You are on page 1of 88

THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Chapter I
Introduction

The Modern-Day Public School Classroom

With the implications of federal laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA), established in 1990 and most recently revised in 2004 with the new title Individuals

with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), there are many challenges facing

educators today. One such challenge includes developing and implementing effective ways to

present high quality instruction for students identified as having disabilities (Solis, Vaughn,

Swanson, and McCulley, 2012). The initial Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

ensures that all children with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education to

meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent

living (American Psychological Association, 2017).

IDEA is comprised of four sections: sections A, B, C and D. Part A of the legislation

outlines the foundation for the remaining categories. For the purposes of this study, the focus

will be on Part B which defines the mandates for school aged children with disabilities, children

3-21 years of age. Part C of IDEA outlines the necessity to reach students with disabilities at a

very young age and targets the population of children from birth to two years of age. Finally,

Part D of the IDEA legislation describes ways for the nation to improve the education for

children with disabilities.

Before the development and implementation of IDEA in public schools across America,

over 4 million children with disabilities were denied appropriate access to public education. [In

fact,] many children were denied entry into public school altogether, while others were placed in

segregated classrooms, or in regular classrooms without adequate support for their special needs

(Katsiyannis, Yell, Bradley, 2001; Martin, Martin, Terman, 1996; U.S. Department of Education,

1
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

2010). Many experts in education, such as Judy Heumann of the Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services, feel that general education classrooms should be the first placement

considered today when taking the Least Restrictive Environment provision, enacted by IDEA,

into consideration (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998). The regulation outlines the provision of

the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) as,

to the maximum extent possible handicapped children in public, private, or

other institutions should be educated with children who are not handicapped

and that separate schooling or other removal of handicapped children from

the regular educational environment should occur only when the nature or

severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use

of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (Essex,

2016, p. 136).

In an effort to remedy the segregation of these students, inclusive reforms have been

developed within modern-day classrooms. Educational inclusion is a reform process aiming to

promote diversity among school children. Students are grouped in classrooms regardless of their

ethnic or national origins, religious background, social status, gender, and abilities, thereby

counteracting the problem of social exclusion (Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014, p. 151).

As it stands today, students with disabilities are being served as much as possible within

the general educational setting. In fact, according to the National Center for Statistical

Information, approximately 13% of all students age 3-21 receive special education services. Of

those 13%...over half (54%) spend the majority of their school day (80%) in the general

education classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). It is for this reason, educational

professionals find it essential for general educators to partner with and work collaboratively with

2
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

other professionals in their buildings to gain insights into other team members expertise in

working with identified children (Jansen, Swain, Delkamiller, & Ritzman, 2012). Moreover,

school leaders must gain clarification on integrated comprehensive services in order to provide

clear guidance and execution of the model within their building(s) (Frattura & Capper,

2007). Integrated Comprehensive Services (ICS) is defined as a model

that organizes professional staff by the needs of each learner rather than

clustering learners by label. In an integrated comprehensive services model staff are not

assigned to a unit or program and placed in a separate classroom. Conversely, support

staff and general education teachers work collaboratively to bring appropriate

instructional supports to each child in integrated school and community environments

(Frattura & Capper, 2004, p. 3).

As a result, educators today are working towards establishing inclusive classrooms where

collaboration and co-teaching, a process developed as an instructional approach to support

students with disabilities in general education settings, become the norm. Co-teaching is

typically comprised of two certified educators (one general and special education), lessons

delivered by both teachers, a classroom containing Special Education Needs (SEN) students and

their general education counterparts, all within a single classroom (Friend & Cook, 2007). With

this model present in classrooms today, students will reap all the benefits public education has to

offer. This hypothesis is supported in a comprehensive study conducted by Gerber and Popp

(1999) in which 123 students with and without learning disabilities in conjunction with their

parents, were interviewed on their perceptions of co-teaching. The participants included students

and parents from five school districts in Richmond, Virginia. Within the study, co-teaching had

been implemented for a minimum of two years. Results found that students receiving special

3
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

education services reported that they enjoyed co-teaching, received more teacher assistance and

attention, and learned things well through hands-on activities. In addition, for both students with

and without disabilities, continuance with the co-teaching model was desired for subsequent

years, as both groups indicated positive supports and results within their educational experiences.

From the perspective of the educational professionals, including but not limited to

general and special education teachers and administrators, teaching and learning partnerships

thrive in school communities where collaboration is the norm. These communities recognize the

powerful potential of teamwork to help individuals and groups accomplish their goals (Walther-

Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999, p.3).When educational professionals are able to

effectively collaborate and co-teach, they are able to facilitate student success, for both general

education and special education students.

Unfortunately, collaborative relationships in schools are difficult to develop and even

more challenging to maintain[However,]it can be an effective tool for facilitating student

achievement when the process is implemented appropriately (Walther-Thomas, Korinek, &

McLaughlin, 1999). One of the greatest obstacles to successful co-teaching is often the lack of

preparedness of the educators involved, for although co-teaching does rely on the research-based

instructional practices used in independent instruction, it also requires an additional set of skills

that are rarely used when teaching alone (Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld & Blanks, 2010).

The Nuts and Bolts of the Modern-Day Public School Classroom

In todays education system, with an inclusive model at the forefront of todays public

schools, special education is not a place (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998, p.1). Instead,

special education should be executed in such a way that individualized instruction with necessary

aides and services are provided to SEN students within the LRE (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri,

4
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

1998). It is with this newfound understanding of special education and what it requires for

students to meet success, that past assumptions about special education and general education as

separate systems are giving ways to a challenge to work together (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri,

1998, p.1).

Even though collaboration and co-teaching within ICS models have been identified as

earmarks of necessary and effective components of education for students with disabilities,

schools across the nation have thrust educators and students into programs that bear the name,

but not the substance. It has been recognized that a key piece of the inclusion model is the

attitude of those implementing it. It is argued that teachers attitudes (beliefs, feelings, thoughts

and ideas) are critical in ensuring the success of inclusive practices (Secer, 2008, p. 44). As a

whole within the public education system, there is little variability in the definition of co-

teaching, but broad variability in its implementation (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCulley,

2012, p. 498).

Due to the variability in programming and differing attitudes, students, both general

education and special education alike, are not receiving an effective program, and as a result, are

not making necessary progress within the public schools of todays society. With educational

professionals driving to meet the need of the LRE provision, students are often placed in general

education classrooms; however, they are not always receiving the proper supports (Baines,

Baines, & Masterson, 1994).

When there is confusion about a program and a place, the focus on the child and the

overall goal of education, which aims to create a successful school experience to prepare

students for life, becomes blurred and distorted (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998, p.9). Two

recognized theorists in the field of ICS, Frattura & Capper, suggest students who have been

5
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

identified as requiring federally mandated programs, such as the classified students many of our

public schools serve, must be afforded integrated comprehensive services that come to them,

rather than having to go to separate and often segregated programs to get their individual

academic and emotional needs met (Frattura & Capper, 2004, p.1).

Frattura & Capper, who have developed an innovative, research-based system to meet

Least Restrictive Environment provisions and to capitalize upon collaborative teaching practices

titled Integrated Comprehensive Systems Series, have determined that in order for the ICS model

to be effective for classified students, positive teacher attitudes, adequate resources and

structures to support collaborative models, and support from key personnel need to be in

place. In order for identified special education students to meet success, the ICS models must be

further developed and implemented appropriately in todays public schools (Frattura & Capper,

2004, p.10). Frattura & Capper (2016) explain that their model focuses on four cornerstones

specifically: Focus on Equity (1), Align Staff and Students (2), Transform Teaching and

Learning (3), Leverage Funding and Policy (4).

ICS models are possibly the most difficult of structures to implement systemically

because of its broad interpretation. In fact, many schools in America would most likely define

ICS as in-class support where a special education teacher comes into the general education

classroom to work with identified special education needs students in their pursuit of grade-level

content knowledge prescribed by state standards. However, this is not what ICS

represents. Instead, it is

a fully integrated and unified approach to the education of all students. As a process, it is

6
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

intended to enable schools to engage in collaborative, team-driven decision making that

is focused on interventions designed to enhance academic and social outcomes for

students. (Sailor & Roger, 2005, p. 508).

In order for ICS models to be implemented to benefit the overall student body, school

reform is a necessity. Such action will require identifying, understanding, and using practices

in schools that have a sound basis in research (Moore, 1998, p.5). Schools who have modeled

the functioning ICS models include eight California elementary and middle schools and one

elementary school in Kansas City, Kansas, all of which are described as Schoolwide

Applications Model (SAM) schools by Sailor and Roger (2005). Sailor and Roger define SAM

as an approach to integration built on the foundation of six guiding principles which can be

broken down to 15 critical features It is designed to enable schools themselves to link specific

interventions to academic and social outcomes for all students (2005, 505-6).

The six guiding principles which enable SAM schools to integrate the inclusive

philosophies of ICS models successfully include:

general education guides all student learning; all school resources are configured to

benefit all students; schools address social development and citizenship forthrightly;

schools are democratically organized; data-driven, problem solving systems; schools

have open boundaries in relation to their families and communities; and schools enjoy

district support for undertaking an extensive systems-change effort. (Sailor & Roger,

2005, p.506-8)

Implementing such systemic change across a school and ultimately a district requires buy-in and

support from multiple areas including educators, school administrators, and district level

supervisors in order to be executed and effective.

7
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Because ICS models are theoretical and are not mandated by federal laws such as IDEIA,

what it necessitates, mandates, or requires is often unclear. It is because of the nebulous

information, interpretation of what ICS is has been left to the individual school districts, schools,

and even classrooms within the public education system today. Because of the liberal

interpretation of ICS models, there is uncertainty as to how to effectively implement this

systemic structure within the school systems of today. Because of this uncertainty, lack of

clarity, and overall difficulty, the action research was pursued within two public schools in

suburban New Jersey specifically.

Population of Study

Two suburban school districts located in northern New Jersey were the focus of a mixed-

methodology study in which an investigation was launched to determine the efficacy of the

implementation of Integrated Comprehensive Service models.

The first school district, Natures Valley School District, is in a suburban area of New

Jersey located in Morris County. It hosts three elementary schools and one middle school with

students in grades K-8. Busy Bee School, one of the elementary schools within this district, was

the focus of this survey. Within Busy Bee School there are a total of 21 teachers that were

surveyed. The teachers were compiled of a diverse group of women who work in various areas

of education including general education teachers, special education teachers, and basic skills

instruction teachers. The years of experience ranged from novice first year teachers to veteran

teachers with more than 15 years of teaching experience. Some of the teachers surveyed had

several years of experience in the field, but were new to the building.

The second district, Rockwall School District, is also in a suburban area of New Jersey

located in Somerset County. It also hosts students in grades K-8. The children attending the

8
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

school within this district also come from middle class families. At this school, students in

grades 5-8 rotate through nine class periods each day. For Math, English Language Arts (ELA),

Science, and Social Studies, inclusive classrooms are seen in which a general education teacher,

special education teacher, and (as needed) paraprofessionals are seen. For the purposes of this

study, the 19 middle school (grades 5-8) general education and special education Math, ELA,

Science, and Social Studies were targeted. Of these 19 teachers, seven are male teachers and 12

are female teachers.

In addition, these educators share similar ethnic, cultural, and social class to the students

they educate. Experience amongst these educators varies, as some are veteran teachers with

many years at Rockwall School District, while others are novice teachers with little teaching

experience overall and/or little teaching experience at Rockwall School District. All educators

had some experience with SEN students being in their classrooms. However, some educators

were strictly general education teachers with limited training in special education, while others

were educators with extensive experience with SEN students who possess special education

certification.

In both Natures Valley School District and Rockwall School District, three

administrators per district were targeted for this research. In Natures Valleys focus school,

there is a Principal, Director of Special Services, and a Supervisor of Curriculum. Similarly, in

Rockwall School District, there is a school principal, Supervisor of Student Services, and a

Director of Instruction. Administrative experience as well as years in each district varied

significantly. In addition, these administrators share similar ethnic, cultural, and social class to

the students and teachers in each district.

9
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Problem Statement

The ICS model is being widely used in two small, suburban public school districts in

New Jersey to support students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). An IEP in the

United States is designed for each child with an identified disability to specify goals, objectives,

and related services necessary for meeting grade-level expectations (Essex, 2016). There is a

recognized perception that, within these two small, suburban New Jersey school districts,

teachers and administrators lack understanding when developing and executing ICS roles

effectively. It appeared that this was resulting in reticence to accept special education students

within the general education classrooms, hesitancy towards sharing teacher ownership within the

classroom, and the inability of administrators to appropriately support the ICS model. The

purpose of this mixed methodology study was to investigate the usage of the Integrated

Comprehensive Services model within the public school setting and to understand the necessary

structures needed to improve current and future Integrated Comprehensive Services models.

Research Questions

How do teachers perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

How do administrators perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

What structures are needed in the public school setting to support the Integrated

Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

Definition of Terms

Collaboration: Collaborative communities often are manifested through the distribution of

professional responsibilities, as well as in accepted decision-making procedures, use of shared

10
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

resources, and well developed accountability measures (Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin,

1999, p. 3).

