Inclusive Professional Learning Communities and Special Education Collaboration: A Qualitative Case Study in Texas

Abstract

This qualitative descriptive case study explored the perceptions of six general education and six special education teachers regarding their joint participation in professional learning communities (PLCs) in a rural district in Texas. Through semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, two major categories emerged: (1) the differentiated roles of special education teachers within PLCs and (2) the collaborative construction of pedagogical strategies based on interdisciplinary teamwork. Both of the teacher groups described the contributions of their counterparts as integral to their teaching effectiveness and spoke of the need for protected time for PLC team meetings and the inclusion of special education teachers in PLCs. Although existing literature acknowledges the importance of PLCs, few studies critically examined how special education teachers contribute to shared planning and pedagogical decision-making alongside their general education colleagues. The findings suggest that inclusive PLCs can become collaborative ecosystems that redefine teacher education and innovation in diverse educational contexts.

1. Introduction

Improving student learning remains a critical focus in the United States (U. S.) and abroad. Under the requirements of the 1990 federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and subsequent updates and amendments added to that law, students with disabilities (SWD) who are eligible to receive special education and related services are entitled to receive free and appropriate public education (FAPE) within the least restrictive environment (LRE). Schools must accommodate or modify to meet the student’s needs (Lovett, 2021). Previous U. S. federal laws, such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) and the current Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (U.S. Department of Education, 2015), require districts and schools to close the achievement gap and educate all students to high standards. Nevertheless, the achievement gap has closed at a slow rate for Texas students receiving special education services (King-Sears et al., 2021).

With increasing school accountability in the U. S., it is essential to explore ways to improve student achievement for all students, including students with disabilities. According to the 45th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2024), in the fall of 2021, 95.2% or 6,553,058 of the 6,881,439 students with disabilities ages 5 through 21 who were served under IDEA, Part B, were educated with their peers without disabilities for at least some portion of the school day. Two-thirds (66.7%) received instruction in the regular class for 80% or more of the day, 16% for 40–79% of the day, and 12.5% for less than 40% of the day. The remaining 4.8% were educated outside the regular classroom. As a result, there is growing acknowledgement of the need to increase collaboration among general and special education teachers and to engage them as essential problem solvers to ensure learning for all students.

A program adopted to help teachers collaboratively enhance student learning in the U. S. and abroad is the implementation of professional learning communities (PLCs). Despite the growing use of PLCs in school reform, there is limited empirical research that explores how special education teachers experience and contribute to these communities, particularly in rural districts. A search in Scopus related to how general education and special education teachers perceive the effects of integrating special education teachers into PLCs yielded no results.

As DuFour et al. (2008) stressed, there are certain characteristics of a functioning PLC. Findings from an earlier study that examined the inclusion of special education teachers within the PLC setting revealed that involving special education teachers offered a valuable addition to supporting the achievement of students with disabilities (McConnell et al., 2012). Despite the general education teachers’ responsibility to support all students in achieving success (Clausen et al., 2023), teacher teams’ collaborative solutions for solving their instructional problems are at the forefront of the shared work of a PLC design. To move toward collaborative solutions suggests that special education teachers’ participation with general education teachers in PLCs can impact the learning of all students, especially students with disabilities. Yet, existing approaches to collaboration between special and general education teachers are limited, often remaining at the level of procedural articulation without addressing the core dimensions of collaboration, its levels, or its broader goals beyond inclusion. Most recent PLC research focused on general education teacher PLCs, while research that relates to the achievement of students with disabilities through the involvement of special education teachers in PLCs is limited. To close this gap, we sought to examine general and special education teachers’ perceptions about the effects of involving special education teachers in building-level PLCs and the resulting impact on the learning of all students, including students with disabilities. In light of existing strategies focused on general education teachers in PLCs, and the lack of information pertinent to the involvement of special education teachers in PLCs from the perspective of both general and special education teachers, a qualitative research approach was utilized in this study.

2. Professional Learning Communities

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) changed the focus of schools to be more mindful of the imperative that every child must be granted the opportunity to learn and placed student achievement at the forefront of how schools operate and are evaluated. Thus, the achievement and accountability reform requirements of U. S. federal acts have driven school leaders to move teacher professional development beyond a focus on mere acquisition of new knowledge and skills (Middlestead, 2020). Researchers contend that the most effective way to support students is to engage teachers in PLCs (Boom-Muilenburg et al., 2021; Voelkel et al., 2021). More specifically, studies show that PLCs provide opportunities and structures where teachers learn together and work collaboratively to monitor and support student learning (Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017; Voelkel et al., 2021).

While definitions differ, for this study we used the De Neve et al. (2015) definition of a PLC as “a school organization in which a group of teachers share and question their practice from a critical point of view. This questioning happens in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, and inclusive way” (p. 32). DuFour et al. (2008) stated that teachers’ curiosity for learning and having a place where educators are encouraged to be open to new possibilities provides the engine for growth. When a PLC team functions well, teachers enjoy that engine for growth as they develop new skills and capabilities which lead to new experiences. This process for what Senge (2000) called personal mastery belongs to everyone; however, this new learning does not happen just by chance. It requires the learner’s interest to be sparked, often a factor of PLC teams that include special education teachers.

Several key components of PLC work are needed for the success of collaborative work. One of the most central is that of the vision of the group. The vision creates excitement and professional growth among educators (Senge, 1990) which, in turn, supports teachers moving from an isolated mindset and separated arrangements for professional learning to a more collaborative mindset and arrangements and networking opportunities to support students’ growth (DuFour et al., 2008). This is especially true for special education teachers who tend to focus their conversations and development of support networks on involvement with other special education teacher colleagues through PLCs (Cornelius & Gustafson, 2021). Yet, in some schools or districts, special education teachers may not be provided opportunities to problem-solve and engage in conversations with general education teachers in PLCs about the students with disabilities they serve (Ahn et al., 2024; Thacker, 2013). Nevertheless, if all students, including students with disabilities, are to learn to their maximum potential, special education teachers must be allowed to collaborate with general education teachers through PLCs (McLeskey et al., 2019).

3. General Teachers and Special Education Teachers in PLCs

There is a plethora of research around the creation and implementation of PLCs for general education teachers; however, research about the inclusion of special education teachers and other personnel assigned to work with students with disabilities is limited (Goddard, 2023; Hamilton, 2013). That need was the basis of our study, since few previous studies examined the relationship between general education and special education teachers and the role of each in PLCs.

Creating an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities requires a cooperative and collaborative arrangement between general and special education teachers and the ability to engage together in decision-making and cooperative problem-solving endeavors (Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2023). Bemiller (2019) reported that, in a northeast Ohio school district, approximately 70% of general education teachers voiced a preference for PLCs on a weekly or monthly basis, albeit working with special education teachers was not highlighted. In a separate study of professional learning opportunities offered to special education teachers from seven school districts in Connecticut, special education teachers were placed in PLCs to learn from one another, examine data, and receive updates on their work and responsibilities relevant to their role as special educators and their identity development (Woulfin & Jones, 2021), separate from any interaction with general education teachers.

