Abstract
This study is an evaluation of collaborative relationships between K–12 public and private day schools in Virginia, USA, when serving students with special needs. The purpose was to determine what distinguishes collaborative relationships that are perceived as strong from those perceived as weak. Research questions were directed at what categories contribute to strong collaborative relationships between K–12 public and private schools in Virginia, and what categories are identified as concerns regarding weaker collaborative relationships between these entities. Participants were 43 public school special education directors and private day school administrators across the Commonwealth of Virginia. An online survey (the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory) was completed by directors and administrators who had worked with a minimum of two of the opposite provider—special education directors in the public school setting were required to work with two private day schools and vice versa. Responses were recorded from each of the eight regions delineated by the Virginia Department of Education. Statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences between the two participant groups. However, results indicated strengths related to the collaboration categories membership characteristics and purpose for strong relationships. When evaluating a weak collaborative relationship, the categories process and structure, communication, and resources were the primary concerns. Regardless of the strength of the collaborative relationship, the lowest scoring category was resources, indicating it was the primary concern of survey participants.
The study was approved in September 2019 by Virginia Tech’s Institutional Review Board and informational email followed about the study to public school division superintendents and special education directors, and private day school administrators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/26.1.39.
Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ693732.pdf.
Boeren, E. (2018). The methodological underdog: A review of quantitative research in the key adult education journals. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713617739347.
Bronstein, L. R. (2003). A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Social Work, 48(3), 297–306. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23721052.
Cahill, S. M., & Mitra, S. (2008). Forging collaborative relationships to meet the demands of inclusion. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 149–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2008.10516513.
Chambers, J. G., Shkolnik, J., & Perez, M. (2003). Total expenditures for students with disabilities, 1999–2000: Spending variation by disability. Report 5, Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, American Institutes for Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481398
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, D., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121(2), 331–338.
Derose, K. P., Beatty, A., & Jackson, C. A. (2004). Evaluation of community voices Miami: Affecting health policy for the uninsured (pp. 1–127). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR177.html.
Eber, L., Sugai, G., Smith, C. R., & Scott, T. M. (2002). Wraparound and positive behavioral interventions and supports in the schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266020100030501.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 PL 94-142. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/s6
Endrew, F., Joseph, F., & Jennifer F., v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S.Ct. 988. (2017, March 22). Supreme Court of the United States syllabus (1–16). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/15-827/case.pdf
Fishbaugh, M. S. E. (1997). Models of collaboration. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 69–86.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27.
Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500105.
Henderson, K. (2002). Commentary: Collaboration to benefit children with disabilities: Incentives in IDEA. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1304_06.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/42nd-arc-for-idea.pdf
Johnson, H. W., McLaughlin, J. A., & Christensen, M. (1982). Interagency collaboration: Driving and restraining forces. Exceptional Children, 48(5), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298204800502.
Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D., Tam, B. K. Y., Lamontagne, M., & Johnson, S. A. (2003). Stakeholders’ views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900205.
Klimaitis, C., & Mullen, C. A. (2020). Access and barriers to stem education for K–12 students with disabilities and females. In C. A. Mullen (Ed.), Handbook of social justice interventions in education (pp. 1–24). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29553-0_125-1.
Laerd Statistics. (2018). Independent t-test for two samples. https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/independent-t-test-statistical-guide.php
Lawson, H. A. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820410001731278.
Lawson, H. A., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2001). In the best interests of the child: Youth development as a child welfare support and resource. In A. L. Sallee, H. A. Lawson, & K. Briar-Lawson (Eds.), Innovative proactive with vulnerable children and families (pp. 245–265). Des Moines: Eddie Bowers.
Marek, L. I., Brock, D.-J. P., & Salva, J. (2015). Evaluating collaboration for effectiveness: Conceptualization and measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214014531068.
Martin, W. E., & Bridgmon, K. D. (2012). Quantitative and statistical research methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mattessich, P. W., & Johnson, K. M. (2018). Collaboration: What makes it work? (3rd ed.). New York: Fieldstone Alliance.
Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work? Saint Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, B. A., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). The Wilder collaboration factors inventory. Saint Paul: Fieldstone Alliance.
Mintzberg, H., Jorgensen, J., Dougherty, D., & Westley, F. (1996). Some surprising things about collaboration-knowing how people connect makes it work better. Organizational Dynamics, 25(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90041-8.
