HLP 1

Effective professional collaboration benefits educators’ effectiveness and student outcomes. Ronfeldt et al. (2015), in a study that included more than 9,000 educator observations and administrative and student data, found that educators participating more frequently and with more satisfaction in team activities, especially those related to assessments, produced relatively higher student achievement than educators with less frequent and less satisfying team interactions. Ronfeldt et al., concluded that a causal relationship exists between collaboration and student outcomes.

Although the research about collaborative outcomes related to students with disabilities is limited, there are some encouraging findings related to co-teaching. In a meta-analysis of 26 studies comparing the academic achievement of students with disabilities in co-taught vs. self-contained classes, King-Sears et al. (2021) suggested that instruction that allows for the combined content and instructional expertise of general and special educators should be more effective for students with as well as those without disabilities. They found students with disabilities in co-taught classes had higher academic achievement compared to those in self-contained settings. However, they advised that findings should be interpreted with caution given inadequate information about student characteristics across these two types of classrooms and insufficient descriptions of the instructional practices used in these settings. Vembye et al. (2022) also investigated the effects of collaborative teaching and found that collaborative teaching had a positive and significant effect on student achievement when compared to single-taught or special education instruction. They concluded that their review provides “unambiguous evidence for the effectiveness of collaborative models of instruction on student achievement” (p. 34). 

Collaboration is also important to educators’ professional learning and efficacy. The use of single-day professional development experiences is not effective in facilitating educator learning (De Jong et al., 2022). Instead, professionals who collaborate to make sense of professional learning, to challenge one another in implementation, and then to refine their practice through reflection and deliberate dialogue are more likely to change practice because it is embedded in their daily work context (De Jong et al., 2022). One example of this collaborative learning is lesson study. Originally used in schools in Japan, lesson study is a collaborative process whereby educators work together to develop lessons, implement the lessons, and then reflect on the successes and areas for improvement together (Benedict et al., 2023). In a review of research on lesson study and lesson studyrelated practices (e.g., co-teaching, professional learning communities), Norwich et al. (2021) found that educators “increased their ability in devising pedagogical solutions to student needs,” “assisted them in developing insight,” “enabled teaching assistants to have a fully participator role,” and “successful bridging between theory and practice” (p. 323). In another review of research, Benedict and colleagues (2023) found the collaborative approach in lesson study changed educators’ learning, including changes to knowledge and motivation. Given a structured, supported, collaborative process, lesson study is one example of how educators learn together within their dayto-day context and change their practice. These effects are not limited to change in practice. In a review of special educator attrition and retention literature, special educators who experienced a shared or collective sense of responsibility with colleagues were more likely to indicate intent to remain in their jobs compared to those who did not experience such support (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Lastly, in a systematic synthesis on school leadership, one of four key behaviors of principals that influence student learning is facilitating productive collaboration and professional learning communities (Grissom et al., 2021). Thus, positive and productive collaboration has the potential to improve educator learning and effectiveness, student achievement, and educator retention.

As a regular practice, culturally inclusive educators continuously reflect on their own potential blind spots (e.g., biases, assumptions, cultural perspectives, world view) that may influence their approach to collaboratively planning, teaching, and making data-based decisions with other professionals. This is particularly important when supporting students and families who come from diverse communities, lived experiences, and cultures. For instance, educators’ own cultural background, previous experiences, and training may not sufficiently appreciate the unique needs and strengths of students who come to school speaking a language other than English. In such instances, educators should seek out expertise in culturally inclusive pedagogies and practices (CIPP), to create an IEP and learning environment that prioritizes their students’ unique needs and intersectionality. To be clear, does the IEP team have sufficient professional expertise when discussing a student’s language, behavior, social-emotional functioning, and learning needs? Do collaborative team discussions intentionally compare a student’s performance and behavior with other students from a similar cultural and linguistic background? If not, why not and how can this be remedied? Lastly, although further described in HLP 3, professionals must learn how to effectively collaborate with families from communities different from their own to ensure their expertise is appropriately considered when interpreting data, planning, and making necessary adjustments to instruction.