Co-Teaching: Two or more professional delivering substantive instruction to a diverse, or

blended group of students in a single physical space (Cook and Friend, 1995, p.2). Cook and

Friend (2007) also go on to explain co-teaching as having four components: two certified

educators, instruction by both teachers, a heterogeneous group of students, a single classroom

with non-classified students and classified students.

Inclusion: providing specially designed instruction and supports for students with special needs

in the context of regular education settings. It means that all students in a schools attendance

area are full members of that school community and each student participates equitably in the

opportunities and responsibilities of the general education environment (Moore, Gilbreath, &

Maiuri, 1998, p. 1). Additional descriptions include: General education classes are structured to

meet the needs of all the students in the class. This is accomplished through educational

strategies designed for a diverse student population and collaboration between educators so that

specifically designed instruction and supplementary aides and services are provided to all

students as needed for effective learning (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998, p. 2).

Integrated Comprehensive Service Model (ICS): A model that organizes professional staff by

the needs of each learner rather than clustering learners by label. In an integrated comprehensive

service model staff are not assigned to a unit or program and placed in a separate classroom.

Conversely, support staff and general education teachers work collaboratively to bring

appropriate instructional supports to each child in integrated school and community

environments (Frattura & Capper, 2004, p. 3).

11
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): A mandate which stipulates to the maximum extent

possible handicapped children in public, private, or other institutions should be educated with

children who are not handicapped and that separate schooling or other removal of handicapped

children from the regular educational environment should occur only when the nature or severity

of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and

services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (Essex, 2016, p. 136).

12
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Chapter II
Literature Review

Legislation Overview

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was established in 1990 and recently

revised in 2004 with the new title Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

(IDEIA). In addition, according to the New Jersey Administrative Code Title 6A Chapter 14

Special Education Program criteria: supplementary aids and services requires special

education students to be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with nondisabled peers

(N.J.A.C 4.5(a)). Furthermore, the legislation also requires the district Board of Education to

provide teacher aides and/or paraprofessionals, along with general and special education teaching

staff, planning time on a regular basis, which shall be set forth in policies adopted by the board

of education (N.J.A.C 4.5 (d)). This legislation is also supported when stating: A teacher of

supplementary instruction and a resource program teacher shall be provided time on a regular

basis for consultation with appropriate general education teaching staff (N.J.A.C 4.6 (g)).

Ambiguity, specific to the following terms: regular basis, policies adopted by the board of

education has led to liberal interpretation of what Integrated Comprehensive Services require of

teaching staff and administrators.

The researchers, upon recognizing the perception that within two small, suburban New

Jersey school districts, teachers and administrators lack understanding when developing and

executing ICS roles effectively to fulfill educational laws, compiled research dating back to 1988

specific to the perceptions of teachers and administrators towards ICS and the necessities for

successful implementation of the ICS model. This research is divided into three headings (which

are specific to the researchers questions): How Teachers Perceive the Integrated Comprehensive

Service Model, How Administrators Perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service Model, and

13
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

The Structures Needed in the Public School Setting to Support the Integrated Comprehensive

Service Model. Within these sections, current trends are explored as well as necessary changes to

meet current educational demands when it comes to properly servicing all students in an

inclusive environment.

How Teachers Perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service Model (ICS)

Teacher Attitudes Towards ICS and Co-teaching

When it comes to the actual implementation and long-term sustainability of the Integrated

Comprehensive Service Model (ICS), it has been determined that any implementation of an

inclusive policy is largely dependent on educators attitudes (Secer, 2010, p. 43). Within

society, reactions towards an inclusive model have differed. On one hand, inclusion opponents

suggest that special education will become diluted and no longer special if an ICS model is

implemented. However, other inclusion supporters insist that students with disabilities have the

legal right to be educated with typical peers in age-appropriate settings (Rea, McLaughlin, &

Walther-Thomas, 2002, p.204).

Equally so, educators opinions of the ICS model differ. Scruggs and Mastopieri (1996)

completed a meta-analysis of American attitude studies. Their meta-analysis spanned from 1958

to 1995 and included 28 survey reports. This meta-analysis showed that two-thirds (65 percent)

of the teachers surveyed (10,560 in total) agreed with the general concept of integration, but only

40 percent believed that this was an attainable goal for most children. They also found that there

was no connection between positive attitudes towards inclusion and date of publication, which

implies that teachers views have not significantly changed over the years.

However, the teachers are the ones that interact with the students themselves on a day-to-

day basis. When students believe that their teachers care about them, see them as competent,

14
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

respect their views and desire their success, they tend to work toward fulfilling...high

expectations (Blum, 2007, p. 7). Therefore, the teachers attitude toward having a child with

special needs in his/her classroom holds a prominent place in this study.

Upon further exploration, it was determined that there are certain variables that impact a

teachers attitude toward inclusive education. Some of these variables include: age, position,

type/severity of a childs handicap, school supports, and a teachers understanding of inclusion

as well as special education (Sari, 2007). More often than not, teacher attitudes towards inclusion

are oftentimes based on valid concerns such as:

accommodating the individualized time demands of students with disability without

disadvantaging other students in the classroom; being apprehensive of the quality and

quantity of work output of children with disabilities; lacking adequate support and

services; and limited training and competence in supporting inclusive educational

practice (Vaz, Wilson, Falkmer, Sim, Scott, Cordier, et. al., 2015, p. 2).

While the district does not have control over some of these factors, such as teacher age or level

of a childs handicap, there are variables the district does have control over, such as: teacher

position, school/district support for the ICS model, support services, and in-service training

opportunities. It is imperative that school districts take the necessary time to focus on the

variables they do have control over in order to ensure positive attitudes exist towards the ICS

model in order to best serve all students.

Teacher Teams

In addition to the attitudes teachers possess towards the ICS model and co-teaching, the

pairing of general and special educators must be explored. Like the sharing of responsibilities

between parents or the complementary skills of successful business partners, combining the

15
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

strengths of general and special educators in the classroom can be deeply beneficial to students

and teachers alike (Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010, p. 158). When a co-teaching

partnership is operating effectively, children reap the benefits of having two educators in a

classroom. Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) found that teachers recognized social

benefits to students who participated in classrooms that were co-taught. Moreover, there was

even evidence that suggested that teachers recognized improved cooperation amongst students

with diverse needs.

However, establishing an effective co-taught classroom poses unique challenges. Co-

teaching is time-consuming and requires strong interpersonal and collaborative skills by

teachers (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013, p. 84). These skills specifically have been cited as being

essential in co-teaching partnerships in order to effectively define roles and responsibilities

between general education and special education teachers (Hang & Rabren, 2008).

Unfortunately, these role delineations often fail to occur and have compounded the angst felt by

general education and special education teachers when looking to establish and carry out an

effective ICS model. In a survey completed by Fennick and Liddy (2001), it was found that

special educators and general educators alike saw themselves as having more responsibilities

than their co-teaching counterparts in instructional and behavioral management. In addition,

when role delineations fail to occur, there is oftentimes a domination of general educators in the

classroom, with special educators assuming the role of simply monitoring or helping.

Preparatory Programs and Professional Variables

Even before entering a classroom as a certified teacher, undergraduate teacher education

is viewed to be pivotal in developing the affirmative attitudes and skills required for successful

inclusion, with formal educational training being identified as one of the main factors that

16
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

promote an inclusive attitude (Vaz, Wilson, Falkmer, Sim, Scott, Cordier, et al., 2015, p. 2).

Programming should incorporate formal training and actual experiences with students with

disabilities in order to improve overall preparedness and attitudes towards students with

disabilities and the ICS model (Vaz, Wilson, Falkmer, Sim, Scott, Cordier, et al., 2015). In Solis,

Vaughn, Swanson, and McCulleys (2012) meta-analysis of 146 studies, it was reported that the

researchers were struck by the number of general education teachers who do not perceive that

they are adequately prepared to teach individuals with disabilities in their classrooms (p. 508).

Moreover, it is typical for more special education co-teachers to have taken pre-service courses

in collaborative teaching during their teacher preparation classes in comparison to their general

education co-teachers (Austin, 2011).

While undergraduate preparedness to teach students with disabilities often differs

between general education and special education teachers, a clear division is also noted between

non-veteran and veteran teachers. Non veteran teachers reported significantly more frequent

opportunities to learn about co-teaching during pre-service training than did veteran teachers

(Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013, p. 88). This contributes to the understanding of the differing attitudes

that exist amongst educators today towards the ICS model and sharing teaching responsibilities

between general and special education teachers.

Since knowledge appears to be a key factor that influences teachers ability to change

teaching practices (Vaz, Wilson, Falkmer, Sim, Scott, Cordier, et al., 2015, p. 8), in-service

training opportunities need to be afforded to all educators, non-veteran and veteran, general and

special, alike.

Literature suggests that to support effective co-teaching practices, teachers [also] need

training in additional skills that may not have been provided in their initial teacher

17
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

preparation programs. In-service training efforts should include topics such as co-

teaching models, supervised practice, problem solving, and planning (Pancsofar &

Petroff, 2013, p. 85).

In addition to training, time must be allotted for implementation of an ICS model and co-

teaching. It has been reported that 25% of teachers did not believe adequate planning time was

scheduled for inclusive practices (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Structured planning time is

essential when looking to carry-out an effective inclusive model.

How Administrators Perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service Model (ICS)

Administrators and Todays Public Schools

Within todays schools, administrators, amongst other educational professionals, are

called upon to provide a safe learning environment while simultaneously improving academic

achievement across the entire student population they serve. The pressures of accountability at

both the federal and state level for the students overall development including academic, social,

and behavioral outcomes are just some of the challenges principals encounter in their day-to-day

practice. Examples of such pressures include the demands set in place by the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, which requires the principal to ensure their

school is providing high quality educational opportunities for all learners-including those with

special education needs (SEN) (Lane, Carter, Jenkins, Dwiggins, and Germer, 2015).

To date, educational leaders perceive the programs being implemented within their

schools to be successful. For example, research was conducted by Urton, Wilbert, and

Hennemann (2014) in which a questionnaire was administered to 314 primary school teachers

and 48 principals from 48 schools (p. 155). One intent of this study was to identify a

correlation between principals and their staff with regard to attitude towards inclusion, self-

18
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

efficacy and collective efficacy, and the amounts of mainstreaming experience (Urton, et.al.,

2014, p.154). The findings indicated principals were more optimistic about the programs,

specifically those relative to remedial education, than those of the staff (Urton, et.al., 2014). It

appears that, ... school district staff who are more distant from students, such as administrators

and advisors, express more positive attitudes to integration than those closer to the classroom

context, the class teachers (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002, p. 132). This implication leads one

to question the variation in views when implementing ICS models within schools, as one may

wonder why there appears to be a disconnect.

Why Administrative Knowledge of Special Education is Not Optional

The role of the principal in the public education system requires them to ensure the

successful implementation of curriculum, programs, and instruction to meet the needs of all the

students they serve. Currently, one of the many roles principals play is that of the bridge

between the ideas of the community and public with those of the teachers. Therefore,

developing an understanding of what reality is from the point of view of people within the role is

an essential starting point for constructing a practical theory of the meaning and results of change

attempts (Fullan, 2016, p.123). The necessity is further compounded in order to integrate the

ICS model effectively in todays educational system. With the changes in placements of SEN

students to most often be integrated within the general education classrooms, the principal must

play the role of mediator between public perceptions and ideologies.

The successful supervision of the process in inclusive school development depends on a

consideration of the schools overall framework of circumstances-its principal, its teachers, and

its staff (Urton, et.al., 2014, p. 151). In order to successfully intertwine ICS models within their

schools, principals must possess confidence, competence, and communication. These skills are

19
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

those which will be necessary to possess the ability to give directions and thus exercise a

positive influence on the teaching staffs attainment of commonly agreed upon goals (Urton,

et.al., 2014, p. 154).

The literature that focuses specifically on the role of school leaders with students who

typically struggle (Rieh, 2000) or on the organizational structural, and cultural conditions

necessary for inclusion is significantly less comprehensive. Even book-length works

whose titles suggests a focus on the whole school restructuring to serve students (Sailor,

2002) do not address the school or district level organizational and structural

implementation intricacies of serving students in heterogeneous classrooms (Frattura &

Capper, 2006, p. 355).

However, in order to lead confidently with buy-in from the staff, the administrator must

demonstrate their effectiveness and develop a strong knowledge base regarding the disabilities

their school and staff support. Moreover, the principal will need to develop an in-depth

understanding of the unique learning styles necessary to support SEN students as well as the

behavioral challenges various conditions of the ICS models present. Tantamount to the

successful implementation of ICS models and the success of all students, principals need to build

their understanding and knowledge of the SEN laws, including NCLB and IDEIA, which protect

the educational rights of SEN students. Without this background and understanding of the

complexities facing their staff and their programs, principals will not be able to administer

special education programs and implement ICS models effectively (DiPaola & Thomas, 2003).

Without question, the recent changes to the role of the principal present a myriad of

challenges for educational leaders. While presenting multiple challenges, the changes also

present an opportunity; an opportunity to reconstruct a system to better meet the ever changing

20
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

needs of the students they serve, to imagine and inspire staff to construct new and creative

approaches for bettering their school and student learning (National Policy Board for Educational

Administration, 2015).

In the overall process of school inclusion, principals, in collaborating with their teaching

staff, play a key role in building a school culture promoting inclusion (Urton, et.al., 2014, p.

153). In order to fuel the fire of inspiration necessary to integrate the ICS models within public

schools effectively, it is necessary for educational leaders such as principals to operate as lead

learners, within which they participate as learners to help develop the group (Fullan, 2016, p.

128). Such ideas support the theory of change leadership in which effective change leaders

actively participate as a learner in helping the organization improve (Fullan, 2011, p. 5). In

doing so, the principal will be able to manage and support their staff by creating an environment

that will support them while they learn and grow in their developments and attempts in

integrating ICS models within their classrooms (Fullan, 2011).

Using Knowledge to Identify Special Education Needs and Collaboration to Lead

Before principals can fulfill their roles and responsibilities in supporting their staff and

students when implementing and developing ICS models within their buildings, they must

identify what the necessity is and what the benefits are of incorporating such programs within

their schools. Research conducted by Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann (2014) in which 48

elementary schools in Germany were examined to investigate the relationship between the

attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy with the inclusion model has shown that for

students with SEN, an important consideration for successful inclusion is whether or not teaching

staff and school principals cultivate positive attitudes towards inclusive education (Avramidis &

Norwhich, 2002; Forlin, Earle, Loremann, & Sharma, 2011). This research helps to resonate the

21
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

key principle needed for the initiation of ICS models within the school building-that of

principals attitudes. Such a variable has a profound effect on the attitudes and experiences of

their staff and their students. In the overall process of the ICS model initiation and

implementation, the principal plays a key role in building the positive school culture necessary to

promote inclusion and ICS models (Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014).

As noted in Implementing IDEA: A Guide for Principals (CEC & ILIAD, 2001), The

principals values, beliefs, and personal characteristics inspire people to accomplish the

schools mission (p.19). Principals who genuinely believe that the schools mission is

achieving academic success for all communicate this value to their internal and external

audiences. They collaborate with others to develop effective learning

communities. They ensure that staff members have the support and resources needed-

e.g., common planning time, manageable teaching schedules, heterogeneous classroom

rosters (DiPaola & Thomas, 2003, p. 6)

A common theme that runs through all the responsibilities of an administrator is one of

collaboration. An effective principal will lead their staff in articulating and communicating a

common mission and goal. In order to unite and exercise the strengths of the various staff

members, collaboration is a necessity.

Effective collaboration benefits everyone; however, successful collaboration takes

careful planning (Leader-Janssen, Swain, Delkamiller, & Ritzman, 2012, p. 117). Setting the

foundation for successful collaboration necessitates an early start by the administration

team. Those in positions of educational leadership must begin their year by taking note of those

professionals who will need to partner together to facilitate, instruct, and support the students

with SEN. In doing so, the principal is setting the groundwork necessary for a successful school

22
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

year for both students and staff. When the principal prepares for collaborative relationships

within their buildings, they are better equipped to construct common planning time into

schedules for those staff members and will lay the foundation - the relationships - for an effective

ICS model.

Making the Vision of ICS a Reality

Roles of the principal require them to emphasize innovation, collaboration, and

professional growth. Effective principals encourage teacher leadership, team learning,

flexibility, and collegial self-governance (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003, p.7). In order for

the staff to be successful and collaborative, the principal must possess the following

characteristics and attributes to be effective in their practice and in the initiation of change when

integrating ICS models appropriately within their schools. Such critical attributes necessary for

the success of their staff and students include (1) an inclusive, facilitative orientation; (2) an

institutional focus on student learning; (3) efficient management; and (4) combined pressure and

support (Fullan, 2016, p.128). It is evident principals must fulfill their responsibilities to the

students and the staff they serve as the division between special education and general education

works to become less segregated.

As it stands, in todays public school settings special education is viewed less as a place

and more as an integrated system of academic and social supports designed to help students with

disabilities succeed within LREs (DiPaola & Thomas, 2003, p. 5). The appropriate integration

of ICS models is necessary to the success of all students. In an effort to do so, principals and

other school administrators must ensure several classroom and instructional criterion are met so

that the components of ICS models will be integrated effectively.

23
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

In order to provide such an environment, clear guidance and expectations from

educational leaders is just one of the necessary components for the success of students receiving

special education services and the successful implementation of ICS models (Jansen, Swain,

Delkamiller, and Ritzman, 2012). Research has demonstrated that principals who focus on

instructional issues, demonstrate administrative support for special education, and provide high-

quality professional development for teachers produce enhanced outcomes for students with

disabilities and for others at risk for school failure (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000;

Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001; Kearns, Kleinert, & Clayton, 1998; Klingner et.

al., 2001). The nature of the job of an educational leader requires one to play many roles: that of

an instructor, a guide, a facilitator, and an enforcer. When the administrator is able to execute

their roles appropriately, ICS models can be a support system for teachers and students that

proves to be successful.

Additionally, classroom instruction must be differentiated, of high-quality, research

based, multidimensional, and data-driven to enhance student outcomes (Essex, 2016, p. 131).

This sentiment is further reiterated in DiPaola and Walther-Thomass (2003) work in which they

too found:

Studies of effective schools have identified five instructional leadership priorities of

effective principals: (a) defining and communicating the schools educational mission,

(b) managing curriculum and instruction, (c) supporting and supervising teaching, (d)

monitoring student progress, and (e) promoting a learning climate (Bateman & Bateman,

2001; Blase, J. J.., 1987; Blase, J.J., Blase, J., Anderson & Dungan, 1995; Blase, J., &

Kirby, 1992). These priorities keep effective administrators focused on student learning

and professional development (p. 8).

24
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

When the administrators focus remains on student success and the development of their staff,

successful implementation of ICS models dont just become possible, they are probable.

Fulfilling the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders When Implementing

ICS Models

With instructional, community, and visionary leadership, school administrators are

poised to foster a school culture of collaboration (Jansen, Swain, Delkamiller, and Ritzman,

2012, p.114). With the development of the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders

(2015), formerly known as the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)

Standards, educators have a better understanding of how and in what ways effective leadership

contributes to student achievement (National Policy Board for Educational Administration,

2015, p. 1).

Principals in todays public educational system fulfill expectations in meeting students

and staffs social, emotional, academic/professional development and well-being. In providing

an environment that both supports and encourages the population while simultaneously

challenging both segments to grow, the balance becomes an intricate dance for the principal to

perform. The role of the principal requires them to work to further develop and support their

staff, foster and provide positive work environments, and build policies and systems that are

effective and appropriate for all they serve. Additionally, they are to involve themselves in

meaningful projects and ventures outside of the classrooms and the building to better build

alliances and knowledge that will have a positive and impactful effect on the school as a whole

in the end (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015).

In ensuring ICS models are implemented appropriately and with the necessary supports,

principals are meeting the requirements of many of the standards set in place for educational

25
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

leadership. When administrators are able to implement ICS models effectively within their

buildings, they are upholding Standard 1: Mission Visions, and Core Values which requires

educational leaders to stress the necessity of a child centered vision in which an environment is

cultivated and high expectations and student support; equity, and inclusiveness are fostered

(National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015, p. 9).

School principals also demonstrate their ability to uphold Standard 2: Ethics and

Professional Norms when integrating ICS models in their buildings. In ensuring the students

they serve are receiving the necessary supports required when identified as having SENs when

learning in the LRE, principals are promoting each students academic success and well-being.

Most importantly, when principals integrate ICS models effectively in their schools, they

are demonstrating their capacity to serve the students while simultaneously upholding the spirit

of Standard 3: Equity and Cultural Responsiveness. Specifically, when principals provide the

staff and students with the necessary supports and structures for integrating ICS models

appropriately within their schools, they are demonstrating their capacity to confront and alter

institutional biases of student marginalization, deficit-based schooling, and low expectations

associated with race, class, culture and language, gender and sexual orientation, and disability or

special status (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015, p. 11). When the

principals are able to understand these concepts, they identify the necessity for and importance of

fulfilling the needs of the staff; the ICS model will help to provide students with equitable access

to quality education within the least restricted environment while meeting the needs of all

learners: gifted, grade level, struggling learners, and special education learners alike.

The Structures Needed in the Public School Setting to Support the Integrated

Comprehensive Service Model (ICS)

26
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

A Schoolwide Commitment to ICS

In order for the principal to fulfill their roles and responsibilities to their staff and their

students, there are several areas in which the administrator needs to be well versed. First and

foremost, the school principal should have a clear understanding of what the ICS model is and

what it requires. This knowledge will be the only way to identify, access, and implement the

structures and supports needed to integrate the models school wide.

In order to execute these measures, extensive planning will be required. A schoolwide

approach to the integration of ICS models is not a variation on the older pull-out model

(Sailor & Roger, 2009, p. 505). In schools that are currently implementing ICS models

effectively, SEN students with IEPs are no longer leaving the classroom to get instruction in

resource rooms or to receive related services and therapies. In following the true spirit of ICS

and integration, all services and supports are provided to the students with identified needs in

such a way that multiple students within the classroom, not just those classified with IEPs, will

benefit. (Sailor & Roger, 2009).

In an effort to make ICS models as effective as possible, identification and understanding

of what inclusion requires and what it means will be necessary. Presently, federal policies,

including IDEIA of 2004, have petitioned inclusion as recommended practice within public

schools in America. In an effort to produce more schools, educators, and administrators to

perpetuate this vision, the government has provided schools with training and models after much

research into the initiative. Although there has been a push for such instruction and after many

years of research and funding has been funneled into the initiative, it continues to fail within our

public schools today, as ICS models have not made any significant changes to special education

placement and service models over about a fifteen-year period. One would think a model that

27
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

supports all types of students with varying abilities in a least restrictive environment with

specialists integrated into classrooms to support all students would be one in which educators,

administrators, and communities would eagerly support and integrate with open

arms. Unfortunately, the ICS model has been lack-luster and has failed to pique the interest of

and garner support from general educators of today (Sailor & Roger, 2009).

Although the research and literature to support these claims are small, the studies that

have been conducted and are available support the benefits of hosting schools with effective ICS

models. Hocutt (1996) cites a project which studied 2,604 students within 32 schools hosting

grades one through six. Within this study, it was indicated effective schools facilitate inclusion

of special education students (p. 92). It was further found within this study that SEN students

who have the opportunity to participate in effective ICS models had better academic

achievement and better social behavior than did similar students in special education classes in

similar effective schools (Hocutt, 1996, p. 92-93). Not only does the study support the benefits

for SEN students, it also noted similar benefits for non-disabled students. Other analysts and key

theorists such as Frattura & Capper (2004) emphasize and reiterate the premise of IDEIA

legislation and ICS models when they argue:

quality education for all learners must be integrated into every aspect of the school.

Educational services must address but not be driven by compliance issues under every

federal and state initiative. Each school educational team or learning team must address

the components of an effective school educational plan. They do so by defining the

current picture and contemplating a critical analysis of each area regarding policy or

other practices or procedures that continue to work in opposition to integrated

28
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

comprehensive services or promote oppression of groups of students. They can then

reconstruct such components on behalf of all learners (p.3-4).

These theorists, along with other research, support the premise that ICS models are necessary for

the success of all students, but acknowledge the extensive effort and dedication it requires for the

successful implementation of it within todays public school system. They acknowledge the road

ahead is going to be long and arduous, but the endeavors will be such that result in an increase in

school graduates who feel a sense of belonging and capacity to function appropriately within

their society. All of this is possible as a result of access to high quality education, services, and

instructional practices which ICS models can afford them.

Collaboration: A Necessary Structure within ICS Models

After looking extensively at the research on placement of students with disabilities,

Hocutt (1996) concludes that instruction, not setting, is the key to achievement of success as

measured by student outcomes (Moore, 1998, p. 1) Providing students in American public

schools with the highest quality education in the least restrictive environment while

simultaneously meeting the academic, social, and behavioral needs of all students, SEN and

general education students alike, appears to be a gargantuan task. In order to accomplish such a

feat, collaboration must be at the heart of the system at hand. In order for the school to

undertake the implementation of ICS models within their building, they must be able to execute a

collaborative relationship. This will pave the way for the implementation and integration of ICS

models as a systemic change, one that will surpass the test of time.

Collaboration is defined by Idol, West, and Lloyd (1988) as an interactive process that

enables teams of people with diverse expertise to generate creative solutions to problems. The

outcome produces solutions that are different from those any individual team member would

29
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

produce independently. Effective collaboration also requires a multi-vocational discourse

among participants who have different but equal status as they work together in an

interdependent fashion (Skrtic, Sailor, & Gee, 1996, p. 144). Such insights prove that

successful schools and successful ICS programs integrate the perspectives, ideas, and

professionalism across multi-disciplinary and departmental positions. Insights from multi-

faceted professionals prove to be insightful in reaching the population of students present in the

American school system today.

