Article review

114

TE A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

o na

l C hi

ld re

n, V

o l.

53 , N

o . 2

, p p

. 1 14

–1 20

. C o

p yr

ig ht

2 0

20 T

he A

ut ho

r( s)

. D O

I: 10

.11 77

/0 0

4 0

0 59

9 20

9 19

12 8

TCX

The Quick Collaborative Meeting

Promoting Success in an Inclusive Setting Kristine Black , Northern Illinois University, and

Pamela Hill, Grande Reserve Elementary School, IL

115

N o

ve m

b er

/D ec

em b

er 2

0 20

Collaboration between the special educator and

the general classroom teacher is required when

sharing the instruction of students who receive

specialized support and services. Collaboration

requires teachers to share responsibilities to

work toward a common goal of student

success. Through quick collaboration meetings,

special educators and general classroom

teachers can work toward achievement of the

common goal through a specific process that

promotes student achievement using small

amounts of meeting time.

Mr. Juarez is a resource teacher in an

elementary school. He has 18 students on his

caseload in Grades 2 through 4 who come from

seven classrooms. His students are taught in a

general education classroom for the majority

of each day. Mr. Juarez provides instruction to

his students in the general education classroom

and resource classroom. He wants to collaborate

with each teacher who has a student assigned to

his caseload to be sure that each student with

disabilities is supported appropriately in the

general education setting. The teachers have

found that meetings are important for sharing

information and discussing common goals for

their students. The students’ instruction has

improved because of the information shared

between the teachers. As a result, students are

achieving their individually designed goals

and experiencing success in the general

education setting. The teachers have designed

the meetings to be short in time but significant

in information shared. Collaboration between

teachers has developed over time during several

meetings in the school year following a

common process.

Legislation has paved the way for students with disabilities to be afforded the same educational opportunities as students without disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004), leading to the importance of collaboration between special and general education teachers so that students receive effective instruction. The law requires students with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum and to receive their services in the least restrictive environment. Collaboration provides successful student access to general education with the general educator and the special educator working together for student achievement of common instructional or behavioral goals. Daily practice has revealed a great need for well-defined and obtainable teacher opportunity and commitment to

collaboration development (Carter et al., 2009).

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2017) and the CEEDAR Center recently released a publication that identified high-leverage practices in special education, coauthored by experts in the field, which included the topic of collaboration. The high-leverage practice of collaboration should include designing an instructional program to meet a student’s needs and offers ways for data to be collected to monitor the student’s progress on the individualized education program (IEP) or educational outcomes. This practice reinforces the importance of effective collaborative teacher behaviors to maximize student learning (DaFonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017).

Development of collaborative behavior competencies benefits the teachers as well as the students. Cook and Friend (2010) defined collaboration as “the style professionals select to employ based on mutual goals; parity; shared responsibility for key decisions; shared accountability for outcomes; shared resources; and the development of trust, respect, and a sense of community” (p. 3). Teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration and inclusive instruction of students in the general education classroom affect the success of collaborative meetings and outcomes (Friend & Bursuck, 2019). When teachers are interested and invested in the purpose of the meeting, they are more willing to collaborate to reach mutually agreed decisions. It is important that teachers agree on the purpose of the collaboration and together develop plans for possible outcomes (Kinsella-Meier & Gala, 2016).

When teachers effectively collaborate and in turn replicate the teaching that occurs in the special and general education settings, the students with disabilities receive similar intensive instruction in both settings. Special and general educators working in an inclusive school must collaborate to guide academic and behavioral success for students with disabilities (Carter et al., 2009).

It is important that special educators take the lead to collaborate with general educators who teach the same students (Eccleston, 2010). General educators often need additional guidance in understanding student IEP expectations. At times there is misunderstanding between special and general education teachers, as they each know their own craft but need to learn the other’s terminology (DaFont & Barton- Arwood, 2017). Teachers should engage in dialogue and question each other to better understand the terminology that each uses and to bridge communication (LeDoux et al., 2012). Teachers’ philosophical beliefs about disabilities may also affect the collaboration experience. Teachers must make time to clearly communicate what each believes as decisions are being made (Carter et al., 2009).

