Co‐teaching is a popular strategy for implementing the inclusion of students with disabilities within secondary general education classrooms. However, we have little data regarding its effectiveness under routine conditions of educational practice. This study examined whether there was an “additive effect” of the special education teacher on the instructional experiences of students with disabilities as compared with the experiences of the same students taught by only the general education teacher under routine conditions. Observers used time sampling methods to document how students with disabilities spent their time in 11 middle school co‐taught classes. Statistically significant differences were found for targeted students in terms of general education teacher interaction and individual instruction. General education teachers spent significantly less time with students with disabilities when the special education teacher was present. In addition, students with disabilities received significantly more individual instruction when the special education teacher was present. However, these differences were of limited practical significance.

In the US, there is a significant number of learning-disabled high school students included in regular science classrooms. It has been argued that students with learning disabilities can succeed in science if they receive the kind of instruction they need. To facilitate such instruction, the special education teacher is often incorporated into the class along with the learning disabled students. We observed 53 high school science lessons from ten pairs of science and special-education teachers who were responsible for delivering instruction to groups of students, some of whom were learning-disabled. We analyzed narrative notes collected in these lessons reflecting the kinds of classroom activities, organization of work, and teachers' roles. In addition, we interviewed the teachers individually to gain a better understanding of these inclusive classes. The underlying question of this research was whether inclusive classes with two teachers delivered the type of science education that is better than solo-teaching in addressing the needs of learning-disabled students. Our evidence indicates that even with a specialeducation teacher present in the class, learning-disabled students usually did not receive a science education that met their needs. We elaborate on the reasons for this problem and make suggestions for improvement.

School-university partnerships have been offered as possible solutions for many contemporary educational challenges. These relationships are generally well accepted by university and school personnel; however, unanswered questions remain regarding their nature and utility. This paper describes one teacher preparation program's efforts to strengthen and extend existing partnerships with a small group of primarily rural school districts. Partnership efforts were supported, in part by a 325T professional development grant to prepare highly qualified special education teachers. Three specific, grant-related activities (i.e., improving educators' understanding and use of evidence-based practices, capturing practitioners' professional wisdom, and changing practice through instructional coaching) were highlighted as exemplars of partnership work. Lessons learned over the 5-year partnership with nine rural school districts are summarized and directions for future research and practice are offered.

No abstract

In this paper, we describe a rural school-university 22 year partnership. The partnership serves students with disabilities and students at-risk for being classified with a disability. Despite personnel changes, the undergraduate teacher candidates have consistently provided intense instruction to their assigned students. Electronic surveys were sent to school and university professionals affiliated with the undergraduate course “Introduction to the Exceptional Learner” to determine why the partnership has lasted so long. Follow-up focus group sessions were held, and data from the sessions were collected and analyzed for a deeper review of identified themes. The data analysis and theme development supported the following reasons for the longstanding partnership: (a) academic gains, (b) interpersonal benefits, and (c) specific program components.