Moran, K. L. B. (2012). The perceptions and experiences of elementary school counselors [sic] collaboration with community mental health providers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA). https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/38821/Moran_KLB_D_2012.pdf
Mostert, M. P. (1996). Interprofessional collaboration in schools: Benefits and barriers in practice. Preventing School Failure, 40(3), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.1996.9944667.
Mostert, M. P. (1998). Interprofessional collaboration in schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mullen, C. A., & Kochan, F. K. (2000). Creating a collaborative leadership network: An organic view of change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120050083891.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018). The condition of education: Children and youth with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/Indicator_CGG/coe_cgg_2018_05.pdf
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556108.pdf
Oertle, K. M., & Trach, J. S. (2007). Interagency collaboration: The importance of rehabilitation professionals’ involvement in transition. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(3), 36–44.
Pandya, C. (2019). What is an acceptable response rate for online surveys? https://www.appjetty.com/blog/acceptable-response-rate-for-online-surveys
Perrault, E., McClelland, R., Austin, C., & Sieppert, J. (2011). Working together in collaborations: Successful process factors for community collaboration. Administration in Social Work, 35(3), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2011.575343.
Price, J. H., & Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. American Journal of Health Education, 35(2), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611.
Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258901000604.
Samuels, C. A. (2016, April 19). Number of U.S. students in special education ticks upward. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/number-of-u-s-students-in-special-education-ticks-upward/2016/04
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (amended in 1993 under the same title). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg718.pdf
Shaw, A. (2018). An invitation from one special educator to families, friends and colleagues: Let’s adjust our sails and continue the voyage together. Exceptional Parent, 48(10), 22–24. https://reader.mediawiremobile.com/epmagazine/issues/203936/viewer?page=23.
Sheridan, S. M. (1992). What do we mean when we say “collaboration”? Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3(1), 89–92. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=edpsychpapers.
Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 469–518. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039002469.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupson, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., III, Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070000200302.
Taylor, D. L., Morgan, R. L., & Callow-Heusser, C. A. (2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150788.
Tonelson, S. W., & Waters, R. (1993). Interagency collaboration (pp. 55–66) [ED 372 533]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED372533.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (2020). A history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History#1950s-60s-70s
Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). (2017). Special education child count. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/child_count/index.shtml
Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). (2021a). Private day and residential schools. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/day_residential_schools/index.shtml
Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). (2021b). Title VIII: Equitable services for private school students, teachers, and other educational personnel. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title8/index.shtml
Welch, M. (1998). The IDEA of collaboration in special education: An introspective examination of paradigms and promise. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9(2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0902_2.
Yell, M. L. (2019). The law and special education (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A
Descriptive Statistics
Eligibility | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | Yes | 43 | 89.6 | 89.6 | 89.6 |
No | 5 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 100.0 | |
Total | 48 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Affiliation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | Public | 28 | 58.3 | 58.3 | 58.3 |
Private | 20 | 41.7 | 41.7 | 100.0 | |
Total | 48 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Gender | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | Male | 12 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
Female | 36 | 75.0 | 75.0 | 100.0 | |
Total | 48 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Title | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | Public School SPED Director | 24 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 |
Private Day School Administrator | 19 | 39.6 | 39.6 | 89.6 | |
Other | 5 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 100.0 | |
Total | 48 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Race | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | African American or Black | 4 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 |
White, Non-Hispanic | 43 | 89.6 | 89.6 | 97.9 | |
Prefer Not to Say | 1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 100.0 | |
Total | 48 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Age | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | 30–39 | 10 | 20.8 | 20.8 | 20.8 |
40–49 | 16 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 54.2 | |
50–59 | 15 | 31.3 | 31.3 | 85.4 | |
60+ | 7 | 14.6 | 14.6 | 100.0 | |
Total | 48 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
Valid | Central Virginia | 6 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 12.8 |
Tidewater | 1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 14.9 | |
Northern Neck | 4 | 8.3 | 8.5 | 23.4 | |
Northern Virginia | 8 | 16.7 | 17.0 | 40.4 | |
Valley | 9 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 59.6 | |
Western Virginia | 10 | 20.8 | 21.3 | 80.9 | |
Southwest | 6 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 93.6 | |
Southside | 3 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 100.0 | |
Total | 47 | 97.9 | 100.0 | ||
Missing | System | 1 | 2.1 | ||
Total | 48 | 100.0 | |||
Appendix B
Analysis of Means
Strength of Relationship | Category | Question | Public Mean | Private Mean | Total Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Strong | Environment | 1 | 4.08 | 4.06 | 4.07 |
2 | 3.80 | 3.78 | 3.79 | ||
3 | 3.92 | 3.89 | 3.91 | ||
4 | 4.00 | 3.89 | 3.95 | ||
5 | 3.96 | 3.61 | 3.81 | ||
6 | 4.08 | 4.11 | 4.09 | ||
Membership Characteristics | 7 | 3.92 | 3.78 | 3.86 | |
8 | 4.28 | 4.11 | 4.21 | ||
9 | 4.08 | 4.17 | 4.12 | ||
10 | 3.88 | 3.61 | 3.77 | ||
11 | 4.33 | 4.50 | 4.40 | ||
