TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL L SERVICE CENTER EADING FOR

TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL L SERVICE CENTER EADING FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE

Effective Co-teaching Dale Lennon Director of Pupil Services Trumbull County Educational Service Center August 12, 2010

Outline § § § § Overview of inclusion Summary of research Planning Scheduling Co-teaching in action Evaluating your experience Planning

Inclusion § Inclusive education is a special education service delivery model where students with disabilities are supported in chronologically age-appropriate general education classes in their home schools and receive the specialized instruction required by their IEPs within the context of the core curriculum and general class activities. Halvorsen & Neary, 2001

Three Major Models § § § Consultant model Coaching model Collaborative (or co-teaching) model Friend & Cook, 2003

Co-teaching § § Co-teaching is a service delivery mechanism Co-teaching is a means for providing the specially designed instruction to which students with disabilities are entitled while ensuring access to general curriculum in the least restrictive environment with the provision of supplementary aids and services Friend, 2007

Co-teaching: Research § Administrators, teachers and students perceive the co-teaching model to be generally beneficial Scruggs, Mastropieri & Mc. Duffie, 2007

Co-teaching: Research § Teachers have identified a number of conditions needed for co-teaching to be effective § § Sufficient planning time Compatibility of co-teachers Training Appropriate student skill level Scruggs, Mastropieri & Mc. Duffie, 2007

Co-teaching: Research § The predominant co-teaching model is “one teach, one assist” § § Special education teachers often play a subordinate role Teachers typically employ whole class, teacher-led instruction with little individualization Scruggs, Mastropieri & Mc. Duffie, 2007

Co-teaching: Research § Classroom instruction has not changed substantially in response to co-teaching § § Practices known to be effective were rarely observed The co-teaching model is employed far less effectively than possible Scruggs, Mastropieri & Mc. Duffie, 2007

Collaboration § “Interpersonal collaboration is a style of direct interaction between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal" Friend & Cook, 2003

Benefits of Collaboration § § § Shared responsibility for educating all students Shared understanding and use of common assessment data Supporting ownership for programming and interventions Creating common understanding Data-driven problem solving Friend & Cook, 2003

Obstacles to Collaboration § § General educators begin with the curriculum first and use assessment to determine what was learned Special educators begin with assessment first and design instruction to repair gaps in learning Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Obstacles to Collaboration Special educators have developed a tendency to “own” students on individualized education plans (IEPs), which decreases the “voice” and participation of classroom teachers in collaborative problem solving Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Promoting Collaboration § Teachers are more receptive to change when they have background knowledge and a chance to participate in the decisions rather than being given a special education mandate to follow Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Most Common Approaches § § § One Teaching, One Drifting Parallel Teaching Station Teaching Alternative Teaching Team Teaching Friend & Cook, 2003

One Teaching, One Drifting § § § One teacher plans and instructs, and one teacher provides adaptations and other support as needed Requires very little joint planning Should be used sparingly § § Can result in one teacher, most often the general educator, taking the lead role the majority of the time Can also be distracting to students, especially those who may become dependent on the drifting teacher Friend & Cook, 2003

Station Teaching § § § Teachers divide the responsibility of planning and instruction Students rotate on a predetermined schedule through stations Teachers repeat instruction to each group that comes through; delivery may vary according to student needs Approach can be used even if teachers have very different pedagogical approaches Each teacher instructs every student Friend & Cook, 2003

Alternative Teaching § § Teachers divide responsibilities for planning and instruction The majority of students remain in a large group setting, but some students work in a small group for preteaching, enrichment, reteaching, or other individualized instruction Approach allows for highly individualized instruction to be offered Teachers should be careful that the same students are not always pulled aside Friend & Cook, 2003

Team Teaching § § § Teachers share responsibilities for planning and instruction Teachers work as a team to introduce new content, work on developing skills, clarify information, and facilitate learning and classroom management This requires the most mutual trust and respect between teachers and requires that they be able to mesh their teaching styles Friend & Cook, 2003

Considerations § § Teachers need to volunteer and agree to co-teach Co-teaching should be implemented gradually Attention needs to be given to IEP setting changes that an inclusive classroom may invoke Goals and support services need to reflect the new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Effective Co-planning

Pre-planning § § § Co-teaching requires thoughtful planning time Administrative support is essential Here is where the alignment of special and general education occurs Make this time as focused as possible Take turns taking the lead in planning and facilitating Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002