In reference to findings from previous studies on the benefits of PLCs that focused on student learning and school improvement, Blanton and Perez (2011) inferred the following:

• When special education teachers are involved in PLCs, general education teachers will acquire more knowledge about how to work with students who are struggling in their classrooms and special education teachers will be able to make linkages between the needs of this student population and the general education curriculum.
• Special education teachers who, due to their smaller numbers and marginalization and isolation from the general education teachers, will become a more central participant within the school community through their involvement in PLCs which, in turn, will contribute to a shared culture of learning and safe environment for addressing key educational issues within the school.

Thacker (2013) examined two Texas school districts to ascertain the extent to which involvement in PLCs over the course of 3 years yielded improved performance on 5th grade reading and mathematics state-mandated assessments for students with disabilities. While schools in one school district had implemented PLCs for three years when the study took place, schools in the second district had not yet implemented PLCs. Findings revealed a significant difference in the achievement of students with disabilities in reading and mathematics in PLC school districts versus non-PLC districts.

Other researchers examined the relationship between general education teachers and special education teachers and their roles in PLCs. Robbins (2013) conducted a qualitative study examining the perceptions of general and special education high school teachers who taught together to help students with disabilities and participated in the same PLC. The author focused on discovering how their involvement in the shared PLC helped them to (a) improve their collaboration and co-teaching relationships, (b) achieve common goals, and (c) work interdependently to support and facilitate students’ academic progress. The author found that both general and special education teachers benefited from participating in the same PLC and were able to bring multiple perspectives that contributed to their own growth as well as the growth of other teachers involved in the same PLC. The PLC provided “protected time” (p. 78) for them to work together and strengthen their relationships and helped them learn how to analyze student data and collaboratively plan how to deliver instruction. Participants stressed the importance of systematically assigning co-teachers to PLCs, keeping the PLC membership the same for several years, and placing co-teachers in classrooms and PLCs based on the teachers’ needs and teaching assignments rather than the school’s needs and scheduling conveniences.

Hamilton (2013) examined PLC schools versus non-PLC schools regarding student achievement outcomes based on the state’s academic performance index (a battery of tests that measured the student’s yearly growth and academic performance in the state of California). No significant differences in student performance were found by school type and grade level for the students with disabilities subgroup. On the other hand, Thacker (2013) analyzed the performance of student subgroups, including both elementary and middle school students in the special education subgroup, for a district that used PLCs effectively versus a district that did not use PLCs. Based on pre- and post-test results, there was a significant difference between how well students with disabilities performed on mathematics and reading assessments in schools where special education teachers participated in PLCs, as opposed to schools where special education teachers were not involved as members of the PLC.

At times, school leaders and teachers believe that they operate at the level of a true PLC. A closer look at the definition provided by Hord (2009) and the model put forth by DuFour et al. (2016) reveals that some PLC meetings are not collaborative for addressing student needs. Similarly, Schechter and Feldman (2019) examined the leader’s role in creating a PLC within a special education school that served students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The authors determined that involving special education teachers in PLC meetings with regular teachers resulted in students’ academic growth. However, when examining the PLC environment, they discovered that conversations that occurred within these meetings were more closely related to addressing the needs of individual students rather than operating as a true PLC.

More recent research studies investigated the ways in which PLCs can be used to translate the collaborative nature of PLCs into a positive culture that works on behalf of marginalized student populations, including students with disabilities (Jarvie & Waldow, 2021; Wexler et al., 2024). Turnbull et al. (2018) advanced the use of PLCs as an effective strategy for achieving a “sustained, pervasive, and effective change in how educators think about and practice special education” (p. 138).

4. Conceptual Framework

Our literature review highlighted strong evidence for incorporating PLCs that include special education teachers. For purposes of this study, we based our conceptual framework on the aspects of the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC model. That particular model includes six characteristics: (a) shared mission, vision, values, and goals; (b) collective inquiry; (c) collaborative teams; (d) action orientation; (e) commitment to continuous improvement; and (f) results orientation. We chose to embed that model into our framework because the case study district adopted it as their PLC structure. Our resulting framework includes the concepts of special education teachers working with general education teachers through joint participation in a PLC for the success of all students. Figure 1 depicts how this combination works.

The research question that guided this study was: What are general and special education teachers’ perceptions about the effects of including special education teachers in campus PLCs and the resulting impact on the learning of all students, including students with disabilities?

5. Method

To explore the perceptions of special education and general education teachers regarding how their joint participation in a PLC team impacted student learning, we utilized a qualitative descriptive case study research design and approach. According to Brantlinger et al. (2005), qualitative research designs enable researchers to “explore attitudes, opinions, and beliefs” of individuals who are “involved in special education” as well as “special education contexts and teaching strategies” (p. 196) and examine their reactions to such contexts and strategies. A case study involves the exploration of a specific group within a bounded system (Merriam, 1998) which, for this study, involved the perceptions of general and special education teachers within one school district, teachers who participated in a PLC where both types of teachers were present. Six general education teachers who taught either mathematics or reading and six special education teachers were recruited to participate in semi-structured one-on-one interviews from the four schools (two elementary, one middle, and one high school) of the studied district. The 12 teachers participated in PLC teams within schools that were representative of the elementary, middle, and high school grade configurations and district demographics.

5.1. Context of the Study

Prior to conducting this study, approval was obtained from the university’s institutional review board (IRB) and all requirements stipulated by the IRB related to human participant protections were followed throughout the study. This study was conducted in the Pleasantville Independent School District (PISD) (pseudonym), located within the boundaries of four small towns in the northeastern part of Texas. This rural district covers over 89 square miles, serves more than 3000 students, and houses one high school, one middle school, and two elementary schools. According to the Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) (TEA, 2019), about 300 students are served in special education in this district. PISD was purposively selected as the case study district because they include special education teachers in all their PLCs. This district includes schools that feed into each other from elementary to middle school to high school. Teachers from multiple PLC teams in each school were recruited to determine teachers’ perceptions of the degree of PLC effectiveness and the perceived effects on student success when PLCs included special education teachers. The PLC groups were established on each campus based on teacher content. Special education teachers were included in PLCs based on whether they predominantly taught inclusion in that content area or the resource classes they taught were in that content area.

5.2. Participant Selection

Teachers in the case study district completed a questionnaire prior to participant selection and then were placed on a list for interview recruitment which included questions to determine whether the PLC teams were high or low functioning. The criteria for recruitment included survey-respondent teachers being listed as teaching either special education or general education. General education teachers were investigated further to determine if they were teaching either mathematics or reading-related content to special education students.