General educators have expressed frustration regarding working with students with special education needs in an inclusive setting. Fuchs (2009–2010) examined general educators barriers associated with inclusive practices. The participants unanimously indicated a problem with the lack of adequate plan time and collaboration. In addition, the general educators perceived poor quality of assistance from the special educator.

“Development of collaborative behavior competencies

benefits the teachers as well as the students.

“It is important that special educators

take the lead to collaborate with general

educators who teach the same students.

116

TE A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

o na

l C hi

ld re

n, V

o l.

53 , N

o . 2

Overall, the general educators denote an unequal distribution of responsibilities and duties between the special educators and general educators. Creating a quick collaboration process with shared responsibility and decision making allows for both groups to contribute to the success of the students in the classroom.

The time provided to teachers for collaborative planning is filled with many expectations. During collaborative meetings, the discussion typically includes curriculum concerns but also must include the discussion of individualized learning characteristics, needs, and plans for the instruction of students with disabilities (Friend & Bursuck, 2019). Collaboration skills take time to develop, and teachers must plan focused time for the benefit of the students (DaFonte & Barton-Atwood, 2017). Choosing specific procedures or models for focused collaboration standardizes the process and may create a stronger collaborative result (Carter et al., 2009).

Time is an issue with collaboration. Across special education services, less than half the day is spent on instructional time and 8% on collaboration (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2009). Using a concise quick collaboration process can assist the special educator in having more time for instruction, as well as a purpose for meeting with the general education teacher.

Finally, R. Goddard et al. (2015) found that teacher collaboration is positively related to math and reading achievement. Teachers who work to improve their collaborative relationships can create student reading and math improvements as compared with teachers who are not in a collaborative team (Ronfedlt et al., 2015). Teacher efficacy, as developed during collaborative relationships (Bandura, 1993), is related to student academic achievement. Specifically, when teachers believe that students can be successful and they communicate this

expectation to their students, there is a greater likelihood that the students will believe that they can learn, resulting in improved goal achievement. Teacher collaboration helps develop a unique relationship between teacher leadership and student achievement (R. Goddard et al., 2015).

Overview of the Quick Collaborative Meeting Collaboration is defined as special and general educators working together for the purpose of improving the learning of students with disabilities (Friend & Bursuck, 2019). The quick collaborative meeting is a form of a professional learning community (PLC), as the collegial learning provides opportunities to produce instructional practices that promote changed learning outcomes for students with disabilities (Darling- Hammond & Richardson, 2009). This collaboration is an opportunity to form collective efficacy (Bandura, 1993). Collective efficacy occurs when teachers’ beliefs influence their actions toward students and in turn students’ beliefs about themselves (Donohoo & Katz, 2017).

As part of a PLC between two teachers, quick collaboration includes characteristics of a larger PLC. To ensure that students learn targeted skills, the teachers select a purpose or problem, decide on a plan, and respond to student learning needs based on an examination of data (DuFour, 2004). The collaboration is timely and creates effective interventions

that teachers want to use in their classrooms; that is, the interventions are social valid. Leveraging the characteristics of a PLC creates a culture of collaboration when the educators work together.

Special educators collaborating with general educators often find themselves conducting short, informal meetings or discussions to share or gather needed information, rather than formal meetings with documented agendas, due to time constraints (LeDoux et al., 2012). The biggest challenge to communication and collaboration is the lack of time (Evans & Weiss, 2014). Therefore, this form of a quick collaborative meeting is important, as teachers can discuss one specific question or concern, which forms a purpose for collaboration, and then use the results of the decision making to inform instruction or make behavior decisions. Addressing one problem or purpose allows for time to be used effectively, permitting the special educator and the general educator to be focused and discuss possible decisions.

Teachers can engage in problem- solving procedures together to identify solutions that may be effective for their shared students with disabilities (Carter et al., 2009). The problem-solving process takes place in multiple short collaboration meetings. These are effective in informing the daily instruction of students with disabilities in that they easily fit into the already busy teacher schedules.