When attempting to foster collaborative relationships in schools, it is imperative

administrators and educational leaders consider the following essential points. First,

collaboration is not synonymous with inclusion or with any of the specific formats (e.g., co-

teaching, peer consultation) used to facilitate the process (Walther-Thomas, Korinek, &

McLaughlin, 1999, p. 3). Instead, collaboration is the sharing of ideas, practices, and

experiences from various sources in an effort to create creative solutions to an overarching

problem based on the perspectives of varying team members. Such an example of collaboration

within schools can be found in the following diagram:

30
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Diagram 1

Professional Collaborative Network

C.Walther-Thomas, L. Korinek, V. McLaughlin, and B. Williams, 2000, Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(3). 1-18.

From the diagram, one can note collaborative communities support ongoing teamwork in many

ways. Multiple formats are used to foster knowledge sharing, skill development, and support

(Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999, p. 3).

Secondly, friendship is not a prerequisite for effective collaboration (Walther-Thomas,

Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999, p. 3). Although positive rapport and established familiarity can

help support collaboration, having an existing friendship is not going to guarantee an effective

collaborative environment. Having previous working experience with a member of the

collaborative team may facilitate and ease the awkwardness and unsettling feelings that come

along with the new relationship; however, it does not automatically ensure a positive

collaborative relationship. Instead, an effective and enduring collaborative relationship will

31
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

grow out of mutual trust and respect, equity, expertise in ones domain, willingness to share, and

valuing contributions of participants (Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999, p.

3). The relationship will need time and nurturing in order to grow into its most effective stage

and ultimately benefit the students.

This realization brings the researchers to their next important point when developing

collaboration within a school; it is neither easily nor quickly achieved (Walther-Thomas,

Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999, p. 3). The onset of collaboration will be laborious and time

consuming. Both of these realizations will ultimately benefit the relationship, as effective

collaborative relationships require time and practice in order to build trust and establish the

necessary operational procedures that will be followed throughout the relationship. Such

opportunities to develop both the relationship and the guiding principles that will lead to a

functional classroom will facilitate the collaborative relationship needed to integrate ICS models

effectively (Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999).

In order to effectively establish collaborative relationships, the onset must be voluntary;

coercion will not result in a positive collaborative environment, nor will it benefit the

students. This sentiment is further supported by Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin

(1999) when they state, Participation in collaborative relationships should be voluntary, as it

helps solidify each team member's commitment to the effort (p. 3). In order for this to happen,

the collaborative initiative needs to be one that is fully supported by the faculty and staff, thus

buy-in is a must. In order for the collaboration to be sustainable and successful, it must be

systemic with support from all stakeholders.

Lastly, collaboration requires a delicate balance. At times those involved in the

relationship will have to work independently and utilize their expertise. Walther-Thomas,

32
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Korinek, & McLaughlin (1999) have found new collaborators might overwork the process

unintentionally as they strive to involve each other in important decision making (p.3). An

effective collaborative relationship is not one that requires the team to make every decision

jointly, instead, they come together to establish set routines, procedures, and a clear definition of

roles and responsibilities in an effort to better meet the demands and needs of the students and

their roles. Effective collaborators are those who have decided upon mutual expectations and

then trust one anothers judgment to follow the procedures and policies they have established

(Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999).

Additional Structures Needed to Support ICS Models

In order for ICS models to be effectively implemented in the public school systems of

America, it must be a school-wide approach. Even though federal mandates call for educating

SEN students within the general education classroom, this inclusion has failed to gain support

and implementation to date. This can partially be attributed to the definition of inclusion, or

what various educator professionals think inclusion is.

When the term inclusion is used within the public school systems, virtually all the

definitions begin with the general education classroom as the unit of interest (Sailor & Roger,

2005, p. 504). However, as discussed before, the successful integration of ICS models in public

schools requires collaboration amongst varied professionals and experts in different areas of

education. In the synthesis of 146 studies conducted by Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCully

(2012), it was found appropriate support services, such as materials, equipment, and access to

specialized personnel, tended to assist in alleviating the apprehension often expressed by general

education teachers about their and their students success within inclusion models (Avramidis &

33
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Norwich, 2002) (p.505). This need is apparent throughout all public schools who make an

effort to host inclusive schools with ICS models.

Of the specialized personnel general educators wish to have more access to when

participating in a co-teaching model, support from administrative personnel was often indicated

(Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCully, 2012). One way administrators can support their staff

in implementing the inclusion approach necessary for ICS models is by ensuring the following

six elements are accessible to their staff as they work towards building more collaborative

programming necessary in the ICS model. The six elements essential to a functioning ICS model

supported by administration include shared leadership, a coherent vision, comprehensive

planning, adequate resources, sustained implementation, and continuous evaluation and

improvement (Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999). Many of these same variables

can be found in the works of Michael Fullan (2011) when he describes the necessary components

for change leadership. He specifies the need for collaboration, support, and resolution when

implementing systemic changes and enacting a movement.

Another element necessary for the successful integration of ICS models is the continued

accessibility to support personnel. Again, noted in the synthesis of 146 studies conducted by

Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCully (2012), teachers indicated inadequate access to personnel

who will facilitate and work towards meeting the needs of inclusive classrooms. In order for ICS

to be integrated appropriately, collaboration is the fundamental building block this system will be

built upon.

Based on the results of the Teachers Perspective Survey, most teachers valued a

common weekly planning schedule during school hours. Teachers also believed that

comprehensive planning, which includes content, evaluations, and other classroom issues

34
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

(e.g., behavior management), are important for the success in co-teaching (e.g., Eaton et

al., 2004; Huber, 2005; Pugach & Johnson, 1995; Simpson, Whelan, & Zabel, 1993;

Zigmond & Magiera, 2002). More specifically, the development of a co-planning routine

provides teachers with the opportunity to share teaching expectations, methods, and

instructional strategies, which is an essential part of effective co-teaching (Huber, 2005;

Walther-Thomas & Bryant,1996; Welch, 2000). (Hang & Rabren, 2009, p. 266).

Collaborative communities often are characterized through an equal sharing of professional

responsibilities in addition to pre-determined decision making procedures and agreed upon

accountability standards. In order to effectively execute these responsibilities of collaboration,

the partners in the relationship must have ongoing and prolonged accessibility to one-another

interwoven within their work schedule (Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999).

In an effort to establish the collaborative relationship, it must be initiated well before the

team attempts to work with the students and before ICS models can be developed. In an article

by Leader-Janssen, Swain, & Delkamiller (2012), they reinforce the necessity of this component

of collaboration. The authors reiterate the necessity for the general education teacher to meet

with the special education teachers in an effort to establish the relationship and working

rapport. Subsequently, these meetings will outline the expectations and

proceedings. Additionally, it will set the groundwork necessary for future follow-up

meetings. The authors also reiterated the necessity to allow for weekly planning times. During

the first few weeks of the class, it is important for the general education teacher to meet and

establish a relationship with the special education teacher(s) to make sure everyone is in

agreement for proceeding and to schedule follow-up meetings throughout the semester. Weekly

35
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

collaborative planning times will help to develop shared responsibility, accountability, and parity

among all parties (p.113).

In addition to establishing common periods for ongoing collaboration, other structures,

such as access to essential personnel, are a necessity. In the meta-analysis of studies conducted

by Salis (et. al., 2012) in which a collective body of 146 case studies were analyzed, it was

suggested that when specialists recommend an alternate practice to teachers, they must be

present, accessible, and visible in order for the change to take place. If the specialist merely

recommends a change, but is not supportive in its facilitation and implementation, instructional

changes are unlikely to be realized in the classroom (Solis, et. al., 2012, p. 507).

One such specialist, aside from special education teachers, that may facilitate the

integration of ICS models in the school is the school psychologist. Authors of literature who

describe effective ICS models also note the importance of specialists from various

departments. For example, it was determined school psychologists are an important facet of

supporting collaborative models of co-teaching in several ways. School psychologists are

knowledgeable about effective group methods such as collaborative consultation. Collaborative

consultation is a method of assisting participants of the collaborative group in decision making

and implementing plans that will best meet the needs of the students at hand (Kampwirth,

1999). This philosophy was also noted in the meta-analysis by Solis (et. al, 2012) when it was

stated

Unique interpersonal skills that are taught and practiced within collaborative consultation

training include active listening, empathy, assertiveness, questioning to gain

information, and negotiating an outcome that is mutually beneficial, and considering

which co-teaching model best meets student needs (p. 499).

36
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Because one of the first steps in employing a successful ICS model within schools is to nurture

the relationship, a professional who is well versed in managing the needs of a relationship and

one who can provide tools on making a collaborative relationship work is essential to the

foundation the ICS framework.

Co-Teaching Implementation

The co-teaching model is defined as presenting a classroom with two or more

professional delivering substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended group of students in a

single physical space (Cook and Friend, 1995, p.2). Cook and Friend (2007) also go on to

explain co-teaching as having four components: two certified educators, instruction by both

teachers, a heterogeneous group of students, a single classroom with non-classified students and

classified students. When one enters a typical inclusive, co-taught classroom in the United States

today, it is common to see the implementation of one of the more common co-teaching models:

one teach, one assist (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). As a matter of fact, Scruggs

and colleagues (2007) cited this model as the most frequently utilized model. In a one teach, one

assist model, the special education teacher is typically placed in the more subordinate role of

assistant (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012, p. 501). While this model has its

benefits, when utilized as one instructional option for diverse learners, this model in isolation

calls into question the basic framework for co-teaching, which is that instruction delivery will be

given by both teachers to meet the needs of all learners. In order for varied instructional delivery

to occur effectively,

co-teachers need to spend time (a) getting to know each other; (b) sharing teaching skills,

philosophies, and perspectives; and (c) co-planning instructional strategies. Co-teachers

need a weekly co-planning period to discuss instructional issues, behavior management,

37
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

teachers roles and responsibilities, and students Individualized Education Program

(IEP) goals. Deliberate and thoughtful co-planning is essential to ensure that all students

in a co-taught classroom receive appropriate instruction (Hang & Rabren, 2009, p. 260).

To accomplish (a) getting to know each other, (b) sharing teaching skills, philosophies, and

perspectives; and (c) co-planning instructional strategies, Ploessl et al. (2010) have devised a

series of practical techniques co-teachers can participate in before, during, and after co-teaching

to capitalize on having two educators in an inclusive classroom. These techniques fall under the

following areas: communication, preparation, and instruction.

For starters, in the area of communication, Ploessl et al. (2010) recommend conducting

an honest self-examination. Two recommended online instruments include: Keirsey

Temperament Sorter II (http://www.keirsey.com) and ActualMe (http://www.actualme.com). The

first is a personality assessment tool, while the latter may help co-teachers better understand

their partners preferred communication and interaction styles (p. 159). It is then recommended

that these results are shared utilizing a Venn Diagram.

38
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Diagram 2

Venn diagram of strengths and areas for growth in beginning co-teaching partners

Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010, On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching
interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic. 45(3), 160.

Visually comparing these results often highlights complementary skills that co-teachers can use

to build a more positive learning environment (p. 159). Finally, it is recommended that co-

teachers analyze patterns of communication. One way to do this is through taking an audiotape

clip of part of the planning sessions. It is through analyzing communication that co-teaching

partners can begin to recognize how time is spent and possible problems before they arise.

The next area is that of preparation. Even before planning for the classroom occurs, co-

teaching partners must develop protocols for their meetings. Guidelines for developing meeting

39
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

protocols include deciding whether a meeting is needed, preparing and sticking to a written

agenda, agreeing on a code of conduct, participating constructively in the dialogue, and

evaluating the results (Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010, p. 161). Geller (2006) further

describes different types of conversation that may take place at a planning meeting: relationship

talk (personal life), possibility talk (shared goals, objectives), action talk (how goals, objectives

will be accomplished), opportunity talk (choices available to meet goals, objectives), and follow-

up talk (whether or not goals, objectives were met). Along with developing protocol for

meetings, teachers must devise a way to handle conflict if it should come about. As co-teachers

the idea is not to avoid all potential conflict but to use situations where opinions differ to

strengthen and improve the co-teaching interaction (Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010,

p. 165). If co-teachers discuss conflict resolution strategies prior to conflicts occurring, when

problems do arise, both teachers will be equipped to handle the situations in a productive

manner.

During the planning meetings themselves, co-teachers can benefit from using shared

timelines and designing lesson plans together. A sample co-teaching planning form has been

provided in the figure below. As you can see from the figure, the specific co-teaching model

being utilized is also a part of shared co-teaching planning. Below the sample co-teaching

planning form, co-teaching models are further explained.

40
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Figure 1

Co-teaching Planning Form

Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010, On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching

interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic. 45(3), 163.

41
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Table 1

Overview of Co-teaching Models

Brown, N., Howerter, C., Morgan, J. (2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching work, p. 88

In the area of instruction, co-teaching partners will teach together (based upon

appropriate co-teaching models and strategies appropriated during planning time), monitor the

students progress, and allow data to guide future decisions. Ploessl et al. (2010) have

determined that frequent joint review of repeated and multiple qualitative measures of pupil

performance (i.e., test scores, report card grades, curriculum-based measurement data) can help

co-teachers make sound judgements about their instruction (p. 164). To further the area of

instruction, co-teachers must reflect upon co-taught lessons. Reflections should be specific to

student achievement and teacher satisfaction. It is recommended that as the discussion

unfolds...offer at least two positive statements for each area that is discussed as a need for

improvement (Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010, p. 165).

Long-Term Sustainability

Inclusion is defined as providing specially designed instruction and supports for students

with special needs in the context of regular education settings. It means that all students in a

42
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

schools attendance area are full members of that school community and each student

participates equitably in the opportunities and responsibilities of the general education

environment (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998, p. 1). This greatly differs from mainstreaming

special education students or integrating special education students. Mainstreaming brought

students with special education needs into general education classrooms only when they didnt

need specially designed instruction-when they could keep up with the mainstream. Integration

presumes that segregation exists and students are with their peers without disabilities part-time

(Moore, Gilbreath, Maiuri, 1998, p.2). Inclusion differs from these practices because it requires a

complete restructuring of the general education environment, so all diverse learners can

successfully learn in one, inclusive environment. However, it has been acknowledged that

sustaining inclusive practices over time is difficult due to changes in leadership, teacher

turnover, and state/district assessment policies (Frattura & Capper, 2007, p. 16).

Key theorists in ICS, Frattura & Capper (2007), after over 12 years of extensive research

and practice with an ICS delivery model in 10 different schools (inclusive of elementary, middle,

and high school levels in various areas), have concluded that educators need to rethink the team

structures in their schools to implement and sustain ICS (Frattura & Capper, 2007, p. 16).

Moreover, they have concluded that long-term sustainability is possible when teachers are full

participants in school decisions through membership in four specific teams (Frattura & Capper,

2007, p. 16). The following table outlines the recommended teams that must exist in school

districts today as described by Frattura & Capper (2007).

43
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Table 2

Recommended Teams

The Teams Members Responsibilities

School Planning Administrators Collect student performance


Team Teachers data and school specific data
Parents Set long-term/annual goals for
Students improvement
Other Staff
Community Members

Service Delivery Teachers Analyze and redesign the way


Team Administrators that services are offered
Identify necessary changes in
school and district-based
policy & procedure for
implementing ICS

Grade-Level Teams of teachers at each Set up specific staff design for


Design Teams grade level each grade level
Set up instructional and
curricular services at each
grade level

Districtwide Representatives from each Ensure that service delivery is


Service Delivery service delivery team consistent across the district
Team throughout the district
Frattura, E. M., & Capper, C.A. (2007). New teacher teams to support integrated comprehensive services. Teaching Exceptional
Children. 39(4), 16-21.
With the above teams in place, inclusive practices are more sustainable for years to come within

a district. It is also imperative that these teams have equal representation from all stakeholders

and that stakeholders are demographically representative of the proportion of culturally and

linguistically diverse people in the school and district (Frattura & Capper, 2007, p. 17).

In addition to this restructuring to sustain ICS, it has been determined that professional

development on co-teaching was significantly associated with each teacher outcome (Pancsofar

& Petroff, 2013, p. 91). While a district and/or its administrators do not have control over the

special education or co-teaching teacher education classes one receives prior to becoming an

44
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

educator, districts and administrators can look to equalize the planning field of all of its

educators through appropriate and consistent professional development. Teachers who reported

more frequent opportunities to learn about co-teaching from in-service training were more

confident in their co-teaching practice and demonstrated higher levels of interest and more

positive attitudes about co-teaching than did teachers who reported less frequent in-service

training on co-teaching (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013, p.91)

Conclusion

The research conducted has presented underlying sources and factors that directly impact

the effective implementation of the Integrated Comprehensive Service model. The literature

presents three necessary sources for executing ICS: teachers, administrators, and school

structures. Additionally, common threads were presented within each source indicated, which

are outlined below.

Underlying factors impacting ICS models with teachers as a source include positive

attitudes, co-teaching relationships, teacher training and preparation, as well as professional

development. Teacher training and professional development help to prepare teachers to build

the positive attitudes necessary to foster co-teaching relationships. Theorists Walther-Thomas,

Korinek, & McLaughlin (1999) support this premise and indicate these factors as foundational

building blocks necessary for effective ICS models.

Factors affecting ICS with respect to administrators as a source for executing ICS

differ. These factors include understanding Special Education legislation and related

laws. Furthermore, the ability to identify individual school needs as well as overall district needs

are reflected as a common thread. Collaboration, ability to carry out a shared vision, and

45
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

fulfilling Professional Standards for Educational Leaders are important factors impacting ICS

models as an educational leader.

Lastly, school structures are a final source impacting the efficacy of ICS models. Within

this source, it was necessary to develop a schoolwide approach and commitment through

collaboration. With this approach, theorists such as Sailor & Roger (2005) indicate the change

will become systemic and endure long-term sustainability. Lastly, the functional usage of

support personnel and specialists was yet another common theme noted within school structures

for the appropriate implementation of ICS models.

Table 3

Summary Table

Source Underlying Factors Impacting ICS Implementation

Teachers -Attitudes
-Co-teaching Relationships
-Teacher Training/Preparation
-Professional Development

Administrators -Understanding of Special Education and Surrounding Laws


-Ability to Identify School/District Needs
-Collaboration
-Ability to Carry Out Shared Vision
-Fulfilling Professional Standards for Educational Leaders

School Structures -Schoolwide Approach/Commitment


-Collaboration
-Usage of Support Personnel/Specialists
-Co-teaching
-Long-Term Sustainability

46
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Chapter III
Methodology

Overview

In 1990, the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was initiated. In 2004, this

federal law was renamed as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

(IDEIA). The initial Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that all

children with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education to meet their unique

needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living (American

Psychological Association, 2017). One of the most notable provisions of this law is that of the

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which is described as:

to the maximum extent possible handicapped children in public, private, or other

institutions should be educated with children who are not handicapped and that separate

schooling or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational

environment should occur only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that

education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be

achieved satisfactorily (Essex, 2016, p. 136).

In order to fulfill this provision, public schools across the United States have actively

attempted to integrate all learners, special education and general education alike, in general

education environments with the proper supports and services. Unfortunately, this integration

comes in many shapes and forms. For many public school classrooms, integration of special

education students in the general education environment is enacted through an in-class support

model in which a special education teacher provides special education students with necessary

accommodations and modifications in the general education classroom. Additionally, some public

school classrooms utilize an array of co-teaching models, so special education teachers and general

47
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

education teachers work collaboratively in the general education environment. Cook and Friend

(2007) explain co-teaching as having four components: two certified educators, instruction by both

teachers, a heterogeneous group of students, and a single classroom with non-classified students

and classified students. Unfortunately, again, there is little variability in the definition of co-

teaching, but broad variability in its implementation (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCulley,

2012, p. 498).

The inconsistencies that have come about in attempt to fulfill LRE provisions intrigued and

concerned the researchers. In two public school districts in New Jersey specifically, Natures

Valley School District and Rockwall School District, these inconsistencies were seen at the

elementary and middle school levels alike. When there is confusion about a program and a place,

the focus on the child and the overall goal of education, which aims to create a successful school

experience to prepare students for life becomes blurred and distorted (Moore, Gilbreath, &

Maiuri, 1998, p.9).

Through extensive exploration, the researchers have discovered that the most successful

integration of special education students calls educators to enact an Integrated Comprehensive

Services model. This model is defined as one

that organizes professional staff by the needs of each learner rather than

clustering learners by label. In an integrated comprehensive services model staff are not

assigned to a unit or program and placed in a separate classroom. Conversely, support

staff and general education teachers work collaboratively to bring appropriate

instructional supports to each child in integrated school and community environments

(Frattura & Capper, 2004, p. 3).

48
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

The purpose of this mixed methodology study was to investigate the usage of the

Integrated Comprehensive Services (ICS) model within the public school setting and to

understand the necessary structures needed to improve current and future Integrated

Comprehensive Services models. The Triangulation Matrix outlines the three research questions

and the data resources that were used to conduct this study.

Sample Population and Demographic Data

The sample population was determined to reflect the demographics present within the

schools the researchers are presently working in. To date, researcher A works in Busy Bee

School within Natures Valley School District, containing an elementary school comprised of

grades K-5 and encompasses both general education and special education students and

staff. Researcher B works in school B within Rockwall School District, constructed of grades K-

8 and also hosts students and teachers in both general education and special education

alike. Although Rockwall School District hosts students K-8, the middle school is constructed of

grades 5-8. The researchers chose to target both elementary and middle schools within their

study in an effort to identify vertical articulation of the ICS models across grade levels, as well as

horizontal articulation across departments, inclusive of subject-area and between both general

education and special education areas. Additionally, both researchers targeted the administrators

within both respective school districts. An effort to integrate the perspectives of school

Principals, Directors/Supervisors of Special Education, and Directors of Instruction/Curriculum

was also made. Each of the three aforementioned administrators were invited to participate in

the survey by each researcher.

In an effort to determine continuous and consistent implementation of ICS models and

necessary structures to implement such a systemic initiative, a total of twenty-one elementary

49
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

school teachers from one elementary school (Busy Bee School) within Natures Valley School

District were surveyed. A total of 19 middle school teachers were sampled from school B, the

only middle school within Rockwall School District. The teachers who were asked to

participate within the survey in both schools observed included classroom teachers, special

education teachers, and Basic Skills Instruction (BSI) teachers, and comprised a grand total of 40

teachers targeted to participate within the survey.

Within the targeted population, demographic information was required to shed insight on

possible relationships between gender, number of years in service, and certifications held and

how those aspects impact the perspectives of the Integrated Comprehensive Service Model. Of

the 30 teachers who responded to the survey, about 13% (4 out of 30 respondents) were

males. The remaining approximate 87% (26 out of 30 respondents) were female. The largest

group within the teachers surveyed, 40% (12 out of 30 respondents), indicated they were

educators for 20 years or more. The second largest group present within the 30 teachers

surveyed represented teachers who were in the profession for 15-19 years, which was 20% of the

population surveyed. Only approximately 7% of the teachers surveyed (2 out 30 respondents)

indicated teaching for 10-14 years. The remaining 10 teachers, (approximately 17%), had 0-4

years or 5-9 years of teaching experience respectively. Moreover, it is important to note that of

the 30 teachers who responded, nearly 87% (26 out of 30 respondents) were teachers who

identified themselves as spending the majority of their educational instruction in the general

education setting. Only approximately 13% of teachers (4 out of 30 respondents) were teachers

who identified themselves as spending the majority of their educational instruction in the special

education sector.

50
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

In addition to targeting demographic information for teachers, similar questions were

posed for the Administrators Survey. Gender, years of service, and demographic questions were

asked in an attempt for researchers to identify any possible relationship between those aspects

and the perspectives of ICS in the public schools they serve. Of the six administrators who were

invited to participate in this action research, five responded. Three of the five respondents were

male, and the remaining two respondents were female. Of those five respondents, three

indicated they held some form of special education certification. One administrator had 0-4

years of administrative experience, two administrators possessed 5-9 years of administrative

experience, one administrator had 10-14 years of administrative experience, and finally one had

20 or more years of experience.

Triangulation Matrix

The triangulation matrix was used as the foundation for this study. It provided the

skeletal outline necessary to support the areas of focus, and helped to strengthen the reliability

and validity of this study. Moreover, a literature review and analysis was conducted and resulted

in an outline of key concepts to include within the study of perceptions of both teachers and

administrators, as well as identified the structures necessary to support the systemic articulation

of ICS models. To ensure the validity of this study and the targeted research questions, a

combination of three research instruments were used: teacher and administrator surveys, teacher

focus groups, and administrator interviews (Appendix B). Teachers were asked to identify their

certifications as well as the department in which they spend the majority of their instructional

time, special education or general education. These factors were targeted in an effort to assist the

researchers in identifying trends or patterns specific to the teachers experiences and expertise.

The triangulation matrix questions were researched using the following methodologies:

51
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

1. Two confidential questionnaires were developed specifically for educators and

administrators as individual groups. A total of 40 teachers were surveyed within both

schools, while a total of six administrators, inclusive of the school principal, the Director

and/or Supervisor of Special Education, in addition to a Director of

Curriculum/Instruction from each school were also surveyed. Participation in the survey

was requested via email on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017. Two reminders were also

sent via email on Monday, February 27th, 2017 and Thursday, March 2nd, 2017

respectively. A Likert Scale was used throughout the survey to maintain consistency in

response format in an effort to ensure validity and reliability. The Likert Scale was a five

point scale and ranged in the following point value system: 1=strongly agree, 2=agree,

3=disagree, 4=strongly disagree, and 5=unknown.

2. Two focus groups with six teachers were hosted following the closing of the

survey. Three general education teachers and three special education teachers were

sought within each group in an effort to have equal representation of viewpoints from

different departments. Additionally, each focus group concentrated on volunteer

elementary or middle school teachers.

3. Individual interviews were conducted with each of the three administrators from each

school district. Individual interviews were conducted so participants represented

individual perspectives, without the possibility of outside influence from their

colleagues.

52
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Table 4

Triangulation Matrix
Data
Data
Research Questions Source Data Source #3
Source #2
#1

How do teachers perceive the Integrated


Teacher
Administrator Interviews
Survey Focus
Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?
Group

How do administrators perceive the


Teacher
Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) Administrator Interviews
Survey Focus
Group
model?

What structures are needed in the public


Teacher
school setting to support the Integrated Focus Administrator Interviews
Survey
Group
Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

Instrumentation Used Within the Action Research

Data Source 1-Surveys

The foundation of our research data (Data Source #1) were the surveys administered to

both teachers and administrators. There was a definitive window in which data was collected.

The initiation of the survey took place on Wednesday, February 22, 2017, and the survey was

closed on Friday, March 3, 2017. In an effort to conduct objective research that would provide

valid and reliable data, several revisions of the survey questions were necessary. The

recommendations for revisions came from Graduate cohort peer review opportunities. As a result

of the peer review opportunities, the researchers were able to avoid narrow questions that could

be answered with a simple yes or no (Sagor, 2011, p. 101). In addition, the survey questions,

53
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

while varied based on position of teacher or administrator, mirrored similar concepts in relation

to Integrated Comprehensive Services, so teacher and administrative perspectives could be

compared and contrasted. This is supported by Sagor (2011) in which it is written, Frame

questions in a manner that is likely to highlight observable patterns (p. 103).

Data Source 2-Teacher Focus Groups

Data Source #2 were focus group sessions with elementary and middle school teacher

volunteers. Two focus group sessions were held separately to gain insight into individual school

districts and their perspectives of ICS models and structures. The focus group questions stemmed

from the trends presented in the data collected through Data Source #1, which was the initial

survey. The researchers sought further elaboration on trends that were presented by providing

open-ended opportunities for the teacher volunteers to discuss identified trends specific to ICS

concepts. As per Sagor (2011), it is recommended to ask open-ended questions, where a large

number of potential answers may surface...when this question is evaluated through the criteria of

its potential for informing future action, we will be much happier with the result (p.102-103).

Data Source 3-Individual Administrator Interviews

Data Source #3 were individual administrative interviews. These interviews were held

with Busy Bee Schools three administrators as well as the three administrators from Rockwall

School District. Similarly with the teacher focus groups, the administrative interview items were

based on trends presented in Data Source #1, which was the initial survey. The researchers chose

to hold individual administrative interviews, so each administrator provided his/her independent

perspective on ICS concepts presented. The researchers sought to gain insight into each

administrators perspective, so colleagues could not influence one another with their

preconceived and/or opposing ideals. Furthermore, individual interviews were sought in an effort

54
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

to demonstrate validity and to determine whether the data actually reflected the phenomena they

claimed to (Sagor, 2011, p. 109).

Ethical Considerations

In order to remain ethical and construct valid and reliable data within an unbiased

environment, many actions were taken by the researchers. The researchers sought to utilize this

data to benefit participating school districts as well as other public school districts in New Jersey,

therefore ethical considerations were necessary. Prior to even beginning to collect data, both

researchers received written approval from their respective school districts. Upon approval,

survey questions were initiated. Questions within all data sources were non-leading and

unbiased. This was affirmed through graduate cohort peer review opportunities and researcher

revisions. Moreover, all participants were volunteers and received notice of consent, questions

that would be asked in advance, as well as how responses would be utilized to support the

researchers purpose. To remain confidential, all responses were anonymous within the survey,

and the focus groups and interviews were digitally recorded. All participants were made aware

that they could seek clarification from the researchers at any time, and they were also allowed to

withdraw their participation and/or information they provided at any time.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data Source #1 encompassed teacher and administrative online surveys. These surveys

were administered electronically via SurveyMonkey on Wednesday, February 22, 2017 to 40

elementary and middle school teachers, as well as six administrators. After providing two

electronic reminders, the surveys were closed on Friday, March 3, 2017. At that time, 30 out of

40 total teachers responded and 5 out of 6 administrators.

55
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Data Source #1 was analyzed utilizing the digital platform SurveyMonkey. This digital

tool was recommended and purchased by the College of Saint Elizabeth for specific use by the

graduate students in attendance. SurveyMonkey allowed the researchers to input questions and

select varying methods of response. For the purposes of this study, the researchers selected

Likert-scale questions for perception and necessary structure questions, and multiple

choice/checkbox responses for demographic information. Moreover, specific questions provided

open-ended opportunities for the respondents to further elaborate upon their position, if so

desired.

Data Sources #2 and #3 encompassed teacher and administrator open-ended questions

that were devised based on the trends presented in Data Source #1. Some participants from Data

Source #1 were then asked to volunteer for focus groups. These participants were randomly

selected on a first-come-first-serve basis to fulfill six total slots. The only consideration that was

anticipated was that the researchers sought equal representation through hoping to have three

participants be general education teachers and three participants be special education teachers.

When administrative interviews were conducted, all of the six targeted administrators

participated in individual interviews. All participants in Data Sources #2 and #3 were in

environments that were conducive to free and open exchange of opinions and ideas.

Data Sources #2 and #3 were reviewed by using pre-approved audio recording. These

audio recordings were then transcribed and analyzed by the researchers to identify common

trends of the teachers and administrators perspectives, as well as to identify common, necessary

structures needed to support ICS models.

56
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Limitations

The researchers have recognized that their data collection is specific to two small

suburban school districts in New Jersey. Therefore, the results that have been generated cannot

be generalized for all populations that exist within New Jersey or the United States. Moreover,

the researchers have an established working relationships with the volunteer participants in all

three of the data sources.

Additionally, a total of 30 general and special education teachers responded to Data

Source #1, the teacher and Administrator Surveys. Researcher A utilized a web link in order for

School A participants to access Data Source #1. On the other hand, Researcher B utilized an e-

mail in order for School B participants to access Data Source #1. While School A participants

were readily able to access the survey, School B participants had varied access. Upon

recognizing this inconsistency, Researcher B utilized the web link in order for participants to

access the survey. This is viewed as a limitation because it may have altered the participation of

School B participants. Moreover, while there was a significant amount of teacher respondents in

respect to each district, the data overall is still a small total representation of what takes place in

New Jersey as a whole.

Furthermore, within Data Source #2: Focus Groups, the data collected at Busy Bee

School within Nature Valley School District only reflected perspectives from general education

teachers, as they were the first volunteer participants to respond to the e-mail invitation.

Finally, this survey is representative of attempts to adhere to federal mandates enacted

and revised by the federal government. Since ambiguity exists within the federal law IDEIA

itself, each district has attempted to adhere to federal regulations in different ways. This survey

57
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

has attempted to shed light on the need for more unified regulations, as data was collected based

on varying interpretations.

Summary

For the purposes of this study, the researchers developed and executed a mixed-

methodology, descriptive study in an effort to analyze the following research questions:

1. How do teachers perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

2. How do administrators perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

3. What structures are necessary in the public school setting to support the Integrated

Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

A triangulation matrix was developed that highlighted the validity and reliability of this study. It

outlined three specific data sources tailored to meet the targeted research questions. These data

sources encompassed: surveys for teachers and administrators, teacher focus groups, and

administrative interviews. A total of 30 out of 40 teachers participated in the initial survey, while

a total of five out of six administrators participated in the initial survey. Moreover, six volunteers

were selected in each school district for the two teacher focus groups. Finally, all six

administrators from both school districts were individually interviewed.

Forethought by the researchers allowed them to adhere to ethical considerations when

developing and conducting the study. For example, researchers used discretion when collecting,

analyzing, and reporting data from all three data sources. Moreover, consent forms were

developed, explained, and signed by all participants in the study. All data sources were kept

confidential, as to protect the working relationships present within each individual school

studied.

58
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Chapter IV
Results and Findings

Overview

The purpose of this mixed-methodology descriptive study was to investigate the usage of

the Integrated Comprehensive Services (ICS) model within the public school setting, compare

the perceptions of teachers and administrators of the Integrated Comprehensive Service model,

and to understand the necessary structures needed to improve current and future Integrated

Comprehensive Services models. The study combined three data sources: teacher and

administrator surveys, teacher focus groups, and administrator interviews. Within this chapter,

the findings from these three data sources are summarized. The researchers have presented their

findings in order to answer the following research questions:

1. How do teachers perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

2. How do administrators perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

3. What structures are needed in the public school setting to support the Integrated

Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

Data Sources

Teacher & Administrator Surveys

Our first data source for our Action Research included online surveys via SurveyMonkey.

Both researchers developed two surveys. One survey was specific to the teachers within Busy

Bee School and Rockwall School. The other survey was specific to administrators within Busy

Bee School and Rockwall School. Both surveys were designed to obtain clear responses specific

to the researchers questions regarding the perceptions of both sample populations of the

Integrated Comprehensive Service model utilizing both Likert-scale and narrative open-ended

questions. The surveys were opened to 40 teachers combined from both schools and six

59
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

administrators combined from both schools in March of 2017. After a week span to respond to

the online survey and two follow-up online reminders from the researchers, 30 teachers had

responded and five administrators had responded. These surveys served as a data source to

obtain multiple perspectives on the ICS model and its implementation in the two focus schools.

Moreover, these surveys served as a springboard to develop targeted questions for the future data

sources: Teacher Focus Groups and Administrator Interviews.

Teacher Focus Groups

Following the administration and analysis of the online teacher and administrator surveys

within Busy Bee School and Rockwall School, both researchers validated survey responses by

holding teacher focus groups within their respective school buildings. The researchers sought

voluntary participation from both general education and special education teachers that had

participated in the previous online survey. Both researchers e-mailed all survey participants and

selected the first six teachers that responded in each respective school. When each focus group

was held, a total of nine questions were asked to each teacher group. Three of the questions were

specific to Research Question 1 and the remaining six questions were specific to Research

Questions 2 and 3.

Personal Administrator Interviews

In addition to holding teacher focus groups, personal administrator interviews also took

place within both schools with all three of the administrators within each school building to

further validate survey responses. Two of the questions were specific to Research Question 1 and

the remaining six questions were specific to Research Questions 2 and 3.

60
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Results and Findings: Research Question 1

1.How do teachers perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

Data Sources were analyzed to determine the perceptions teachers possess in both Busy

Bee School and Rockwall School about the ICS model. Of the 30 total teachers surveyed, four

were male and 26 were female. In addition, nine of the 30 teachers surveyed possessed

certification specific to students with special needs. Five of the teachers had 0-4 years of

experience, five of the teachers had 5-10 years of experience, two had 11-15 years of experience,

six had 16-20 years of experience, and twelve had 20+ years of experience. Of the 30 teachers

surveyed, 26 indicated that they spent the majority of their instructional time in general

education classroom environments, while four indicated that they spent the majority of their

instructional time in classrooms specific to special education. Finally, 12 of 30 teachers indicated

they were primary (Pre-K-2) teachers, 16 of 30 teachers were upper elementary (3-5) teachers,

and nine of 30 were middle school (6-8) teachers.

Focus groups were held with six teachers in each school: Busy Bee School and Rockwall

School. Of the 12 total teachers within the focus groups for Data Source 2, two were male and 10

were female. In addition, four of the 12 teachers surveyed possessed certification specific to

students with special needs. Four of the teachers had 0-4 years of experience, three of the

teachers had 5-10 years of experience, one had 11-15 years of experience, three had 16-20 years

of experience, and one had 20+ years of experience. Of the 12 teacher participants, 11 indicated

that they spent the majority of their instructional time in general education classroom

environments, while one indicated that he/she spent the majority of his/her instructional time in

classrooms specific to special education. Finally, three teachers were primary (Pre-K-2), four

teachers were upper elementary (3-5), and five were middle school (6-8) .

61
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Through analysis of the data sources, the following findings were determined.

Finding 1: Teachers perceive ICS to be a model in which special education students receive

support from two teachers (one general education, one special education) in content area

classes.

When the 12 teachers, within the Focus Groups, were posed with the question: How

would you define inclusion? by both researchers, five teachers (42%) responded. Respondents

vocalized some variation of the following: Providing a classroom that has general education and

special education students with services from a general education and special education teacher,

so they can all learn best (Teacher A: Rockwall School, personal communication, March 20,

2017).

Finding 2: Teachers perceive ICS to take place in the least restrictive environment: the general

education classroom.

When the 12 teachers, within the Focus Groups, were posed with the question: How

would you define inclusion? by both researchers, five teachers (42%) responded. Of those five

teachers, three (60%) vocalized some variation of the following: ...inclusion falls to the idea of

putting students in the LRE (least restrictive environment) (Teacher A: Busy Bee School,

personal communication, March 14, 2017).

Finding 3: Teachers perceive ICS to be beneficial for both special education students and

general education students.

This finding was validated through the analysis of the data in which 25 of the 29 (86%)

teachers that responded to the statement Inclusion is beneficial for special education students

agreed or strongly agreed that inclusion is beneficial for special education students.

62
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Table 5

Teacher Perceptions on Inclusion & Special Education Students


strongly agree disagree strongly unknown Total Weighted

agree disagree Average

37.93% 48.28% 13.79% 0.00% 0.00% 29 1.76

(no 11 14 4 0 0
label)

Moreover, the survey also posed the statement Inclusion is beneficial for general education

students. Out of the 29 teachers who responded to this question, 25 also agreed or strongly

agreed that inclusion is beneficial for general education students.

Table 6

Teacher Perceptions on Inclusion & General Education Students

strongly agree disagree strongly unknown Total Weighted

agree disagree Average

31.03% 55.17% 13.79% 0.00% 0.00% 29 1.83

(no 9 16 4 0 0
label)

To further substantiate this finding, five out of the 12 (46%) of the focus group

respondents furthered the perception that inclusion classrooms are beneficial to both special

education and general education students. Within both focus groups (2017), it was orally

communicated by 46% of participants that special education students benefit from an inclusive

environment because students with special needs can:

Be exposed to the general education classroom and curriculum

Interact with students of varying ability levels

Develop social skills

63
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

On the other hand, the same five focus group participants (2017) also indicated that inclusive

environments are perceived to be beneficial for general education students because general

education students can:

Interact with students of varying ability levels

Increase their patience and tolerance of others

Results and Findings: Research Question 2

2. How do administrators perceive the Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

Data Sources were further analyzed to determine the perceptions administrators possess

in both Busy Bee School and Rockwall School about the ICS model. The following findings

were determined:

Finding 4: Administrators perceive ICS to be a legal obligation based on Least Restrictive

Environment (LRE) provisions.

This finding was validated when four of the six (67%) of the administrators interviewed,

when posed with the question How does the district define inclusion?, made specific reference

to the legal responsibility public schools have to provide each student with the least restrictive

environment. One administrator specifically stated, Its not really the district. Its what the law

requires...We operate under LRE. We take a look at the needs of the children (Administrator B:

Rockwall School, personal communication, March 15, 2017).

Finding 5: Administrators perceive ICS to be beneficial for both special education students and

general education students.

This finding was validated when all five administrators survey respondents (100%)

strongly agreed that Inclusion is beneficial for special education students.

64
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Table 7

Administrator Perceptions of Inclusion & Special Education Students

strongly agree disagree strongly unknown Total Weighted

agree disagree Average

100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 1.00

(no 5 0 0 0 0
label)

In addition, the same five administrators (100%) when posed with the statement Inclusion is

beneficial for general education students all again strongly agreed.

Table 8

Administrator Perceptions of Inclusion & General Education Students


strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree unknown Total Weighted Average

100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 1.00

(no label) 5 0 0 0 0

This data is further corroborated when the six administrators from both schools were posed with

the following question: How is inclusion beneficial to both general education and special

education students? Their responses mirrored that of the teachers and can be highlighted in the

following administrator interview response:

Yes, I believe that it's beneficial for General Ed. students because it gives them a sense of

compassion, understanding, and working with other people that are different from them.

In a peer model, where children can assist other children who might be needy in one area,

I've also seen it where inclusion children have helped Gen Ed (Administrator A:

Rockwall School, personal communication, March 17, 2017).

65
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Results and Findings: Research Question 3

3. What structures are needed in the public school setting to support the Integrated

Comprehensive Service (ICS) model?

Data Sources were analyzed to determine the structures both teachers and administrators

deem as necessary to support the ICS model in both Busy Bee School and Rockwall School. This

was a necessary component of the overall research in order to determine and recommend

necessary structures in both public schools for appropriate, consistent, and sustainable ICS

implementation in the future. Through analysis of the three data sources specifically, the

following findings were determined.

Finding 6: There is minimal planning time allotted between special education and general

education teachers.

This finding is validated when 21 out of 29 (72%) of the teacher survey respondents

indicated, when posed with the statement, There is adequate planning time between special

education and general education teachers that they disagreed or strongly disagreed that they

were allotted the necessary planning time for successful ICS implementation.

Table 9

Teacher Perceptions of Planning Time for ICS

strongly agree disagree strongly unknown Total Weighted

agree disagree Average

0.00% 17.24% 51.72% 20.69% 10.34% 29 3.24

(no 0 5 15 6 3
label)

Furthermore, six of the 12 (50%) of the teacher focus group participants, when posed

with the question Is there adequate planning time between special education and general

66
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

education teachers? responded negatively. Their feelings are encapsulated in the following

statement: There is definitely no planned time that we can meet unless we do it on our own

terms-after school, during preps, its all about finding times that we have available together. But

theres no specific time we get to just plan together and figure out whats going on, whats going

to be taught, or how things are going to be implemented (Teacher A: Rockwall School, personal

communication, March 20, 2017).

Finally, five of the six (83%) of the administrator interview respondents, when posed

with the question Is there adequate planning time between special education and general

education teachers? indicated improvements are warranted and/or did not take responsibility for

allotting time for collaboration. One interviewee responded,

Theres fair amounts here and there for common planning time that is scheduled. A lot of

teachers really wind up doing much of it on their own, and finding time before school

hours, after school hours, at lunch time. Unfortunately, the schedule just doesnt support

as much collaboration as wed like to see (Administrator C: Busy Bee School, personal

communication, March 21, 2017).

Finding 7: Teachers find time to collaborate independent of contractual time.

Six of the 12 (50%) of the teacher focus group participants, when posed with the question

Is there adequate planning time between special education and general education teachers?

elaborated on their negative perspectives. Their positions can be seen in the following quote:

I dont think that the administration level has made the strides to clear the schedule and

give permission for teachers to either be released or build in that common time, and I

recognize that the schedule is massive and its difficult to consider all the pullouts that

are impacting the schedule, but I think there needs to be a better effort for at least one

67
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

common planning time (Teacher D: Busy Bee School, personal communication, March

14, 2017).

Finally, four of the six (67%) of the administrator interview respondents, when posed

with the question Is there adequate planning time between special education and general

education teachers? indicated teachers sought time independently to meet with their teaching

counterparts. One interviewee alluded to teachers professionalism and dedication to ensuring

their students are provided sound instruction by their educators by stating, Our teachers are

professional, and they all somehow seem to find a way to commit to planning in a way that is

appropriate (Administrator A: Busy Bee School, personal communication, March 9, 2017).

Finding 8: Training and/or professional development specific to inclusion has not been

consistently provided within districts.

Data Sources indicate that both teachers and administrators feel that training and/or

professional development has been haphazard within both districts. Of the 29 teachers that

responded to the survey statement, I have received in-district training in inclusion, 15 of the 29

(52%) teachers indicated No and 8 of 29 (28%) indicated I have had training in this area, but I

have sought it out independently.

68
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Table 10

In District Training on Inclusion

In addition, when administrators were posed with the survey statement, Teachers have

had the opportunity to receive in-district training inclusion, three of five (60%) of administrators

responded that Training has been sought out independently.

69
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Furthermore, within the teacher focus groups, seven out of 12 (58%) participants,

indicated a deficit existed when it came to inclusion training. One teacher responded, I

remember some like in ancient history times. Like 20 years ago. There were some Monday

teacher meetings dedicated to it, big group (40-50 people), and somebody with a PowerPoint.

But thats about all we ever had (Teacher C: Rockwall School, personal communication, March

20, 2017).

In addition, within the administrator interviews, six out of six (100%) participants

indicated that training has not adequately been provided and/or were not knowledgeable of

training offered. This can be corroborated with the statement, Its kind of fallen by the wayside

over the last few years because of other big initiatives (Administrator C: Busy Bee School,

personal communication, March 21, 2017).

Summary

In this chapter, the findings of this study were arranged by research question. The three

data sources provided both qualitative and quantitative data. Data Source 1 (SurveyMonkey)

provided quantitative data, while Data Sources 2 and 3 provided qualitative data. Each source

assisted the researchers in discovering findings as outlined under each research question. This

descriptive, mixed-methodology study was constructed to allow the researchers to determine the

perceptions and the necessary structures of the ICS model.

As per Findings 1-5, many of the teachers held similar perspectives to administrators

when it came to inclusive environments. However, Findings 6-8 alluded to structural deficits

present in the two focus schools as they work towards integrated students with special needs in

general education classrooms.

70
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

In conclusion, although teachers and administrators have positive perceptions of ICS

models and its benefit to all students, a need exists for further development of necessary

structures to support ICS models in both Busy Bee School and Rockwall School as they move to

more inclusive practices. Conclusion and recommendations are provided for such structures

within Chapter 5.

71
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations

Overview

The purpose of this study was to determine the current perceptions and efficacy of the

Integrated Comprehensive Service Models within present day public schools: Busy Bee School

and Rockwall School. Additionally, the researchers wanted to determine the structures necessary

to sustain its success.

The study was undertaken with a mixed-methodology approach and was descriptive in

nature. It included three data sources to compile and uncover consistent findings. First,

individual surveys were created and disseminated to teachers and administrators in two public

schools in New Jersey, one middle school, and one elementary school. Subsequently, individual

interviews were conducted amongst three administrators in each district: a Principal, a

Director/Supervisor of Special Education, and a Curriculum Director/Supervisor. Finally, focus

groups were held in each respective district and were comprised of six teachers. The focus

groups were open to general and special educators alike.

This chapter contains conclusions based on the three major themes evidenced by the eight

findings described in Chapter IV, as well as recommendations for future actions that may be

taken to improve the implementation of the Integrated Comprehensive Service Model in both

Busy Bee School and Rockwall School respectively. The conclusions and recommendations are

presented by theme below.

Theme 1: Perceptions of the Integrated Comprehensive Service Model

It was found that there were overarching similarities in the perceptions of what the

Integrated Comprehensive Service Model represents in public education today. It was

determined through the analysis of the surveys, teacher focus groups, and administrator

72
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

interviews that all teachers and administrators perceive the ICS model to be defined as taking

place in the least restrictive environment. Moreover, both groups surveyed perceive the model to

be one in which all students, both general education and special education, receive instruction

from both teachers. Lastly, it was also determined that the majority of both populations surveyed

also found the Integrated Comprehensive Service model to be beneficial to all learners,

regardless of identification and classification, or lack thereof.

However, variability did exist in response to the rationale for providing ICS models. All

six of the administrators surveyed across both school districts made reference to the legal

requirement of public schools to educate students in the least restrictive environment, whereas

few teachers made this connection. Most teachers identified the appropriate socialization and the

need to educate the whole child in addition to the need for appropriate models of behavior and

expectation as the important factors for adopting the Integrated Comprehensive Service Model.

It can be concluded that educators and administrators alike identify the necessity, the

benefit, and the legal right of implementing the Integrated Comprehensive Service model with

varying degrees of importance. On one end of the spectrum, the administrators are concerned

with fulfilling the legal obligations of the school district, and on the other end of the spectrum sit

the teachers, concerned with addressing the emotional and educational needs of the child.

It is recommended that both groups who participated in this study receive updated

training on the aspects at the other end of their scope. Administrators should refresh themselves

on the needs of the students who sit in a classroom beyond the legal ramifications. Similarly,

teachers must receive training on their legal obligation to meet the needs of the students, and

learn more about how the Integrated Comprehensive Service model can be used to benefit all

students. This model is not intended to solely provide special education students with

73
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

appropriate role models and behavioral expectations. The model is intended to benefit all the

students, general education and special education alike.

This recommendation is further supported by the seminal study conducted by Solis,

Vaughn, Swanson, & McCully (2012) in which they state specifically that inclusive models such

as the Integrated Comprehensive Service model, because of its complexity, require a high

degree of cooperation between teachers and other school personnel (p. 498). In order to execute

the strongest, most impactful program for the students, administrators can influence change in

their settings by recommending professional development or coaching for teachers that supports

use of effective and differentiated instruction, evidence based curriculum, and appropriate

grouping practices, so that all students are provided an effective education (Solis, Vaughn,

Swanson, & McCully, 2012, p. 507).

Similarly, administrators require training and support to develop the capacity of their

staff in an effort to successfully implement the Integrated Comprehensive Service model within

their buildings. Key theorists, Frattura and Capper (2004), address this necessary requirement

when they state that in order to do so, administration must

address but not be driven by compliance issues under every federal and state initiative.

[They] must address the components of an effective school educational plan. They do so

by defining the current picture and completing a critical analysis of each area regarding

policy or other practices or procedures that continue to work in opposition to integrated

comprehensive services (p.3).

Moreover, through the analysis of the surveys, teacher focus groups, and administrator

interviews, it was found that teachers are operating with preconceived notions about what the

special educator in the room is supposed to do and who they can help. Through the review of the

74
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

literature, it was found in the study of Hang and Rabren (2009) that this is a common error made

when attempting the implementation of inclusive models such as the Integrated Comprehensive

Service model. They explain in their study, teachers may have different perceptions of their co-

teaching practices. In a state-wide survey of general and special education co-teachers, each

group saw itself as having more responsibility than the other for instructional and behavioral

management (p. 259). Through the analysis of the data sources, it can be concluded that this

issue is present in both of the public schools in New Jersey that were studied for the purposes of

this action research.

It would be recommended that educators, inclusive of both general and special education

teachers, attend workshops to better understand how they can be effective and reciprocal partners

in the inclusive settings they host. This recommendation is supported by additional researchers

reviewed throughout the literature review and is further consecrated with the acknowledgement

that an identification and understanding of roles and responsibilities must occur for both general

and special education teachers to be effective instructional agents (Hang & Rabren, 2009, p.

260). Additionally, this ideology is further supported by Leader-Janssen, Swain, Delkamiller, &

Ritzman (2012) when they state Effective collaboration benefits everyone; however, successful

collaboration takes careful planning (p.117).