From that process, six special education teachers and six general education teachers were identified then recruited for semi-structured, one-on-one interviews. Recruited teachers had an average of 12 or more years of teaching experience and all had at least 3 years’ experience on the PLC team. All 12 recruited teachers accepted the invitation to be interviewed. Four were included at each of the three levels of education (elementary, middle, and high school). Elementary teachers included one mathematics general education teacher and one special education teacher at one campus and one reading general teacher and one special education teacher at the other campus. This allowed for differing viewpoints from each campus, although both elementary schools feed into one middle school. The four middle school teachers consisted of one mathematics and one reading general education teacher as well as one special education teacher who taught mathematics and one who taught reading. On the high school campus, one general education teacher who taught mathematics and one who taught reading were interviewed, along with one special education teacher who taught mathematics and one special education teacher who taught reading.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Pseudonym	Grade Level Group	Teaching Assignment	Content Area
Teacher A	Elementary	General Education	Reading
Teacher B	High School	General Education	Reading
Teacher C	Elementary	Special Education	Reading
Teacher D	High School	Special Education	Reading
Teacher E	High School	General Education	Mathematics
Teacher F	Elementary	Special Education	Mathematics
Teacher G	Middle School	General Education	Reading
Teacher H	Middle School	Special Education	Mathematics
Teacher I	High School	Special Education	Mathematics
Teacher J	Middle School	Special Education	Reading
Teacher K	Middle School	General Education	Mathematics
Teacher L	Elementary	General Education	Mathematics

shows the categories of the 12 teacher participants.

5.3. Data Collection Tool and Procedures

An open-ended interview protocol (see Appendix A) was developed for conducting individual, semi-structured interviews. Once teachers who met the criteria were identified, study participants were sent an invitation via e-mail to participate in a one-on-one interview. The lead author of the study conducted each interview in person at the participant’s campus at a time and location convenient for the participant. Questions focused on determining the teacher participants’ perception of the benefit of involving and utilizing input provided by special education teachers in PLCs. A secondary goal of the interview questions was to provide guidance to both general and special education teachers and school administrators about how special education teachers’ inclusion in PLCs can impact student learning and achievement, as described during the interviews. The one-on-one interviews ranged from 25 to 40 min in length and, with participant permission, were audio recorded using the researcher’s personal recorder then were transcribed by Rev.com™ (San Francisco, CA and Austin, TX, USA), a third-party transcribing company.

5.4. Data Analysis Strategies

The interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative data analysis procedures. After the audio recordings were submitted to Rev.com (accessed on 19 February 2022) for transcription, the transcribed interviews were read once by the lead author, to gain a holistic perspective, then were re-read while listening to the audio recording, to ensure accuracy of the transcript. To ensure credibility, all transcripts were returned to participants for validation. After transcripts were returned and clarification concerns were addressed, we began the coding process and searched for reoccurring patterns in the data.

For the first phase of the coding process, the first and third author engaged in memo writing and wrote down anything that came to mind as they read through the transcripts, as suggested by Hesse-Biber (2017). They organized chunks of text throughout the memoing process to provide a word or picture for that set of text, as described by Creswell and Creswell (2022). Generated words or pictures were then compiled into codes and categories. Additionally, the second and fourth author independently coded a 30% sample of interviews to assess inter-coder agreement. Data saturation was reached after analyzing 10 interviews, as no new themes emerged. The final two interviews confirmed and enriched the existing thematic structure. Two major themes emerged from those categories: teacher role and function in the school versus on PLC teams, and teacher teamwork.

6. Positionality

According to Brantlinger et al. (2005), researchers must possess experience related to their research focus and must be “reflective” and “introspective” (p. 197) about their potential beliefs and biases throughout the research process. Each of the researchers in this study has extensive experience working in one or more of the following areas: general and special education in K-12 schools, school administration, teacher education and leadership preparation, and PLCs. In addition, one of the researchers received special education and related services when attending K-12 schools. These experiences, in concert with the research literature, contributed to our attitudes and beliefs, the framing of the research design, and the following premises upon which this study was based: (a) students who receive special education services may be underserved by PLCs if special education teachers are not part of the teams, and (b) some general education teachers may be unable to support students with disabilities in their classroom. Throughout the data analysis process, we wrote analytic memos of our ideas prompted by the transcripts. After we reviewed those ideas, we then met to reflect upon and discuss our codes and guard against allowing any biases to influence our understanding and interpretation of the data, a strategy strongly recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2022). After several iterations of coding and interpreting the data and questioning one another on whether the emerged codes and themes aligned with the DuFour et al. (2008) characteristics of PLCs, we were able to reach consensus.

7. Findings

The findings are presented according to the two themes that emerged from the qualitative data. Both themes paint a picture of general and special education teachers’ views of the PLC process. Regarding Theme 1 (teacher role and function), all 12 teachers tied the function they and others fulfilled in the PLC to the role they served at the school. This theme is representative of four of the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristics: (a) shared mission, vision, values, and goals; (b) collective inquiry; (c) action orientation; and (d) results orientation. Regarding Theme 2 (the importance of teamwork), all participants were adamant about the support and close working relationship they created with their counterpart though the inclusion of special education teachers in PLCs. Theme 2 is representative of the final two of the PLC characteristics: (a) collaborative teams and (b) commitment to continuous improvement as well as collective inquiry, action orientation, results orientation and, to a lesser extent, shared mission, vision, values, and goals. A closer analysis of the findings that support each theme follows.

7.1. Theme 1: Teacher Role and Function in the School Versus on PLC Teams

Generally, both general and special education teachers saw their counterparts’ role and function in the school differently from how they fulfilled their role and function on PLC teams. General education teachers looked to their special education teacher counterparts to play a support role and serve as a compliance and accountability partner while special education teachers characterized general education teachers’ roles as critical to the larger aspect of the classroom and ensuring student learning was taking place. Despite the differences in how they viewed one another’s roles, both sets of teachers held to a shared mission, vision, values, and goals to positively impact the learning outcomes of the students they served.

7.1.1. Role and Function in the School

General education teacher participants characterized a special education teacher’s function in the school as someone who works either with small groups of students or side-by-side with the general education teacher. At the same time, several of those teachers relegated the special education teacher’s role to supporting the general education teacher to ensure they were adhering to the expectations of the student’s individual education program (IEP). Teacher G reported her understanding of a special education teacher’s role in terms of staying on track with paperwork and students’ accommodations: “They assist us with making sure that our accommodations and our paperwork are on straight. Therefore, we can facilitate better to our students who need special accommodations within either a general ed classroom or in an inclusion classroom.” This relates specifically to the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristic of results orientation.

Teacher L confirmed the need to be held accountable for providing the necessary accommodations, underscoring the important role the special education teacher plays in supporting students and their understanding of the course content, and named their collaborative work as a critical component. This teacher stated:

Their job is to support. Well, I mean, really, it’s a team effort, to support the students in being successful with the content that’s being taught. So, the special education teacher is there to support what’s already happening in the classroom. And then I believe the gen ed teacher and the special education teacher should work in a collaborative team to make sure that the students are being successful with that content.

That comment again shows alignment with the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristic of action and results orientation, as well as the characteristic of collective inquiry.