Quick collaborative activities focus on designing or reviewing instruction or interventions based on teachers’ hypotheses about the students (Donohoo & Katz, 2017). The quick collaboration team formulates short- and long-term plans that guide students in meeting IEP goals, including defining the means for data collection to determine if these choices are effective for student growth (CEC, 2017; Eccleston, 2010). Teachers need to consider what concern is to be discussed and clearly define it and the

“Collaboration is defined as special and general

educators working together for the purpose of

improving the learning of students with disabilities.

“Quick collaborative activities focus on designing

or reviewing instruction or interventions based

on teachers’ hypotheses about the students.

117

N o

ve m

b er

/D ec

em b

er 2

0 20

connection to the student’s success in meeting IEP goals and objectives (McLeaskey et al., 2017). Concerns addressed in the quick collaborative meeting could include decisions relative to curricular options, classroom management strategies, social skills training efforts, instructional strategies, choice and implementation, or other elements of student behavior and academic progress (LeDoux et al., 2012). The decisions made in the quick collaborative meeting are a bridge between the special and general educators to each classroom (Carter et al., 2009; Olson et al., 2016).

In the quick collaborative meeting, the special educator shares responsibility with the general educator for teaching a student with disabilities (Kinsella-Meier & Gala, 2016). This includes shared decision making, accountability, strategies, curricular modifications, and resources (Cook & Friend, 2010). When teachers work together, student learning is maximized, and stronger assessment scores result (CEC, 2017; Conderman, 2016). Skilled, open communication is the most important factor in the quick collaborative meeting (LeDoux et al., 2012). The collaborating teachers need to work to become partners by listening and understanding each other’s viewpoints and differences (Eccleston, 2010).

A structured quick collaborative meeting framework is essential for teachers to make constructive and effective decisions to favorably affect students’ learning (Carter et al., 2009; Y. L. Goddard et al., 2010). A purposeful sequential framework includes the teachers’ meeting schedule, designed and revised by the collaborators while in the process of making decisions, with choices for student instruction and behavior in the classroom (see Figure 1).

Using the guidelines for co-planning more efficiently, Murawski (2012) includes the “what, how, and who” approach when

lesson planning with the general educator. The same approach can be used with quick collaborations.

What: The “what” is the purpose of the collaboration: What is the problem or purpose of the collaboration? The “what” is mutually decided on between the two teachers. The general educator or the special educator can initiate the “what.”

How: The “how” is the process to fulfill the “what”: How will we address the problem or purpose? The two teachers work together to brainstorm ideas and decide on a plan.

Who: The last step addresses “who”: Who is responsible for how the problem or purpose will be addressed?” Both educators share responsibility for the “who.”

Procedure for the Quick Collaboration Meeting Each meeting is intended to be short, approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The teachers understand the expectations: be concise and to the point to engage in successful collaboration during a busy school day. The process begins with either teacher initiating the quick collaboration meeting to address a specific student’s educational needs; subtopics might include current curricular targets, instruction methodologies that are working and those that are not, environmental changes, accommodations, or modifications.

At the first meeting, the teachers meet to discuss a student concern as initiated by one teacher. At the meetings, the teachers brainstorm the concerns and collaboratively decide how to best address or solve a student problem. The meeting notes are entered into a shared electronic document, with who is responsible for

completing any tasks related to the decisions made or needing to be made. After each quick collaboration meeting is completed, the teachers plan a follow-up meeting to continue the process until it is completed.

When the concern is completed, the teacher can evaluate and reflect on the decisions. A meeting could be set up in the future to assess the effectiveness of the choices made, based on student performance. Included in the shared electronic document are the meeting dates, notes, decisions, responsible parties, and next meeting dates. This provides a historical record of teacher collaboration and changes in student instruction or behavior.

Example of Quick Collaboration Meeting With Mr. Juarez and Ms. Shah

Step 1: Special Educator Initiates First Meeting With General Educator

The special educator contacts the general educator to tell of the need to meet regarding Blake’s difficulty with long division and plans a quick collaboration meeting to discuss the concern. The teachers begin the collaboration process using dialogue to determine why Blake is having difficulty with long division, one of his specific instructional objectives (LeDoux et al., 2012). At the end of the meeting, the special educator enters notes into an electronic document that is shared by both teachers throughout the collaboration process (see Figure 2).

October 4, 2019

Mr. Juarez is a special education teacher

who supports students in Grades 2, 3, and 4. He

works closely with Ms. Shah, a fourth-grade

teacher. They share a student named Blake. He

qualified for special education services as a

Figure 1 Purposes for the quick collaborative meeting

1. For special educator and general educator to have ongoing communication regarding the curricular and instructional needs of special education students and how to meet those needs.

2. Keep each meeting short and purposefully focused. 3. Keep an ongoing documentation record of each meeting to develop accountability between teachers. 4. Compare collected student performance data to determine how students are responding to instruction and to make

curricular and instructional changes as needed, to increase the likelihood of student achieving goal

118

TE A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

o na

l C hi

ld re

n, V

o l.

53 , N

o . 2

Figure 2 Example of electronic documentation of quick collaboration meetings between the special educator and the general educator

Collaboration Form

Name: Blake General Education Teacher: Miss Shah

Grade Level: Special Educator: Mr. Juarez

Problem: Blake has had difficulty meeting his math IEP goal that states he will correctly solve an average of least 85% of long division problems at each attempt

Date 10-4-2019

Meeting Notes Decision/Reflection Responsible Party

Follow-up

Blake is not reaching the expected goal of completing 85% of long division equations correctly on each attempt in the classroom and in the resource room.

Teachers will observe Blake in each of their classrooms as he completes long division equations and talks out the steps he is using. Will consider a form of data collection for next meeting.

Special educator General educator

10-11-19 will meet to discuss observations and chose a data collection format

Date 10-11-19

Meeting Notes Decision/Reflection Responsible Party

Follow-up

Discussed the student’s strengths and errors observed with solving grade-level division. Shared ideas for data collection.

Both teachers will collect student samples.

Special educator General educator

10-18-19 will meet to look at student samples

Date - 10-18-19

Meeting Notes Decision/Reflection Responsible Party

Follow-up

Analyzed student samples. Discussed how Blake learns. Discussed use of task cards with long division

The special education will model the task card strategy and give copies to the general educator. Blake will use task cards in both classes and at-home practice

Special educator General educator

10-25-19 Review student samples with using task card

10-25-19

Meeting Notes Decision/Reflection Responsible Party

Follow-up

Reviewed the student samples. Blake was meeting goal of completing 85% of long division equations correctly on each attempt.

The student made growth in grade-level division skills evidence by averaging 85% for grade-level division equations Continue to use the same student sample measure to collect other grade- level math skills to show growth and be proactive in making sure Blake is successful. Collaboration was time well spent.

Special educator General educator

Set a date later to reflect on continued success with long division and monitor other math skills.

119

N o

ve m

b er

/D ec

em b

er 2

0 20

student with a learning disability. In his IEP

meeting, goals were written to increase his

math skills, and he receives specialized

instruction to achieve this goal. Mr. Juarez

would like to gather more information about

Blake’s current performance level in completing

long division problems. Blake has had difficulty

meeting his math IEP goal, which states that he

will correctly solve an average of at least 85% of

long division problems on each attempt. Mr.

Juarez arranges a meeting with Ms. Shah to

discuss how to gather information to determine

Blake’s current performance level and his

current strategies to perform the necessary

calculations to meet his IEP goal. At their

initial meeting, they decide that they need to

choose a data collection method. Both teachers

want opportunities to observe Blake while he is

solving the equations and to ask that he talk

out loud the steps to take to arrive at the right

answer. Mr. Juarez documents the quick

collaboration meeting notes on a shared

electronic document. A meeting is arranged for

October 11, 2019, to share observations and

discuss data collection (see Figure 2).

Step 2: Teachers Meet Again to Discuss Student Observations

The teachers meet 1 week later to discuss the observations that each teacher made while Blake solved his long division equations in daily math class. They engage in collaborative discussion skills, including listening, evaluating, and brainstorming (Eccleston, 2010).

October 11, 2019

Mr. Juarez and Ms. Shah meet to discuss

Blake’s strengths and concerns with solving

long division problems, after observing him in

their classrooms while he was solving the

equations. Both teachers discuss the procedure

and errors that Blake is consistently making.

They decide that they need to collect consistent

data to make some decisions to teach Blake the

same way in each classroom to improve his

long division skills. Each teacher shares ideas

for gathering data on Blake’s progress. They

discuss two options. The first is saving samples

of student work from both classes. The second

is to give a formative assessment daily to

gather a percentage of correctly solved

grade-level division equations. The teachers

mutually decide to collect student samples of

Blake’s division equations completed in both

classes. Ms. Shah notes that Blake is having

difficulty recalling the correct procedure when

completing long division equations in her class.

Mr. Juarez, however, is not seeing this concern

when observing Blake complete similar

equations. Therefore, a decision to collect

samples in both environments may help to

answer instructional questions. A follow-up

date of October 18, 2019, is chosen to evaluate

examples collected and to draw some

conclusions about changing student instruction.

The meeting information is entered into the

shared electronic documentation (see

Figure 2).

Step 3: Teachers Meet Again to Review the Collected Student Samples

The teachers meet again to review the work samples from Blake completing long division. The teachers engage in problem solving as they analyze his work (Carter et al., 2009). They discuss the student’s individual learning characteristics and needs (Friend & Bursuck, 2019). They demonstrate teacher efficacy as they work together with the belief that their student will be successful (Bandura, 1993).

October 18, 2019

The teachers meet again with the samples

of Blake’s work. They decide to trade work

samples, analyze the errors, and look for

consistent patterns of following the correct

long division procedure. It becomes clear that

Blake has fewer errors in the samples from

Mr. Juarez’s class, even though he still is not

reaching 85%. Mr. Juarez and Ms. Shah

discuss the way that each taught the

procedure for long division, the materials

used, and the amount of scaffolding support

provided for Blake as he worked. The

teachers discuss how Blake was successful in

the past and the way that he learns best. He

demonstrated some procedural memory

problems in past math skills, so Mr. Juarez

uses a task card for Blake to reference for

the long division procedure. Ms. Shah asks

for a copy of the task card so that she can

provide it in her classroom for Blake as well.

They decide to give Blake one more week to

consistently use the task card in both

environments and will make task cards for

him to take home to practice. The general

education class has completed solving long

division as a whole; however, Blake has not

yet met his goal, so he will have extra

problems to practice until his goal is

achieved. A follow-up date of October 25,

2019, was chosen to meet again to look at

work samples for growth. The meeting

information was entered on the shared

electronic document.

Step 4: Final Meeting

The teachers meet for one last meeting to share the results of Blake’s long division samples in both classrooms. They evaluate the success of the decisions that they made (DaFonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017).

October 25, 2019

Mr. Juarez and Ms. Shah meet to review

Blake’s long division problem samples. They

determine that Blake was making growth in

grade-level division skills, as evidenced by his

correctly solving an average of at least 85% for

grade-level division equations in both settings.

They evaluate the procedure that Blake is

using to solve the long division problems and

find that he is using a consistent procedure to

get the correct answers.

Results and Reflection

Teachers reflect together in dialogue about the results of the decisions made during the quick collaborative meetings (LeDoux et al., 2012).

The teachers conclude that collaborating to

make a decision about student instruction is

time well spent. They also decide that

analyzing samples of student work for errors

and areas of success is an authentic and

successful data collection. Blake is successfully

using long division and meeting his goal of

85%. The teachers decide that they will meet to

analyze Blake’s other grade-level math skills

as the year progresses to look for growth and

to be proactive in making sure that he is

learning successfully. The results and

reflection from the chosen actions are entered

into the shared electronic document (see

Figure 2).

Conclusion A quick collaborative meeting is a process that allows a special education teacher and a general education teacher to focus a purpose about a student concern and to promote success of a shared student. Through defined quick collaboration steps, the opportunity for student success and growth is addressed. Focusing on one purpose at a time, determining who is responsible, completing tasks, reflecting, and documenting allow special education and general education teachers to use their limited time productively. With these procedures, teachers realize the impact of collaboration for their own improved teaching and classroom practice.

