Abraham Stefanidis

Union gives strength: mainstream and special education teachers’ responsibilities in inclusive co-taught classrooms

Co-teaching has gained considerable interest as a means of promoting the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream education. Nowadays, there is a consensus among researchers that co-teaching should provide effective education to all students in a mainstream class. This study aims to explore co-teachers’ attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities in Greek mainstream classrooms. In particular, it examines co-teachers’ attitudes with regard to their non-class-time (planning and evaluation) and class-time (instruction and behaviour management) responsibilities for students with and without disabilities. Four hundred co-teachers participated in this survey study. Overall, our findings demonstrate that mainstream education teachers and special education teachers disagree about their respective class-time and non-class-time responsibilities, and that their role influences their attitudes towards these responsibilities. The study concludes that the different attitudes of co-teachers towards their responsibilities could hinder the development of a shared approach in teaching students with and without disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Union gives strength Aesop (ca. 620-564 BC)

Co-teachers’ attitudes towards planning and instructional activities for students with disabilities

Abstract Co-teaching is considered a means for improving the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. This research employs a mixed methods research approach to investigate teachers’ attitudes towards co-teaching practices for students with disabilities in Greek schools. In total, 400 co-teachers completed a survey questionnaire and 10 of them participated in semi-structured interviews, in which they reported co-teaching practices with regard to planning and evaluation activities, co-teaching models, content of teaching and instructional grouping arrangements. The participants stated that the time they spend to plan and evaluate together is insufficient and that they need more time to perform these activities. In addition, co-teachers were found to use their limited time to separate rather than to co-plan or evaluate co-teaching activities. They reported inconsistencies in the rating of co-teaching activities during planning and evaluation. Even though co-teachers approved a specific stance towards all models of co-teaching, they mainly noted that they implemented supportive co-teaching. Also, they stated that they modify the content of teaching for their students with disabilities, but they limit this practice to individual teaching in order to assist these students to overcome specific difficulties. Finally, co-teachers indicated that they prefer to teach the students with disabilities in mixed ability groups rather than to teach them individually out of the class. The results of this research support those of previous studies with regard to the planning needs of co-teachers and the prevalence of the supportive co-teaching model. In addition, our results inform the field about diverse approaches and inconsistencies in delivering the curriculum and the grouping arrangements for students with disabilities. We argue that professional development on the practical implementation of co-teaching and administrative support are necessary to enhance co-teachers’ activities towards the development of an inclusive culture.

Impact of Pharmacy Student–Driven Postdischarge Telephone Calls on Heart Failure Hospital Readmission Rates: A Pilot Program

Background: Heart failure (HF) hospitalization rates have remained high in the past 10 years. Numerous studies have shown significant improvement in HF readmission rates when pharmacists or pharmacy residents conduct postdischarge telephone calls. Objective: The purpose of this retrospective review of a pilot program was to evaluate the impact of pharmacy student–driven postdischarge phone calls on 30- and 90-day hospital readmission rates in patients recently discharged with HF. Methods: A retrospective manual chart review was conducted for all patients who received a telephone call from the pharmacy students. The primary endpoint compared historical readmissions, 30 and 90 days prior to hospital discharge, with 30 and 90 days post discharge readmissions. For the secondary endpoints, historical and postdischarge 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were compared for patients with a primary diagnosis of HF and for patients with a secondary diagnosis of HF. Descriptive statistics were calculated in the form of means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Results: Statistically significant decrease was observed for both the 30-day (P = .006) and 90-day (P = .007) readmission periods. Prior to the pharmacy students’ phone calls, the overall group of 131 patients had historical readmission rates of 24.43% within 30 days and 38.17% within 90 days after hospital discharge. After the postdischarge phone calls, the readmission rates decreased to 11.45%, for 30 days, and 22.90%, for 90 days. Conclusion: Postdischarge phone calls, specifically made by pharmacy students, demonstrated a positive impact on reducing HF-associated hospital readmissions, adding to the growing body of evidence of different methods of pharmacy interventions and highlighting the clinical impact pharmacy students may have in transition of care services.