longman. Gable, R. A., Friend, M., Laycock, V. K., & Hendrickson, J. M. (1990). Interview skills for problem identification in school consultation. Preventing School Failure, 35(1), 5- 10. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Bonstrom, O. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part II, The data. Exceptional Children, 51, 487-496. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitatinq the process. Albany: State University of New York. Idol, Jacobs, L., & West, J. F. (1991). Education collaboration: A catalyst for effective schooling. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27(2), 70-78, 125. Brandt, R. (1991). On interdisciplinary curriculum: A conversation with Heidi Hayes Jacobs. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 24-26. Jayanthi, M., & Friend, M. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving: A selected literature review to guide practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 147- 152. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through\ staff development. New York: Longman. Kaiser, S. M., & Woodman, R. W. (1985). Multidisciplinary teams and group decision- maiking techniques: Possible solutions to decision-making problems. School Psychology Review, 14, 457-470. Laycock, V. K., Gable, R. A., & Korinek, L. (1991). Alternative structures for collaboration in the delivery of special services. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 15-18. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Hergert, L. F. (1985). An action guide to school improvement. Andover, MA: ASCD The Network. Male, M. (1991). Preveingin School Failure, 35(4), 29-36. Meyers, J., Glezheiser, L. M., & Yelich, G. (1991). Do pull-in programs foster teacher collaboration? Remedial and Special Education, 12(2), 7-15. Moore, K. J., Fifield, M. B., Spira, D. A., & Scarlato, M. (1989). Child study team decision making in special education: Improving the process. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 50-58. Morsink, C. V., Chase-Thomas, C., & Correa, V. I. (1991). Interactive teaming: Consultation and collaboration in special programs New York: Macmillan. Pfeiffer, S. I. (1981). The problems facing multidisciplinary teams as perceived by team members. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 330-333. Phillips, V. L., & McCullough, L. L. (1990). Consultation-based- programming: Instituting the collaborative ethic in schools. Exceptional Children, 56, 291-304. Phillips, V. L., & McCullough, L. L. (1992). Student/staff support teams. CONNECT, L(2), 6-7. Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1990). Fostering the continued democratization of consultation through action research. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(3-4), 240-245. Redditt, S. (1991). Two teachers working as one. Equity and Choice, 8(1), 49-56. Reynolds, C. R., Gutkin, T. B., Elliott, S. N., & Witt, J. C. (1984). School psychology: Essentials of theory and pracitce New York: Wiley. Smith, S. C., & Scott, J. L. (1990). The collaborative school. Eugene: University of Oregon, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. VanGundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of structured problem solvinq (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. White, A. E., & White, L. L. (1992). A collaborative model for students with mild disabilities in middle schools. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(9), 1-10. From http://www.slc.sevier.org/tcollab.htm