Special education teachers’ views about the role of the general education teacher, however, were much different. They viewed the overall role of a general education teacher as one who teaches the curriculum to the students, facilitates learning, and works with students on their level. For example, special education Teacher F, who served as a general education teacher for nearly 14 years before becoming a special education teacher, drew from previous experience and provided an in-depth report about the work of an elementary general education teacher. This teacher noted that beyond the responsibility to work with students academically and understand the state’s grade-level state standards, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), general education teachers are tasked with ministering to the students’ social and emotional wellbeing and maintaining relationships with 20 plus students and their parents. According to Teacher F,

Elementary general education teachers] are in charge of at least 20 students, their social wellbeing, their emotional wellbeing, and their academic success. She or he needs to make contact and relationships with parents and build relationships with each of the students. Otherwise, she’s not going to get any of that social and emotional success or academic success. You are responsible for them all day long, minus the 30 or 40 min you get when they go somewhere else; I mean to rotations. Then of course, understanding of all the required TEKS for whatever grade level that you teach.

After a pause, Teacher F added several non-instructional duties that general education teachers are expected to fulfill, based on “whatever the principal asks you to do or any extra thing like lunch duty, after school duty or tutoring.” Other special education teachers’ responses were shorter as they stated that it would take forever to answer the question but noted that the role of a general education teacher is to give the students everything that they need to be successful in the future. Regarding the comments about general education teachers, the special education teachers showed an understanding of the DuFour et al. (2008) characteristic of action orientation.

7.1.2. Role and Function in the PLC

When general and special education teachers were asked to describe their role and function in their school’s PLC, their responses highlighted the importance of each of their roles as well as the need to work together, especially in terms of reviewing data, meeting weekly, and determining how to support student learning. General education teachers, however, offered more information about their role and function on their PLC and how that differs from that of special education teachers.

The general education teachers perceived their role in the PLC team as someone who actively reviews data and looks for any weaknesses that may exist for student learning and students’ areas of growth. All but one general education teacher stated that they work closely together. Teacher E, on the other hand, shared that the PLC framework at her current campus did not align with the PLC she previously experienced; therefore, she was unable to adjust to the school’s PLC or “change things this year.”

Meeting weekly to support the learning of all students was a common theme among 11 of the 12 general and special education teachers. All 12 acknowledged that they met each week, while 11 shared that they analyzed the data they received each week to support student learning. From those 11 teachers, they all reported that they reviewed the data to discover low areas of academic success and drew from that data to determine ways in which they could support students through individual or small-group interventions and the provision of in-class supports. Clearly, these teachers revealed an understanding of the importance of the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristic of having a shared mission, vision, values, and goals in their effort to be action and results orientated for the betterment of all students.

General education Teacher A highlighted the collaborative nature gained from working with the special education teacher to address low areas of student performance on a benchmark assessment and the benefit of planning together so they could target the identified areas needing improvement. As Teacher A explained,

After a benchmark assessment, we will sit down, and we will talk about students. What areas were low, what areas where high, and how do we need to address those low areas together, especially with some of our special education students, and what things could be planned with those teachers, so that when she has got them and she is working with them, if she pulls them out in her classroom, she knows what their areas of weakness are and what we are targeting in class.

Likewise, Teacher B spoke about the ability to develop “hands-on activities” for students in concert with the special education teacher. Along with the special education teachers on the English PLC team, they were able to generate more ideas for both group and independent hands-on activities. Teacher B commented:

In our PLC, we came together, and we collaborated on different hands-on activities that our students can do. We call them arcs, like hands-on bucket activities. It’s kind of like in elementary school where the students go and get the bucket. Once they master that bucket, they can put it back and get another one. We decided to incorporate those activities on the high school level. And some of them are group activities and some are independent. But all of the teachers, and our special education teachers for the English team, we all work together on those, coming up with ideas.

Special education Teacher H plainly stated that their team’s PLC motto is “nobody left behind; everybody grows.” Meeting as a team weekly helped ensure the team met that motto. Without doubt, these teachers all viewed the process of collective inquiry (DuFour et al., 2008) as vital for serving all students.

Regarding their perception of their counterpart’s role and function in a PLC, however, participants’ responses varied. The overall viewpoint of how the opposite teacher functions in a campus PLC depended on the amount of time they served as an educator or was based on their previous experiences with another PLC model. Teacher B, a high school general education teacher, indicated that the role and function of a special education teacher in PLCs is to offer support for their general education colleagues within the special education community so they could be successful. Teachers G and K, both middle school general education teachers, saw the role and function of a special education teacher in PLCs as someone who works directly with the general education teacher. Teacher G shared that the special education teacher served as a safety net and consultant who (a) helped to examine data for a student with a disability to determine whether accommodations or modifications needed adjusting, and (b) clarified questions that arose about how to implement the required accommodations in their instruction. According to Teacher G,

[T]he SPED teachers, their job is to basically make sure that we’re looking at data and comparing it to what their accommodations are actually helping us achieve. If there are some that need to be taken away or some that need to be modified, things like that, that is their job to make sure, because with all the technical jargon, everything that we don’t have, they actually pull in for us and clarify questions that we may have, or they actually give us ideas as well, for ways that we can facilitate those accommodations in certain activities that we do.

Teacher K stated that the special education teachers in her PLC assist her in teaching the content to all students and finding ways to support all her students.

Collectively, both general and special education teachers conceded that the insights brought by special education teachers to their PLC team meetings facilitated their efforts in the classroom to diversify how they taught and provide specially designed instruction for specific students, create differentiated learning activities and assignments in the classroom for all students depending on their mastery of the content, and advocate for students served in special education. Ultimately, the special education teachers’ understanding of differentiation and their ability to break the learning down into smaller chunks for certain students informed the general education teachers of unique ways to address the learning needs of every student, enriching the general education teachers’ instructional arsenal when teaching the curriculum.

7.2. Theme 2: Teacher Teamwork

When asked to discuss how their involvement and contributions in their PLCs increased student achievement, both general and special education teachers underscored the need to meet weekly to discuss their students and stressed the importance of working together as a team. Special and general education teachers shared equally about the benefits involved in jointly participating in PLCs, a clear indication that the majority of both sets of teachers valued the collaborative team effort and collective inquiry process that they engaged in to (a) address their students’ needs through specific actions to achieve positive results and (b) continuously improve in their efforts to do so (DuFour et al., 2008).

7.2.1. Team Effort and Collaboration

General education teachers were asked to share a time when the participation of both general and special education teachers in their PLC facilitated the overall improvement of students’ academic success. The majority of general education teachers spoke to how their collaboration with special education teachers and shared expertise of the special education teachers played a role in their efforts to improve student learning and their overall success. Only one teacher reported that they could not share a time when special education teachers participated and worked well in a PLC to achieve that goal while the other five general education teachers spotlighted the unique contribution that special education teachers offered. Elementary Teacher A, for example, pointed out the advantage of having special education teachers available to provide insight into how to help students who scored low on certain assessments and noted, “That’s what I needed.” High school Teacher B, a new teacher, acknowledged that the growth that occurred in their learning facilitated their ability to contribute to the success of every student in their classrooms. These general education teacher perspectives indicate that they valued the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristic of collaborative teamwork by including special education teachers in their PLC meetings.