12 | 3.92 | 3.89 | 3.90 | ||
Process and Structure | 13 | 3.88 | 3.56 | 3.74 | |
14 | 4.40 | 4.44 | 4.42 | ||
15 | 4.12 | 3.82 | 4.00 | ||
16 | 3.76 | 3.61 | 3.70 | ||
17 | 3.84 | 3.67 | 3.77 | ||
18 | 4.04 | 3.78 | 3.93 | ||
19 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | ||
20 | 4.08 | 3.94 | 4.02 | ||
21 | 3.92 | 3.89 | 3.91 | ||
22 | 3.96 | 3.44 | 3.74 | ||
23 | 3.92 | 3.78 | 3.86 | ||
24 | 3.88 | 3.67 | 3.79 | ||
Strong | Process and Structure Continued | 25 | 3.84 | 3.67 | 3.77 |
26 | 3.64 | 3.61 | 3.63 | ||
27 | 3.32 | 3.78 | 3.51 | ||
28 | 3.60 | 3.72 | 3.65 | ||
Communication | 29 | 4.08 | 3.94 | 4.02 | |
30 | 3.96 | 3.50 | 3.77 | ||
31 | 4.04 | 3.67 | 3.88 | ||
32 | 4.16 | 4.06 | 4.12 | ||
33 | 3.96 | 4.00 | 3.98 | ||
Purpose | 34 | 4.24 | 4.39 | 4.30 | |
35 | 3.96 | 4.00 | 3.98 | ||
36 | 3.92 | 4.17 | 4.02 | ||
37 | 3.92 | 4.11 | 4.00 | ||
38 | 3.88 | 4.11 | 3.98 | ||
39 | 4.21 | 4.33 | 4.26 | ||
40 | 3.36 | 3.89 | 3.58 | ||
Resources | 41 | 3.13 | 2.78 | 2.98 | |
42 | 3.36 | 3.56 | 3.44 | ||
43 | 4.08 | 4.44 | 4.23 | ||
44 | 3.84 | 3.89 | 3.86 | ||
Weak | Environment | 1 | 3.44 | 3.17 | 3.33 |
2 | 3.28 | 2.89 | 3.12 | ||
3 | 3.52 | 3.11 | 3.35 | ||
4 | 3.48 | 3.18 | 3.36 | ||
5 | 3.52 | 3.11 | 3.35 | ||
6 | 3.64 | 3.78 | 3.70 | ||
Weak | Membership Characteristics | 7 | 3.12 | 2.88 | 3.02 |
8 | 3.36 | 3.28 | 3.33 | ||
9 | 3.64 | 3.11 | 3.42 | ||
10 | 3.32 | 2.83 | 3.12 | ||
11 | 3.68 | 3.83 | 3.74 | ||
12 | 3.36 | 2.56 | 3.02 | ||
Process and Structure | 13 | 3.24 | 2.33 | 2.86 | |
14 | 3.76 | 3.44 | 3.63 | ||
15 | 3.00 | 2.39 | 2.74 | ||
16 | 2.96 | 2.67 | 2.84 | ||
17 | 3.40 | 2.94 | 3.21 | ||
18 | 2.96 | 2.67 | 2.84 | ||
19 | 3.04 | 2.78 | 2.93 | ||
20 | 3.32 | 2.89 | 3.14 | ||
21 | 3.00 | 2.94 | 2.98 | ||
22 | 3.12 | 2.61 | 2.91 | ||
23 | 3.16 | 2.83 | 3.02 | ||
24 | 3.04 | 2.78 | 2.93 | ||
25 | 3.04 | 2.56 | 2.83 | ||
26 | 3.00 | 2.72 | 2.88 | ||
27 | 2.88 | 3.17 | 3.00 | ||
28 | 2.80 | 2.67 | 2.74 | ||
Communication | 29 | 2.92 | 2.56 | 2.77 | |
30 | 3.20 | 2.22 | 2.79 | ||
31 | 3.21 | 2.44 | 2.88 | ||
32 | 3.40 | 2.83 | 3.16 | ||
33 | 3.38 | 2.89 | 3.17 | ||
Weak | Purpose | 34 | 3.32 | 3.56 | 3.42 |
35 | 2.96 | 3.11 | 3.02 | ||
36 | 3.16 | 3.00 | 3.09 | ||
37 | 3.28 | 3.06 | 3.19 | ||
38 | 3.08 | 3.00 | 3.05 | ||
39 | 3.72 | 4.00 | 3.84 | ||
40 | 2.88 | 3.33 | 3.07 | ||
Resources | 41 | 2.88 | 2.39 | 2.67 | |
42 | 3.08 | 2.67 | 2.91 | ||
43 | 3.28 | 3.11 | 3.21 | ||
44 | 3.12 | 2.72 | 2.95 |
Appendix C
Independent t-Test for Evaluating a Strong Collaborative Relationship
Strength of Relationship | Category | Question | Public Mean | Private Mean | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Strong | Environment | 1 | 4.08 | 4.06 | 0.919 |
2 | 3.80 | 3.78 | 0.935 | ||
3 | 3.92 | 3.89 | 0.879 | ||
4 | 4.00 | 3.89 | 0.588 | ||
5 | 3.96 | 3.61 | 0.174 | ||
6 | 4.08 | 4.11 | 0.890 | ||
Membership Characteristics | 7 | 3.92 | 3.78 | 0.521 | |
8 | 4.28 | 4.11 | 0.425 | ||
9 | 4.08 | 4.17 | 0.734 | ||
10 | 3.88 | 3.61 | 0.337 | ||
11 | 4.33 | 4.50 | 0.401 | ||
12 | 3.92 | 3.89 | 0.908 | ||
Process and Structure | 13 | 3.88 | 3.56 | 0.249 | |
14 | 4.40 | 4.44 | 0.847 | ||
15 | 4.12 | 3.82 | 0.157 | ||
16 | 3.76 | 3.61 | 0.632 | ||
17 | 3.84 | 3.67 | 0.549 | ||
18 | 4.04 | 3.78 | 0.294 | ||
19 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 1.000 | ||
20 | 4.08 | 3.94 | 0.614 | ||
21 | 3.92 | 3.89 | 0.909 | ||
22 | 3.96 | 3.44 | 0.072 | ||
23 | 3.92 | 3.78 | 0.576 | ||
24 | 3.88 | 3.67 | 0.358 | ||
Strong | Process and Structure Continued | 25 | 3.84 | 3.67 | 0.525 |
26 | 3.64 | 3.61 | 0.933 | ||