120

TE A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

o na

l C hi

ld re

n, V

o l.

53 , N

o . 2

FunDInG

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Kristine Black, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA, and Pamela Hill, Grande Reserve Elementary School, Yorkville, IL, USA.

Address correspondence concerning this article to Kristine Black, Northern Illinois University, 9125 Walker Road, DeKalb, IL 60115-2828, USA (e-mail: black.kristine@gmail .com).

ORCID ID

Kristine Black https://orcid.org/0000- 0003-0011-3198

REFEREnCES

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148. https:// doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

Carter, N., Prater, M. A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009). Educators’ perceptions of collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure: An Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54(1), 60–70. https://doi. org/10.3200/PSFL.54.1.60-70

Conderman, G. (2016). How to collaborate through teams. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2016.1156513

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2010). The state of the art of collaboration on behalf of the students with disabilities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 1–8. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535398

Council for Exceptional Children. (2017). News from CEC: High-leverage practices in special

education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49, 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0040059917713206

DaFonte, A., & Barton-Arwood, S. (2017). Collaboration of general and special education teachers: Perspectives and strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1053451217693370

Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.

Donohoo, J., & Katz, S. (2017). When teachers believe, students achieve. The Learning Professional, 38(6), 20–27.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community?” Educational Leadership, 66(4), 6–11.

Eccleston, S. (2010). Successful collaboration: Four essential traits of effective special education. The Journal of International Association of Special Education, 11, 40–47.

Evans, C., & Weiss, S. (2014). Teachers working together: How to communicate, collaborate, and facilitate positive behavior in inclusive classrooms. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15, 142–146.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (2019). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Pearson.

Fuchs, W. (2009–2010). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion. SRATE Journal, 19(1), 30–35.

Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E. S., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121, 501–530. https:// doi.org/10.1086/681925

Goddard, Y. L., Miller, R., Larson, R., Goddard, R., Madsen, J., & Schroeder, P. (2010, May). Connecting principal leadership, teacher collaboration, and student achievement [Paper presentation]. American Educational

Research Association annual meeting, Denver, CO, United States.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108- 446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400.

Kinsella-Meier, M., & Gala, N. (2016). Definitions and explorations of an essential partnership. Odyssey, 4–8.

LeDoux, C., Graves, S., & Burt, W. (2012, winter). Meeting the needs of special education students in inclusion classrooms. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 20–34.

McLeaskey, J., Barringer, M., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017). High leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

Murawski, W. (2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8–15. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/004005991204400401

Olson, A., Leko, M. M., & Roberts, C. A. (2016). Providing students with severe disabilities access to the general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41, 143–157. https://doi .org/10.1177/1540796916651975

Ronfedlt, M., Owens-Farmer, S., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831215585562

Vannest, K., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2009). Teacher time use in special education, Remedial and Special Education, 31, 126–142. https://doi .org/10.1177/0741932508327459

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 114–120. Copyright 2020 The Author(s).

SAGE Track is a web-based peer review and submission system powered by ScholarOne® Manuscripts The entire process, from article submission to acceptance for publication, is handled online through the SAGE Track website. Over 700 of our journals are now on SAGE Track, which has a graphical interface that will guide you through a simple and speedy submission with step-by-step prompts.

SAGE Track makes it easy to: • Submit your articles online

• Publish your research faster

• Track the progress of your article online

• Submit revisions and resubmissions through automatic linking

Authors! Submit your article online with SAGE Track

To submit a manuscript, please visit:

journals.sagepub.com Select a journal and click on the Submit Paper tab for detailed instructions for submission.

Peer Reviewers

sagepub.com/reviewerrewards

FIND OUT MORE

Thank you for your generously donated time and effort We appreciate your contribution and are grateful to you for helping authors develop their papers.

If you have reviewed for a SAGE journal you are entitled to:

• 60 days access to all SAGE journals

• 60 days access to e-book and e-reference platform SAGE Knowledge and methods platform SAGE Research Methods

• 25% discount on SAGE books