In line with holding true to a shared mission, vision, values, and goals and commitment to continuous improvement on behalf of their students (DuFour et al., 2008), general education high school Teacher B accentuated the concept that both sets of teachers are committed to student success and equally involved in that effort together: “Gen-ed teachers really need to understand that our special education teachers are our teammates. They are like the other half of us in class.” Elementary general education Teacher A and special education Teacher C shared a similar perspective with descriptors like “team effort” and “collaboration” when involved in problem-solving efforts on behalf of a particular student, showing how much these teachers valued collaborative teamwork. As shared by Teacher A, “In our PLC, the special education teacher will throw something out that some of the kids might understand a little better, and it almost becomes a team effort in us trying to get something across to the students.” Teacher C extended the concept of collaboration to how what they discussed in their PLCs transferred to application in the classroom: “I almost feel like collaboration carries into the classroom with teaching. We discuss something in PLC, and I see them apply it in class.” Clearly, these two teachers were in sync, both in the classroom and in PLCs.

Teacher L, an elementary general education teacher, reflected on the process that brought special education teachers to the PLC due to the potential contributions they might be able to provide and their unified desire to enable them to be integral members of the team: “We wanted them there and they wanted to be there.” Team members started talking about the data and what they were doing in the classroom. This in turn led to conversations around “How we were going to teach it [the lesson].” Teacher L worked closely with the special education teacher through a team-teaching arrangement in the general education classroom. According to Teacher L, the two bounced ideas off the group and took them back to the class and tried their ideas out to see how they worked. In PLCs, they constantly collaborated and discussed instruction and how to reach all students. Teacher L further stated that “I feel like this changed my view on how important the collaboration piece was in really, truly working together.” Obviously, these teachers adhered to the DuFour et al. (2008) characteristic of a commitment to continuous improvement and took specific actions geared toward achieving specific results in the classroom.

7.2.2. Special Education Teacher’s Knowledge About How Students Learn and Their Contribution to Student Achievement

One central theme from both special education and general education teachers was the support they were able to provide for all students. Special education teachers offered a unique understanding of how to support the growth of every student in their PLCs and brought strategies to the team that the general education teachers had not considered, showing again how much these teachers were focused on their continuous improvement. Due to the focused attention on individualizing learning they encountered and were exposed to in their teacher preparation program, as well as their ongoing professional development, they possessed specific knowledge about how students learn and were able to provide specific suggestions or recommended actions they could take to reach both general and special education students in the general education classroom.

Special Education Teacher’s Perspectives. At the high school level, special education Teacher D shared that her PLC team was reviewing an upcoming lesson on Cleopatra and analyzing the data from the previous year. While discussing the need to provide some “background knowledge” of the period in which the story took place, Teacher D suggested they show a brief video which, in essence, could benefit every student in the classroom. Teacher D described that process this way:

We were talking about Cleopatra and how she croaked, and a lot of students might not know who Cleopatra is. So, I had suggested to show a National Geographic five-minute YouTube video to give the kids some background knowledge. That’s one way that I try to not only strengthen those SPED students in the room but the general education students as well.

Several other special education teachers spoke about the type of support and contributions they made to the PLC team by teaching their general education teacher counterparts how to include special education students in their lessons and how students might best learn the content, again showing a commitment to continuous improvement for supporting all learners. As a member of one of the elementary-level PLCs, special education Teacher F reported a desire to teach teachers how students with disabilities learn and how to present the material according to their learning preferences, saying:

I can teach them [teachers] a way to present material. Okay, well, the students learn this way. The teacher actually comes back and says, oh, that actually works for like three of my kids. All three do really well. And the other two are not special education, they’re just general education students that have that preferred learning style.

A middle school special education teacher, Teacher H, noted that during their PLC meetings, they are often asked how to reach students served by special education. Another middle school special education teacher, Teacher J, shared that when they bring a different perspective to the team about how students learn and how to reach students with and without disabilities, it helps to open the eyes of the general education teachers, providing them with additional ideas of how they can do more to reach students with disabilities in their classroom. These are great examples of collaborative teamwork and collective inquiry. When learning poetry and the imagery represented in the poem, Teacher J gave an example of how she helped her general education teacher counterparts discover how students with disabilities can draw upon their imagination to understand the content and advised them to rely on their students’ ability to use their imagination to teach the content in that unit.

General Education Teachers’ Perspectives. The general education teachers’ insight into the contributions that special education teachers made in their PLC, however, were not as consistent as were the special education teachers. While some general education teachers saw the special education teachers’ contributions to the PLC as integral to their success in the classroom due to the collaborative teamwork and collective inquiry process, others spoke to their reliance of their special education teacher counterparts to make sure they met the requirements of the students’ individualized education programs (IEPs).

The general education high school mathematics teacher, Teacher E, opined that the contributions from the special education teachers’ participation in the PLC had not necessarily contributed to an increase in student achievement, challenging the benefit of incorporating special education teachers into the PLC. However, the general education high school reading teacher, Teacher B, indicated that the input provided by the special education teacher was instrumental in helping them be more successful and, in turn, the special education teacher, through inclusion support, was able to “constantly” grow and learn. According to Teacher B,

I feel like the input that our special education teachers give us in PLC, it adjusts and affects my teaching strategies every single time we talk. All the input that they give us on their students that they’re working with or the things that they’ve seen be successful with a group of students, they openly share that information with us all the time. My inclusion teacher is constantly learning and growing, and she is constantly sharing that information with me.

Teacher B further stated that the special education teacher’s commitment to growth inspired her to learn new instructional strategies to share with the team.

The PLC team at the middle school adopted the motto, “Two heads are better than one,” a great example of the commitment to collaboration as a team. With that motto in place, one of the PLC norms was that everybody’s viewpoint is important, a norm that special education Teacher J affirmed, revealing a commitment to collective inquiry. The insight on how students learn and grow that the special education teachers share in their PLC caused the general education teachers to change how they teach. This notion was further supported with the idea that special education teachers bring a new perspective to the same content. Teacher K stated, “When you have teachers that teach at a higher level, sometimes they don’t know how to reach some of those students that are struggling or that have disabilities.”

One of the teachers at the middle school saw the contributions of special education teachers as nothing more than teachers who could help clarify accommodations. Teacher G, a reading teacher at the middle school, stated that they met with special education teachers only when an accommodation was needed, communicating either by email or any other method of contact. For Teacher G, the characteristics of the PLC did not align with how they functioned with the special education teachers in their school. Yet, Teacher K, a mathematics teacher at the same school, expressed a much different perspective, recognizing the unique expertise of the special education teachers. Teacher K voiced appreciation for how special education teachers think and how they can simplify the learning for students. For example, the mathematics team was working on factoring and Teacher K was struggling with helping all students learn the concept. The special education teacher explained a particular process and volunteered to come demonstrate how to use it. As stated by Teacher K, “The wording he used was a little bit different and the kids really liked it. So now I keep his little saying in my head.” Teacher K further explained:

I’m all for whichever way the kid learns best. So, if they learn from a different method, then I’m fine with you using that. But it was a way that I was never taught. So, seeing them factor that way was pretty cool and the kids really liked it. That’s one way that I have changed my teaching due to special education teachers.

Other general education teachers agreed and were supportive of the learning the special education teachers provide.