Provide Weekly Scheduling Coplanning Time § § Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one scheduling/planning period (45– 60 minutes) per week Experienced teams should spend 10 minutes to plan each lesson Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Effective Classroom-level Planning § § Co-teachers should show a shared commitment and enthusiasm Both teachers’ names should be posted on the door and in the classroom All meetings and correspondence with families should reflect participation from both co-teachers Skilled planners trust the professional skills of their partners Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Effective Classroom-level Planning (Cont. ) § § Effective planners design learning environments for their students and for themselves that demand active involvement Effective co-planners create learning and teaching environments in which each person’s contributions are valued Effective planners develop effective routines to facilitate their planning Planning skills improve over time Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Two Stages of Classroom Co-planning § § Getting to know each other Weekly co-planning Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Getting to Know Each Other § § § Ease into working with one another Deal with the “little” things first These typically become the deal-breakers down the road, and preventing these road blocks early can make life easier Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Getting to Know Each Other (Cont. ) § § § Important to spend time talking and getting better acquainted with each other’s skills, interests, and educational philosophies Having a semi-structured preliminary discussion can facilitate this process Discuss current classroom routines and rules Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Getting to Know Each Other (Cont. ) § Consider completing a teaching style inventory § § Compare how each of you prefers to structure assignments, lessons, classroom schedule, etc Example: http: //www. longleaf. net/teachingstyle. html

Weekly Co-planning § § § Effective weekly co-planning is based on regularly scheduled meetings, rather than “fitting it in” Important to stay focused Review content in advance of meeting Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Weekly Co-planning (Cont. ) § Guide the session with the following fundamental issues: § § § What are the content goals? Who are the learners? How can we teach most effectively? Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Scheduling Co-teaching

Collaborative Scheduling § § § Collaborative Scheduling A Collaborative Scheduling B Collaborative Scheduling C Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling A § Special educator divides teaching time between two different classes in the same day Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling A § § § Enables students with disabilities to access a broader range of general education classrooms, including AP and honors Ensures the availability of direct support from a special educator for critical parts of the instructional programs Improved ratio of students with disabilities to students without disabilities Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling A § § § Requires effective consulting skills on the part of the special educator Larger danger that the special educator will not be seen as an equal partner to the general educator Could possibly disrupt the class routine Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling B § § The special educator divides time between two different classes The involvement of the special educator varies by days of the week, not within classes in the same day Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling B § § Advantages are similar to Collaborative Scheduling A Co-teachers report an ability to implement a full range of co-teaching models because of the planned involvement of both teachers in complete classes on certain days of the week Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B § § § Challenges are similar to Collaborative Scheduling A Teachers need to be cognizant of the presence of two teachers on only certain days of the week Students with specific support and accommodation requirements have to be well aligned to the schedule Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B (Cont. ) § § § Requires general educator to be able to implement IEP requirements in the absence of the special educator Special educator burnout is an issue because of the greater demand of knowledge of the general education curriculum Requires supervisory judgment regarding which teachers can effectively plan and implement this model Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling C § § § The special educator serves as a resource to the interdisciplinary team His/her schedule is established weekly on the basis of instructional activities Requires the greatest amount of flexibility and planning by an interdisciplinary team of teachers Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling C § § § Special educator is present when needed most for instructional support Instructional need dictates the cooperative teaching role, not the calendar or time of day Most responsive to students’ needs and schedules Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling C § Requires the highest degree of planning and buy-in by a team of teachers Walsh & Jones, 2004

Co-teaching in Action

Instruction § § Most difficult but also the most rewarding There are things that can be done to maximize success and rewards: § § Review the different approaches to co-teaching and think about how each might look in a classroom Discuss each other’s learning style preferences to see how these can be incorporated into the lesson to assist students with varying styles Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Instructional Tips § § Develop unobtrusive signals to communicate with each other Create signals for students that are consistent and can be used by either teacher Vary instructional practices Clearly display an agenda for the class, which includes the standard(s) to be covered any additional goals Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Instructional Tips § § § Avoid disagreeing with or undermining each other in front of the students Strive to demonstrate parity in instruction whenever possible by switching roles often Avoid stigmatization of any one group of students Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Three Stages of Co-teaching Relationships § § § Beginning Stage Compromising Stage Collaborative Stage Gately, 2005

Three Stages of Co-teaching As They Apply To: § § § Physical Arrangement Familiarity With the Curriculum Goals and Modifications Instructional Presentation Classroom Management Assessment Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement

Physical Arrangement: Beginning Stage § Impression of separateness § § § