Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter I
Introduction
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
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
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
other institutions should be educated with children who are not handicapped
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
2016, p. 136).
In an effort to remedy the segregation of these students, inclusive reforms have been
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,
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
As a result, educators today are working towards establishing inclusive classrooms where
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
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).
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,
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
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
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
general education guides all student learning; all school resources are configured to
benefit all students; schools address social development and citizenship forthrightly;
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
7
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Because ICS models are theoretical and are not mandated by federal laws such as IDEIA,
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
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
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
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
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,
Rockwall School District, there is a school principal, Supervisor of Student Services, and a
significantly. In addition, these administrators share similar ethnic, cultural, and social class to
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
What structures are needed in the public school setting to support the Integrated
Definition of Terms
10
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
resources, and well developed accountability measures (Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin,
1999, p. 3).
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
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
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
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
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.
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, &
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
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,
as well as special education (Sari, 2007). More often than not, teacher attitudes towards inclusion
disadvantaging other students in the classroom; being apprehensive of the quality and
quantity of work output of children with disabilities; lacking adequate support and
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
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
teachers (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013, p. 84). These skills specifically have been cited as being
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
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.
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
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
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 &
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
communities. They ensure that staff members have the support and resources needed-
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
careful planning (Leader-Janssen, Swain, Delkamiller, & Ritzman, 2012, p. 117). Setting the
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.
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
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
23
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
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.
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:
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
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.
ICS Models
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
2015, p. 1).
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 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
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
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
26
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
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
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
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
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
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
current picture and contemplating a critical analysis of each area regarding policy or
28
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
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
Hocutt (1996) concludes that instruction, not setting, is the key to achievement of success as
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
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
faceted professionals prove to be insightful in reaching the population of students present in the
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
problem based on the perspectives of varying team members. Such an example of collaboration
30
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Diagram 1
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
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 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
31
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
grow out of mutual trust and respect, equity, expertise in ones domain, willingness to share, and
3). The relationship will need time and nurturing in order to grow into its most effective stage
This realization brings the researchers to their next important point when developing
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
coercion will not result in a positive collaborative environment, nor will it benefit the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Walther-Thomas & Bryant,1996; Welch, 2000). (Hang & Rabren, 2009, p. 266).
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
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
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
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
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
Co-Teaching Implementation
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,
37
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
(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
For starters, in the area of communication, Ploessl et al. (2010) recommend conducting
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
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
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
40
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Figure 1
Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010, On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching
41
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Table 1
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
unfolds...offer at least two positive statements for each area that is discussed as a need for
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
environment (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998, p. 1). This greatly differs from mainstreaming
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
43
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Table 2
Recommended Teams
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
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
Underlying factors impacting ICS models with teachers as a source include positive
development. Teacher training and professional development help to prepare teachers to build
Korinek, & McLaughlin (1999) support this premise and indicate these factors as foundational
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
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
Table 3
Summary Table
Teachers -Attitudes
-Co-teaching Relationships
-Teacher Training/Preparation
-Professional Development
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
institutions should be educated with children who are not handicapped and that separate
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
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, &
Through extensive exploration, the researchers have discovered that the most successful
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
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.
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
was also made. Each of the three aforementioned administrators were invited to participate in
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
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
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
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
experience, one administrator had 10-14 years of administrative experience, and finally one had
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
schools, while a total of six administrators, inclusive of the school principal, the Director
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,
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
3. Individual interviews were conducted with each of the three administrators from each
colleagues.
52
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Table 4
Triangulation Matrix
Data
Data
Research Questions Source Data Source #3
Source #2
#1
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
compared and contrasted. This is supported by Sagor (2011) in which it is written, Frame
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 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
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
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
Data Source #1 encompassed teacher and administrative online surveys. These surveys
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
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
open-ended opportunities for the respondents to further elaborate upon their position, if so
desired.
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
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
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
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
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.
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-
3. What structures are necessary in the public school setting to support the Integrated
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
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
3. What structures are needed in the public school setting to support the Integrated
Data Sources
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
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.
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
60
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE 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
they were primary (Pre-K-2) teachers, 16 of 30 teachers were upper elementary (3-5) 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,
Finding 3: Teachers perceive ICS to be beneficial for both special education students and
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
(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
Table 6
(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
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
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:
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:
Finding 5: Administrators perceive ICS to be beneficial for both special education students and
This finding was validated when all five administrators survey respondents (100%)
64
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Table 7
(no 5 0 0 0 0
label)
In addition, the same five administrators (100%) when posed with the statement Inclusion is
Table 8
(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
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:
65
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
3. What structures are needed in the public school setting to support the Integrated
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
Finding 8: Training and/or professional development specific to inclusion has not been
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
68
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Table 10
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
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,
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
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
70
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
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
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
groups were held in each respective district and were comprised of six teachers. The focus
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
It was found that there were overarching similarities in the perceptions of what the
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
In an effort for teachers to have the opportunity to clearly understand roles and
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
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
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
supporting the need for the partners in that relationship to have ongoing and prolonged
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
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
(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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Recommendations include practical ways to plan for and support the systemic
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
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:
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment
Blase, J. J., Blase, J., Anderson, G. L., & Dungan, S. (1995). Democratic principles in action:
81
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Blase, J., & Kirby, P.C. (1992). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do.
Blum, R. (2007). Best practices: building blocks for enhancing school environment. John
Brown, N., Howerter, C., Morgan, J. (2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching work.
Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
DiPaola, M.F., Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role
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:
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
50-65.
Comprehensive Services for All Learners. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved October
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
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (5th
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. San Francisco, CA:
Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. (5th. ed.). New York, NY:
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
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.
Hocutt, A. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement the critical factor? The
83
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Idol, L., West, J. F., & Lloyd, S.R. (1988). Organizing and implementing specialized reading
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
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:
Lane, K.L., Carter, E.W., Jenkins, A., Dwiggins, L., and Germer, K. (2015). Supporting
209-222.
Mandlawitz, M. (2016). Special education after 40 years: What lies ahead? Association for
summary of research. Western Regional Resource Center, Eugene, OR.; Alaska State
84
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for
New Jersey Administrative Code Title 6A, New Jersey Department of Education
and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Ploessl, D.M., Rock, M.L., Schoenfeld, N., and Blanks, B. (2010). On the same page: Practical
158-168.
Rea, P.J., McLaughlin, V.L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002) Outcomes for students with
Sagor, R. (2011). The action research guidebook: a four-step process for educators and school
Sailor, W., Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide Applications. Phi Delta
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
85
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffe, K.A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms:
Secer, Z. (2010). An analysis of the effects of in-service teacher training on Turkish preschool
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:
49(5), 498-510.
Thomas, C.W., Korinek, L., & McLaughlin, V.L. (1999). Collaboration to support student
Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy
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
Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V., & Williams, B. (2000). Collaboration for
success.
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
87
THE INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE MODEL
88