In an effort for teachers to have the opportunity to clearly understand roles and

responsibilities, in addition to providing opportunities to collaborate for the successful

implementation of the Integrated Comprehensive Service model, certain structures must be in

place.

75
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Theme 2: Structures Needed to Support and Sustain the Integrated Comprehensive Service

Model

Across all three data sources: the surveys, interviews, and focus groups, it was found that

the majority of teachers and administrators indicated an understanding of the limitations

scheduling can place on the collaboration needed for the sustainability of the Integrated

Comprehensive Service model. This issue has also been substantiated and unearthed through

the literature review when Hang and Rabren (2009) state they have discovered finding time for

co-planning has been a serious problem [and] the importance of co-planning should be

considered an essential element (p. 260).

The researchers conclude proper implementation of the Integrated Comprehensive

Service model requires scheduling alignment between special education and general education

classes. Through the literature and studies reviewed, it was found that clear, established, and

consistent communication is necessary to support the ICS model. As cited in Chapter II,

Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin (1999) support the idea that in order for the Integrated

Comprehensive Service model to make a positive impact in public schools, effective execution in

the responsibilities of collaboration is a necessity. They further substantiate that point by

supporting the need for the partners in that relationship to have ongoing and prolonged

accessibility to one another built within their work schedule.

It is for these reasons the researchers recommend the schedules be constructed

collaboratively by the principal and members of the child study team, specifically case

managers. Because administration and child study team members are twelve month employees,

they can use the early part of the summer to collaborate and construct a schedule in which would

provide opportunities for general education and special education teachers to

76
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

collaborate. Additionally, by building common planning times into the schedule, and sharing

those schedules in the mid to late summer, teachers are afforded the added opportunity to

convene before the onset of school to establish/reestablish their professional relationship and

construct norms, roles, and responsibilities while reviewing the needs of their new students. This

recommendation is further supported by research conducted by Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff

(2000) in which they support the notion of collaboration between departments as a means to

program success. They state principals who support staff in areas of instructional issues such as

scheduling, special education, and professional development will provide added opportunities for

all students to meet success within their schools (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000).

Theme 3: Professional Development Must be Ongoing and Consistent

In analyzing all three data sources, the researchers found an underlying theme regarding

the professional development of the Integrated Comprehensive Service model: it was done, but

has now been forgotten. Insights from the data sources proved to be unified in this aspect and

indicate a need for this avenue of professional responsibility to be revisited, revised, and

reinstated. This issue has also been found in literature analyzed by the researchers.

Through the analysis of all three data sources, the researchers can conclude that the

training in both school districts specific to the required structures, roles, and responsibilities

specific to the successful implementation of the Integrated Comprehensive Service model is

insufficient and must be revised.

As a result of the outcry from the teachers and the desire of the administration to support

their staff, the researchers recommend professional development specific to the Integrated

Comprehensive Service model. One avenue in which this can be supported and explored is by

the implementation of school improvement teams. Researchers Walther-Thomas, Korinek, and

77
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

McLaughlin (1999) support this recommendation as they state such teams may provide

individual teachers with meaningful support from fellow members of their school improvement

teams who are committed to professional and organizational support (p.5). After initial

professional development is provided, the school improvement teams will be able to consistently

support and monitor the implementation of the necessary structures.

Another avenue to consider when recommending professional development is that of

affiliations with local, state, and national chapters of professional associations (Walther-

Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999, p. 5) In an effort to plan for the longevity and

sustainability of the ICS model, budgetary considerations for future expense and support must be

had. For example, administrators must budget for teacher coaching, mentoring, and overall

supports in terms of training.

One example of professional development with continual support can be provided

through key theorists, Frattura and Capper. Their program, The Integrated Comprehensive

System Series, offers support inclusive of consultation and training that is specific to both

administrators and teachers. While they offer academy and institution professional development

opportunities at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, their online training modules are available

to any interested school district. It should be noted that the module series has been implemented

in over 2,250 schools and has been found to be an effective tool for over 20 years (Frattura &

Capper, 2016). The training proves to be cost effective and provides the benefit of facilitating

both teachers and administrators alike with opportunities to stay on the cutting edge of current

topics with significant developments, changes, and implications to their fields of practice. To

speak to ongoing and continual professional development specifically, The Integrated

Comprehensive System Series offers institute professional development for new participants and

78
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

academy professional development for returning participants. Moreover, their online modules

offer lifetime memberships and are available for purchase in an effort to sustain the continual

professional development necessary in public school education.

Additionally, participation in such professional development helps practitioners develop

a better understanding of current issues in ways that are often difficult without connections to a

broader professional network (Walther-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999, p. 5). This

review of the literature supports the consistent call for training to effectively implement inclusive

programs such as the Integrated Comprehensive Service model. Furthermore, through the

seminal study of Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCully (2012) it was found that 30% of all

teachers surveyed consistently expressed the need for training (p.505). These findings were

replicated in the action research conducted, and it is for this reason the researchers recommend

ongoing and consistent training and professional development, as they are skills educators must

possess to provide stronger instruction and support to all students (Mandlawitz, 2016, p. 7).

Final Reflection

This mixed-methodology descriptive study sought to determine the perspectives of

teachers and administrators specific to the Integrated Comprehensive Service model and identify

the necessary structures needed to support the model in public schools. Through the use of

teacher and administrator surveys, individual administrator interviews, and teacher focus groups,

data was collected and three themes came to light. The themes can be summarized by first

acknowledging that the Integrated Comprehensive Service model is a system which benefits both

general and special education students while supporting the legal mandate of educating students

in the least restrictive environment. This is achieved while educating the whole child and

meeting not only their academic needs, but supporting their overall social well-being as

79
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

well. Secondly, a theme indicative of the necessity of time came to light when teachers and

administrators acknowledged the deficit in shared common planning and preparatory time

between special and general educators alike. Lastly, the need for ongoing and consistent

professional development specific to the structures needed to support inclusion was also

highlighted, as it was found across all three data sources that this was an area in which once was

implemented but has long been forgotten.

Recommendations include practical ways to plan for and support the systemic

implementation of the Integrated Comprehensive Service model inclusive of shared scheduling

responsibilities amongst general education administrators and child study team members and

structured common planning time built into general and special education teachers schedules to

be used to plan for shared students. In addition, professional development for both teachers and

administrators specific to possible noted deficits such as: IDEIA requirements, ICS models,

teacher collaboration, administrative support of ICS models, and school improvement teams

must be provided and continued. It seems as though the deficits in appropriate implementation of

ICS models does not come from a lack of desire or willingness, but rather, it lies within the open

interpretation of what the model represents. With the necessary structures and supports in place,

ambiguity is erased for the betterment of educational access for all students.

80
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

APPENDIX A

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Individuals with disabilities act (IDEA).

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/disability/idea.aspx .

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A

review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147.

Austin, V.L. (2001). Teachers beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22,

245-255.

Bateman, D., & Bateman, C.F. (2001). A principals guide to special education. Arlington, VA:

Council for Exceptional Children.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment

outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives.

Exceptional Children, 66, 509-529

Blase, J. J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers perspective.

American Educational Research Journal, 24, 589-610.

Blase, J. J., Blase, J., Anderson, G. L., & Dungan, S. (1995). Democratic principles in action:
81
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Eight pioneers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blase, J., & Kirby, P.C. (1992). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do.

Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Blum, R. (2007). Best practices: building blocks for enhancing school environment. John

Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.

Brown, N., Howerter, C., Morgan, J. (2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching work.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 49 (2), 84-91.

Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus

on Exceptional Children, 28, 1-16.

DiPaola, M.F., Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role

of school leaders. Gainesville, FL: University of FLorida, Center on Personnel Studies in

Special Education.

Essex, N.L. (2016). School Law and the Public Schools, Pearson Education, Inc. (6th

Edition).

Fennick, E., & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative teaching:

co-teachers perspectives. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 229-240.

Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loremann, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and

concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) Scale for measuring pre-service

teachers perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International. 21,

50-65.

Frattura, E. M., & Capper, C. A. (2004). Leading Beyond Compliance: Integrated

Comprehensive Services for All Learners. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved October

17, 2016, from

82
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Exceptional%20/Learners/Inclusion/Systems%20Cha

nge/frattura_capper.htm.

Frattura, E., & Capper, C.A. (2006). Segregated programs versus integrated comprehensive

service delivery for all learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 355-364.

Frattura, E. M., & Capper, C.A. (2007). New teacher teams to support integrated comprehensive

services. Teaching Exceptional Children. 39(4), 16-21.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (5th

ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint.

Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. (5th. ed.). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Geller, S. (2006). The power of safety communication. Instructional safety & Hygiene News, 40,

16-17.

Gerber, P.J., & Popp, P.A. (1999). Consumer perspectives on the collaborative teaching model

views of students with and without LD and their parents. Remedial and Special

Education, 20, 288-297.

Gertsen, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K., (2001). Working in special education:

Factors that enhance special educators intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549-553.

Hang, Q., Rabren, K. (2008). An examination of co-teaching:perspectives and efficacy indicators

Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259-268. Doi: 10.1177/0741932508321018

Hocutt, A. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement the critical factor? The

Future of Children, 6(1), 77-102.

83
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Idol, L., West, J. F., & Lloyd, S.R. (1988). Organizing and implementing specialized reading

programs: A collaborative approach involving classroom, remedial, and special education

teachers. Remedial and Special Education. 9(2), 54-61.

Integrated Comprehensive Systems for Equity. (2016). Retrieved January 17, 2017, from http://

www.icsequity.org/

Jansen, E.L., Swain, K.D., Delkamiller, J., & Ritzman, M. (2012). Collaborative relationships

for general education teachers working with students with disabilities. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 39(2), 112-118

Kampwirth, T.J. (1999). Collaborative consultation in the schools: Effective practices for

students with learning and behavior problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the

individuals with disabilities education act. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 324-334.

Kearns, J. F., Kleinert, H. L., & Clayton, J. (1998). Principal supports for inclusive assessment:

A Kentucky story. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 16-23.

Lane, K.L., Carter, E.W., Jenkins, A., Dwiggins, L., and Germer, K. (2015). Supporting

comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered models of prevention in schools:

Administators Perspectives. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(4),

209-222.

Mandlawitz, M. (2016). Special education after 40 years: What lies ahead? Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, 22(1), 1-7.

Moore, C. (1998). Educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms: A

summary of research. Western Regional Resource Center, Eugene, OR.; Alaska State

Dept. of Education, Juneau. Teaching and Learning Support Div.

84
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for

Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.

New Jersey Administrative Code Title 6A, New Jersey Department of Education

14-66-68 (Cottrell Graphics LLC 2015).

Pancsofar, N., Petroff, J.G. (2013). Professional development experiences in co-teaching:

associations with teacher confidence, interests, and attitudes. Teacher Education

and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the

Council for Exceptional Children, 36(2), 83-96. Doi: 10.1177/0888406412474996

Ploessl, D.M., Rock, M.L., Schoenfeld, N., and Blanks, B. (2010). On the same page: Practical

techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic. 45(3),

158-168.

Rea, P.J., McLaughlin, V.L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002) Outcomes for students with

Learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout program. Exceptional Children,

68(2), 203-223. Retrieved December 07, 2016.

Sagor, R. (2011). The action research guidebook: a four-step process for educators and school

teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sailor, W., Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide Applications. Phi Delta

Kappan, March 2005, 503-509.

Sari, H. 2007. The influence of an in-service teacher training (INSET) programme on attitudes

towards inclusion by regular classroom teachers who teach deaf students in primary

Schools in Turkey. Deafness and Education International 9, no. 3: 131-46.

Scruggs, T.E. and Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming-inclusion,

1958-1995: a research synthesis, Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

85
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffe, K.A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive

classrooms:

A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional children, 73(4), 392-416.

Secer, Z. (2010). An analysis of the effects of in-service teacher training on Turkish preschool

Teachers attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Early Years Education,

18(1), 43-53. doi:10.1080/09669761003693959

Skrtic, T.M., Sailor, W., & Gee, K. (1996). Voice, collaboration, and inclusion: Democratic

themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education.

17(3). 142-157.

Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of

instruction:

The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools.

49(5), 498-510.

Thomas, C.W., Korinek, L., & McLaughlin, V.L. (1999). Collaboration to support student

success. Focus on Exceptional Children. 32(3), 1-18

Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy

of principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(2),

151-168.

U.S. Census Bureau (2014). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from

Census Reporter Profile page for Hanover township, Morris County, NJ.

https://censusreporter.org/profiles/06000US3402729550-hanover-township-morris-count

y-nj/

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of education services national center for education

86
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

statistics. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics 2010. Washington, D.C.

Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V., & Williams, B. (2000). Collaboration for

Inclusive Education: Developing Successful Programs, p.74 (Needham Heights, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.)

Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., & McLaughlin, V. Collaboration to support students

success.

Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(3). 1-18.

Vaz S., Wilson, N., Falkmer, M. Sim, A., Scott, M., Cordier, R. et al. (2015). Factors associated

with primary school teachers attitudes towards the inclusion of students with

disabilities. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0137002. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137002

87
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL

88

You might also like