Practical application of inclusive related service provision. 14 participants described their therapy sessions in relation to the instructional structure. As Kendra described, “An individual push-in session generally means I’m joining the child in whatever activity their classroom is participating in and looking to achieve their IEP goals through activity modification, through the use of adaptive strategies and therapeutic exercise.” Moe explains that her role varies depending on the instructional arrangement and teacher. In first grade I always do centers. I work with students with and without disabilities. In fourth grade, I float around the room. It’s not a time when the teacher does stations. I target the students on my caseload. I can address their goals but I’m still extra hands. Later, Moe explains that this difference in role is because of common grade-level schedules. Bernice gives an example of a classroom where she is responsible for one center each week. When we’re at our best teaming, co-teaching happens easily during push-in times. Therapists can push-in to lead an activity, targeted towards specific students. I might decide that Lucy and Pat are working on lower body strength. I have a learning center at 2:00 on Tuesdays. I’ll bring the learning activity and I’m always going to look to target that the skills of those two kids. All students will get a turn to practice. Some therapists used sessions to observe, create, and implement student-specific supports that would allow them to better access the general education curriculum. Nicole explains her perspective of conducting inclusive related service provision: During planning, offer to run groups and bring materials for small groups. You see this whole sign of relief go through their body. You explain how the station activity will provide therapy supports and what the other kids will get out of it. Some therapists also described leading a lesson. Mary explained:
Ehren, B.J. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing responsibility for student success: Keys to in-classroom speech-language services. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 219-229. Farber, J., & Klein, E. (1999). Classroom-based assessment of a collaborative intervention program with kindergarten and first-grade students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 83-91. Feeney, T., Riddle, L., & Benedict, L. (2000). Giving urban children the language to succeed: A consultative-collaborative model. Rochester, NY: Rochester Hearing and Speech Center. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W.D. (2002). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Giangreco, M.F., Prelock, P., Reid, R., Dennis, R., & Edelman, S. (2000). Roles of related services personnel in inclusive schools. In R. Villa & J. Thousand, (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd ed.) (pp. 360-388). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Giangreco, M.F. (1995). Related services decision-making: A foundational component of effective education for students with disabilities. In E. McEwen (Ed.). Occupational and physical therapy in educational environments (pp. 47-67). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Gillon, G.T. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 126-141. Gormley, S., & Ruhl, K. (2005). Shared storybook reading: Increasing vocabulary skills in an inclusive classroom setting. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 6(1), 11-13. Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77-94.