Co-Teaching Inclusion Model: Perceptions of General and Special Education Attitudes and Student Achievemen

Since the inception of ESEA of 1965 student achievement has been one focus on public education. Fast-forward to NCLB of 2001, a reenactment of the ESEA of 1965; school leaders have been pushed to demonstrate student achievement to all learners. With increased demands to close the achievement gap and track struggling learners co-teaching models have become increasingly popular in public schools.;This study took place in a public high school located in the Southwest region of the United States. The study consisted of mix-methods using both quantitative and qualitative measurements. The study examined student achievement among general education and special education students who participated in co-teaching model core classes. Academic achievement using quarter one and quarter two benchmark assessment findings were compared between general education and special education students.;The ATTMS survey was administered to both general education and special education teachers who work in co-teaching model classes in English, mathematics, science, and social studies in the study school. The survey was distributed to 23 teachers at FKHS and secure software was used to ensure the survey respondents remained anonymous. The survey consisted of nine Likert-scaled questions to measure teacher attitudes toward teaching all students.;After the survey was administered, five general education and five special education teachers volunteered for a one-hour focus group interview. The interview was transcribed and common response sub-items were discovered.;The quantitative results did not show a significant difference between academic achievement among general education and special education students enrolled in co-teaching model classes in each of the core content areas. The focus group interview portion of the study revealed several response sub-items from general education and special education teachers who participate in co-teaching model classes. Teachers did not provide negative feedback during the focus group, rather they provided positive input regarding the need for more support to ensure all students are successful. The survey question teachers responded to were not necessarily supported by the focus group discussion. Interestingly the focus group discussed the interpretations of the survey questions and most of the survey questions were not fully supported by the focus group discussion. The response sub-items provided more insight as to why respondents selected positive, negative, and neutral choices. Overall teachers had a vested interest in all of the students they serve including students with mild to moderate disabilities.