27 | 3.32 | 3.78 | 0.214 | ||
28 | 3.60 | 3.72 | 0.697 | ||
Communication | 29 | 4.08 | 3.94 | 0.616 | |
30 | 3.96 | 3.50 | 0.127 | ||
31 | 4.04 | 3.67 | 0.198 | ||
32 | 4.16 | 4.06 | 0.686 | ||
33 | 3.96 | 4.00 | 0.895 | ||
Purpose | 34 | 4.24 | 4.39 | 0.555 | |
35 | 3.96 | 4.00 | 0.895 | ||
36 | 3.92 | 4.17 | 0.343 | ||
37 | 3.92 | 4.11 | 0.456 | ||
38 | 3.88 | 4.11 | 0.338 | ||
39 | 4.21 | 4.33 | 0.716 | ||
40 | 3.36 | 3.89 | 0.170 | ||
Resources | 41 | 3.13 | 2.78 | 0.354 | |
42 | 3.36 | 3.56 | 0.555 | ||
43 | 4.08 | 4.44 | 0.117 | ||
44 | 3.84 | 3.89 | 0.865 |
Appendix D
Independent t-Test for Evaluating a Weak Collaborative Relationship
Strength of Relationship | Category | Question | Public Mean | Private Mean | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weak | Environment | 1 | 3.44 | 3.17 | 0.431 |
2 | 3.28 | 2.89 | 0.253 | ||
3 | 3.52 | 3.11 | 0.247 | ||
4 | 3.48 | 3.18 | 0.332 | ||
5 | 3.52 | 3.11 | 0.264 | ||
6 | 3.64 | 3.78 | 0.650 | ||
Membership Characteristics | 7 | 3.12 | 2.88 | 0.513 | |
8 | 3.36 | 3.28 | 0.820 | ||
9 | 3.64 | 3.11 | 0.073 | ||
10 | 3.32 | 2.83 | 0.161 | ||
11 | 3.68 | 3.83 | 0.649 | ||
12 | 3.36 | 2.56 | 0.012 | ||
Process and Structure | 13 | 3.24 | 2.33 | 0.017 | |
14 | 3.76 | 3.44 | 0.336 | ||
15 | 3.00 | 2.39 | 0.087 | ||
16 | 2.96 | 2.67 | 0.370 | ||
17 | 3.40 | 2.94 | 0.193 | ||
18 | 2.96 | 2.67 | 0.409 | ||
19 | 3.04 | 2.78 | 0.447 | ||
20 | 3.32 | 2.89 | 0.192 | ||
21 | 3.00 | 2.94 | 0.870 | ||
22 | 3.12 | 2.61 | 0.123 | ||
23 | 3.16 | 2.83 | 0.290 | ||
24 | 3.04 | 2.78 | 0.407 | ||
25 | 3.04 | 2.56 | 0.142 | ||
Weak | Process and Structure Continued | 26 | 3.00 | 2.72 | 0.445 |
27 | 2.88 | 3.17 | 0.473 | ||
28 | 2.80 | 2.67 | 0.709 | ||
Communication | 29 | 2.92 | 2.56 | 0.337 | |
30 | 3.20 | 2.22 | 0.008 | ||
31 | 3.21 | 2.44 | 0.049 | ||
32 | 3.40 | 2.83 | 0.151 | ||
33 | 3.38 | 2.89 | 0.193 | ||
Purpose | 34 | 3.32 | 3.56 | 0.475 | |
35 | 2.96 | 3.11 | 0.653 | ||
36 | 3.16 | 3.00 | 0.625 | ||
37 | 3.28 | 3.06 | 0.558 | ||
38 | 3.08 | 3.00 | 0.831 | ||
39 | 3.72 | 4.00 | 0.469 | ||
40 | 2.88 | 3.33 | 0.264 | ||
Resources | 41 | 2.88 | 2.39 | 0.214 | |
42 | 3.08 | 2.67 | 0.259 | ||
43 | 3.28 | 3.11 | 0.651 | ||
44 | 3.12 | 2.72 | 0.295 |
Appendix E
Independent t-Test for Evaluating Collaboration Categories
Strength of Relationship | Category | Public Mean | Private Mean | Total | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Strong | Environment | 3.97 | 3.89 | 3.94 | 0.592 |
Membership Characteristics | 4.01 | 4.01 | 4.01 | 0.992 | |
Process and Structure | 3.61 | 3.53 | 3.58 | 0.687 | |
Communication | 4.04 | 3.82 | 3.95 | 0.374 | |
Purpose | 3.93 | 4.14 | 4.02 | 0.303 | |
Resources | 3.60 | 3.67 | 3.62 | 0.788 | |
Weak | Environment | 3.48 | 3.26 | 3.38 | 0.381 |
Membership Characteristics | 3.41 | 3.12 | 3.29 | 0.279 | |
Process and Structure | 3.10 | 2.77 | 2.96 | 0.263 | |
Communication | 3.24 | 2.59 | 2.95 | 0.063 | |
Purpose | 3.20 | 3.29 | 3.25 | 0.546 | |
Resources | 3.09 | 2.72 | 2.94 | 0.248 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Mazurek, B.C., Mullen, C.A. (2021). Providing Equitable Services to Students with Special Needs Through Collaboration: An Evaluation of Relationships. In: Mullen, C.A. (eds) Handbook of Social Justice Interventions in Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29553-0_136-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29553-0_136-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29553-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29553-0
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education