General education Teachers A and B stated that through review and discussion of a lesson, the special education teacher helped to clarify and support growth and instruction. Teacher A shared how the special education teacher was more knowledgeable about how to convey information to students with disabilities in the classroom:

There are things that she has a little bit more knowledge on, like how to get something across to a special ed student that some of us are not getting. And so there have been times when yes, she has been able to say, “With these kinds of students, you are going to need to do this.” And so, she’s been able to explain, “Well, in my room, I take it step by step. I do this. These are the things that we’re doing with this. We are using pictures to do this.”

Teacher B stated that they chose the thesis of the story they were working on but through conversation and understanding during the PLC meeting, the special education teacher was able to guide and support the general education teacher in learning how to instruct about the thesis. Teacher B applied this learning in the classroom and was able to show the students that even teachers must keep learning and keep digging into the work. Through the special education teacher’s understanding of how people learn, they were able to work with the general education teacher to discover the correct thesis of the paper.

Teacher E admitted that before coming to the current campus she had never worked with a special education teacher in a PLC. She was now working with a special education teacher who was certified as an English teacher as well as a special education teacher. As a result, she viewed the special education teacher more as a content-area colleague.

At one elementary school, the general education teacher reported that the special education teacher shared her passion about different concepts in mathematics. One of the areas the special education teacher was passionate about was geometry. This allowed the special education teacher to take the lead in creating lessons and supporting differentiation in the classroom. The special education teacher took time in the room to create data to support student growth. These teachers took turns teaching so each could observe and take anecdotal notes about student growth and understanding. The two teachers then shared the notes with the English teacher during their grade level PLC to gain further insight into how to better support all students. While Teacher E and Teacher G held a limited perspective of the contribution special education teachers provided, Teacher A, Teacher B, Teacher J, and Teacher K and several other general education teacher counterparts affirmed that the collaborative culture and teamwork and sharing of ideas within the PLC provided them with specific actions they could take in their planning and instructional efforts to make the content understandable to certain students who were struggling, leading to more positive results and learning in the classroom.

7.2.3. Special Education Teachers Feeling Like a Part of the PLC Team

Across the elementary and secondary grade levels, special education teachers were tasked with meeting separately to work with their special education colleagues, albeit not as a PLC, as well as meeting with general education teachers’ grade-level or content-area PLC teams. Special education teachers, however, placed a greater emphasis on the benefits and sense of worth they acquired due to their joint participation in PLCs with their general education teacher counterparts.

In terms of their membership on the PLC team, Teacher D, a high school special education teacher who provided reading support, stated that they felt more like they were a member of the English team rather than the special education team. In fact, on the first day of work, Teacher D was told that they were a part of the English team PLC. Other special education teachers agreed with the mindset of being a part of the content-related team.

To underscore the necessity of being a member of the PLC team, special education Teacher F stressed that the weekly PLC team meetings serve as “your lifeline; that’s your pulse. Every week you take your stat, your vitals, every week we have PLC meetings.” With special education teachers feeling they were part of the team, the notion that they were different never came up. Teacher C reported being welcomed into the PLC as a member of the team. They never felt like “You’re different, or you’re an outsider looking in.” Special education Teacher F who worked with multiple elementary grade levels stated that the general education teachers supported their growth in the way they worked with their kids. It helped keep the special education teachers from feeling like they were isolated on their own islands and allowed them to be more supportive in the classroom.

Teacher H, who taught middle school mathematics and, more specifically, geometry, to her special education students, admitted that she paid close attention to how general education teachers were teaching geometry concepts to their students. She noted that her students were having trouble in learning how to utilize more complex mathematic operations and formulas: “My kids have a struggle with going from fifth grade where they use length and width to now middle school where they use base times height in the formula.” Due to their struggles when working on solving problems related to volume and surface area, she asked for input from the PLC general education mathematics teachers, and they advised her on how to help the students distinguish the difference between the two concepts. Clearly, the special education teachers embraced all six of the PLC characteristics (DuFour et al., 2008) in their work with their general education colleagues which contributed to their sense of self-worth and overall positive regard to the benefit of their inclusion in PLCs.

7.2.4. PLC Team Involvement Leads to Changing One’s Instructional Practice

Receiving input from one another during PLC meetings contributed to the professional growth of both the special and general education teachers. In many instances, the information they exchanged often resulted in a change in their instructional practice and improved student outcomes, aligned with the PLC results orientation characteristic (DuFour et al., 2008).

Sharing Strategies to Reach All Students. Special education Teacher H talked about gaining insight into gaps that general education students were facing as that was key to general education teachers’ understanding of where special education students might be lacking. Teacher H noted, “Just being able to go into PLCs and collaborate with them [general education teachers] on how they’re able to reach their kids and some of their students’ misunderstandings really has helped my kids.” Teacher H further stated that due to COVID-19, students were missing more than a year of education. Being able to collaborate with general education teachers was extremely helpful in reaching students who were performing at a lower level than where they were prior to the pandemic. Teacher I, a high school special education mathematics teacher, expressed a similar sentiment about the need to work with one another and hear another perspective or approach on how to present the content or information in a way that enables students to grasp what they are learning: “Sometimes those really smart people just have to have us normal ones bring it down to them, and just kind of really helping [the students] relate a little and it’s been really fun and [they are] really getting it.” Special education teachers benefited from their involvement in the PLC, discovering strategies from their general education peers, to help the students with disabilities they taught, highlighting their belief that they operated with a shared mission, vision, values, and goal to help their students understand the content and learn. As a result of their involvement in the PLCs, all six of the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristics existed.

Strategies are important to reach all students. Remembering that not all students know everything supports teachers when they teach. Referencing their mentor teacher’s advice, general education middle school Teacher K applied the same notion to teachers: “My mentor always said, ‘Don’t assume that they know. Assume that they don’t know. And think sometimes the longer we’re in it, we’re just used to them knowing certain things.’” This teacher further stated, “I think that when you have discussions with your special education teachers, it just brings that back into hindsight, especially because we know we have kids in our class that struggle.” Teacher L commented that it is no longer “my classroom; these are my kids. That it truly is a team effort. And that working together is what’s best for the kids, all the kids.” Both general education teachers communicated a commitment to collective inquiry, collaborative teams, and a commitment to continuous improvement, indicating alignment with the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristics.

Understanding of Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Content Standards. Every teacher reported that they share ideas about delivery of content that are connected to the TEKS standards to fill one another’s knowledge gaps and support student learning. Special education teachers reported that becoming more familiar with the TEKS and gaining a stronger understanding of the state’s standards from their general education teacher peers helped them shape the way they taught and supported students. When they learned about where the general education students had struggled in the past concerning the mastery of foundational knowledge in a certain content area, they began to realize that it was not only students with disabilities who were experiencing difficulties. Teacher H stated “Okay, if that’s where these kids are not understanding it, that’s definitely where my kids are having big gaps.” These described experiences reveal how teachers learned the necessity of collaborating in the process of being committed to continuous improvement.

Special education Teacher F explained how she was preparing a lesson about making connections. During a lesson review in their PLC group, a general education teacher cleared up Teacher F’s confusion by pointing out that this standard was referring to paired passages. Teacher E stated, “The way I was going to present this to my kids was going to be, how do you connect this to yourself? But the [standard] needed to be, how do you connect it to text-to-text.”

According to special education Teacher F, students’ IEP goals at the elementary level typically are based on the TEKS content standards. Teacher F recognized the shortcomings of only being familiar with the standards connected to students’ IEP goals and, at times, made it difficult to support every students’ growth toward meeting their goals. “I’m only going to be familiar with the ones [TEKS standards] that I have either taught before or know about.” In this case, special education teachers appeared to benefit more from participating in a PLC than their general education peers. By familiarizing themselves through their collaborative inquiry with the general education teachers, they realized they needed to revisit the content standards to ensure their instructional objectives actually aligned with the standard.

Learning New Classroom and Behavior Management Strategies. For many of the general and special education teachers, one of the greatest benefits for participating in a PLC that incorporated all six of the PLC characteristics (DuFour et al., 2008) was linked to effective classroom management and learning of student behavior management strategies. This was especially true for having a shared vision and goal, collective inquiry, action and results orientation, and commitment to continuous improvement. Getting support with classroom management from teachers who specialize in behavior management supported the growth of teachers in building an environment conducive to learning. In one of their high school PLCs, Teacher B shared that they were discussing behavior concerns that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. A special education teacher shared the skill of intentional redirection. Clarifying this strategy for the team, this teacher suggested to other teachers that when students started to act out in their room, they could ask random questions to redirect students and refocus them, thus calming the students and getting them to refocus on what they were learning. This strategy helped with several negative behaviors and reduced the amount of time off task that these teachers faced.

Differentiated Instruction. Similarly to the benefits accrued by general education and special education teachers who learned new classroom and behavior management strategies and the application of the six PLC characteristics (DuFour et al., 2008) to their work, another area of growth for general education teachers was special education teachers’ introduction of and support for differentiated instruction. Through collective inquiry, Teacher A shared that for most of her teaching career, she taught a particular subject one way, requiring students to learn in accordance with the way she presented the lesson. She shared with the PLC team that students were struggling in her class, and she was not sure why. However, after members of the PLC team observed her lesson, the special education teacher noted that some of the students were using songs to learn new concepts in another class. This sparked efforts to acquire additional training for the team on how students learn differently and the need to utilize different avenues for helping students learn new information or presenting content in different ways to process, construct, or make sense of new ideas, and develop teaching materials and assessments so every student could learn effectively.

According to special education Teacher C, initial discussions and training about differentiated instruction laid the foundation for special education teachers to pursue further training and support for how to differentiate instruction during PLC team meetings. General education Teacher A shared how the elementary teachers were attempting to introduce new reading skills to their students and were having a hard time getting the skills across to the students: “I started bouncing ideas out to places where [they] have seen cause and effect before to support students in a way I have not.” General education Teacher B stated how, in her first year, the training that special education teachers provided in her PLC affected her teaching strategies and helped her to adjust her thinking “every single time” she introduced a new concept or skill to her students. Through their collaborative teaming efforts and application of each of the DuFour et al. (2008) PLC characteristics in learning about differentiated instruction, teachers learned how to present information in unique ways to honor the learning preferences of each student.

7.2.5. Wish Lists and Recommendations for Improvement

Teachers were asked to share three wishes they had for making their PLC teams more effective. Every teacher stressed the role that their involvement on the PLC played in helping them grow and become more adept at supporting each of their students and strengthening their academic growth. At the elementary level, several general education teachers indicated they wanted more opportunities to meet with special education teachers other than just time throughout the day due to the time special education teachers had to devote to supporting students in other ways across multiple grade levels outside the general education classroom. For example, a special education teacher highlighted the inability for every special education teacher to be integrated into a PLC due to student behavior and the need to stay in the special education resource room. One teacher suggested that administrators find a way to “make it easier for special education teachers to join a team in their PLC” because they had the challenges of “other places to be” and teaching at “multiple grade levels.” Several general education teachers shared how they wanted to spend more time talking with their special education teacher counterparts about the strategies they used with students in their resource classrooms so they could integrate similar strategies in the general education classroom. At the same time, they maintained that special education teachers should also be cognizant of sharing data related to what is happening in the general education classroom due to the importance of meeting the academic and learning needs of every student, including the students with disabilities in their classrooms. Thus, both sets of teachers underscored the imperative to protect teachers’ PLC time at all costs and prioritized the need for administrators to create a master schedule that provided contingencies for certain situations and allow special education teachers to be a part of the PLCs on a consistent basis.

8. Discussion

For this study, we interviewed general and special education teachers spanning elementary, middle, and high school grades to discover their perceptions of the effects that special education teachers’ involvement in building-level PLCs had on their instructional practice and ultimately, its impact on the learning of all students, including students with disabilities. While a sound body of literature exists about successful PLCs for general education teachers, little is known about the inclusion of special education teachers in building-level PLCs and the effects that special education teachers and general education teachers working collaboratively in grade-level and content-area PLCs can have on the success of all students. This study was designed to address this gap in research literature. The discussion of the findings from this study is built around the two themes that emerged: (a) teacher role and function in the school versus on PLC teams, and (b) teacher teamwork. These themes aligned with the six characteristics of PLCs articulated by DuFour et al. (2008).

8.1. Teacher Role and Function in the School Versus on PLC Teams

The findings from this study highlight that the roles of the general education and special education teachers on campus varied to some degree as it related to educating students. Each group of teachers knew very little about the in-depth scope of the work that others did but had an overarching view of what they were supposed to do. None of the general education teachers had previously served as a special education teacher. Consequently, they indicated the belief that the special education teacher’s role was to support students and ensure that any accommodation stipulated in their students’ IEP or Section 504 plans was followed. On the other hand, several of the special education teachers had served as general education teachers in the past and were able to provide a detailed description of the general education teacher’s job function.

Regarding their role and function on PLC teams, both groups of teachers came to the PLC with a specific action and results orientation in mind and held to a larger shared vision and goal to address the specific needs of the students they served. Through collective inquiry (DuFour et al., 2008), they focused on brainstorming certain actions they might take to get results. Working together, they reviewed data and discovered ways to support students through individual and small-group interventions. Many of the general education teachers viewed their special education teacher counterparts as a safety net and consultant as partners in helping to teach the content and provide specially designed instruction. These findings align with Blanton and Perez (2011) who found that special education teachers’ involvement in PLCs informed general education teachers about how to help struggling students and assisted special education teachers in making links to the general education curriculum on behalf of the students they served.

Several general education teachers reported that the most learning and growth they received during their PLC time came when special education teachers were included in their PLC or when they were able to work closely with them. These teachers viewed the special education teachers’ PLC participation as integral to their ability to make a difference in the learning of the general and special education students they served. This discovery further supports Thacker (2013), who found a significance in student growth when schools conducted PLCs that included special education teachers. For both general and special education teachers, having a shared mission, vision, values, and goals; engaging in collective inquiry (DuFour et al., 2008); and acquiring new skills they could apply to their instruction created a spark of excitement in how they approached their role in the classroom, as suggested by Senge (1990).

Other general education teachers, however, relegated the role and function of the special education teacher in the PLC to a secondary role of making sure they complied with the requirements of the student’s IEP or need to complete certain types of paperwork. These general education teachers distinguished between the contributions that special education teachers could offer in the PLCs from the role and function the general education teachers played in positively affecting the outcomes of the students they served in their classrooms, both students with and without disabilities. Regarding the role of the special education teachers in the PLC, one general education teacher stated that the special education teacher should ensure that the group is looking at student data and determine whether the accommodations are helping students achieve. This thought process aligns with findings of Schechter and Feldman (2019) who studied a special education school and the leader’s role in a PLC. In their study, PLCs were found to support student growth. After reviewing the PLC environment, however, they concluded the PLC and meeting structure functioned according to a typical team meeting of general and special education teachers along with other support personnel and was more closely aligned with what might occur when discussing the individual needs of a student. The actual role of the special education teacher in the PLC was missed (Schechter & Feldman, 2019), whereas the special education teachers in our study were more active in their teacher role and participated in a true PLC, as defined by DuFour et al. (2008).

8.2. Teacher Teamwork

Our study revealed the importance of teamwork for PLC team members, directly aligining with the PLC characteristics of collective inquiry and collaborative teams (DuFour et al., 2008). All 12 teachers acknowledged that meeting weekly was important to them. The notion of teamwork regarding their participation in PLCs emerged from the responses of 11 of the 12 teachers. These findings align with Paulsrud and Nilholm (2023) who supported the importance of general and special education teachers working together to create an inclusive learning environment as well as Robbins (2013) who reported that both general and special education teachers benefited from working together in the same PLC.

Most of the general education teachers shared how special education teachers’ expertise and insight into how to assist certain students contributed to their ability to address how and what they needed to learn. Both sets of teachers spoke of the benefit of bouncing ideas off one another in their PLCs and applying the newly acquired insights and strategies they learned to their classroom instruction and work with each of their students. Creating a PLC structure that allows teachers to work with their peers to analyze data and share their practices (DuFour et al., 2008) and their instructional decisions lifts the teachers out of their daily routines and isolated teaching and inspires collaboration and the notion that every child can learn at a high level (Rasberry & Mahajan, 2008).

Both sets of teachers utilized team-oriented terms when describing the way they worked together in their PLCs and, in some cases, in a co-teaching classroom arrangement. Implementing the strategies they learned about in their PLCs and witnessing the positive effects and changes that took place in the classroom align with Senge (1990) who stated that an organization can only show learning when individuals learn. The special education teachers demonstrated Senge’s claim through their contributions in PLCs by explaining how they spend time in PLC team meetings, teaching general education teachers how to use different strategies to include special education students in the overall learning of the general education classroom.

The findings of this study are compared to the conceptual framework that undergirded our study, based on the DuFour et al. (2008) six characteristics of a PLC. The purpose of the study was to examine the overall experiences of teachers in PLCs where special education teachers were included. In our review of related research, we found no direct connection between the inclusion of special education teachers in high functioning PLCs with general education teachers. The main component of our research was the inclusion of special education teachers in PLCs and the resulting implications for school and district-level leadership.

It is well documented in research that there is an ever-growing support through legislation and court proceedings for the growth and development of students served by special education teachers (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017; Dooley, 2021; Prince et al., 2017). The results of this study confirmed that general and special education teachers in PISD are not only highly qualified to work with students with disabilities but spend time together growing in their knowledge to support students with disabilities. Furthermore, these teachers noted that they strive to be an active part of the team throughout the day, not just in PLC meetings.

The results of this study show that when special education teachers are in PLCs, all team members feel more supported, in concert with findings from Bemiller (2019), Paulsrud and Nilholm (2023), and Robbins (2013). The general education teachers felt that special education teachers had something to bring to the PLC, and their expertise was vital to the success of not only the students served by special education but also the teachers’ own teaching practice. Furthermore, the special education teachers felt they were part of the team. The special education teachers repeatedly stated that they want administrators to remember that they are teachers and part of the PLC team.

8.3. Implications for Practice and Recommendations for Research

Based on the findings from this study, several implications for practice are evident. General and special education teachers share the responsibility for meeting the needs of all learners. Furthermore, when special education teachers are part of the PLC team, both general and special education teachers learn from each other about instructional practices that support the needs of every student. Therefore, special education teachers need to serve as critical members of the school’s PLCs.

Teacher education programs for general and special education tend to be siloed, which contributes to the separation of both sets of teachers when they enter the field. Teacher education programs need to operate more collaboratively and search for ways to involve both general and special education teacher candidates in one or more of their instructional methods and field-based courses. When assigning teacher candidates to specific schools, program leaders could brainstorm with district and school leaders to discover ways to incorporate the practice of including special education teachers in the general education teacher classroom as well as in their PLCs as part of the candidates’ clinical teaching experience.

The findings of this study highlight the reality that teachers need to feel that their input and questions surrounding the work of PLCs are valued. Ongoing training and instruction for general and special education teachers and school leaders on how PLC meetings should be conducted are needed to support teachers and all students and make sure everyone’s voice is heard. This training should be revisited multiple times throughout the school year to ensure that every leader and teacher has the same level of understanding of how PLCs function. Such training could help team members recognize the unique knowledge, skills, and strengths that each member of the PLC possesses and stress the importance of involving both sets of teachers immediately into the heart of PLC work.

Several recommendations for research also can be drawn from the findings of our study. One recommendation is to broaden the scope of the study by examining the ways in which PLCs operate in more than one district. One study might involve a comparison of how two districts find ways to include special education teachers in campus PLC teams and how they function with general education teachers to ensure learning for all students. Another study could explore differences in achievement for all students when comparing a district that includes special education teachers in campus PLCs with one that does not. Perhaps it would be beneficial to conduct a study that explores teachers’ and school leaders’ perspectives on their experiences in working with or leading campus PLCs for teams that include general and special education teachers.

8.4. Limitations

A primary limitation of the study is that we relied on team members’ perceptions of their work and did not corroborate their responses via direct observations of their involvement in PLC teams. Creswell and Creswell (2022), however, stated that the researcher uses interviews when participants cannot be observed directly. The Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) (U.S. Department of Education, 2017) prevents direct observation of PLCs because student names are mentioned; therefore, interviewing to determine interaction was the best course. An additional limitation stems around the reality that student growth and success was based solely on academic indicators determined by standardized assessments. Thus, student growth indicators related to the social and emotional gains that a student obtained due to the involvement of special education teachers in PLCs were not considered.

9. Conclusions

According to the findings of this study, teachers in PLCs hold a positive view of special education teachers being included in PLC teams, which aligns with the findings of Overall (2021). The results of our study further support the notion that increasing the understanding that inclusion of special education teachers in core PLCs furthers the growth of student achievement. Creating this understanding for all teachers starts with the need for both special and general education teacher preparation program educators, as well as district and school leaders, to understand the workings of a PLC and the potential benefits available to general and special education teachers and the students they are charged to serve when special education teachers are afforded the opportunity to actively participate and function in campus content and grade-level PLCs.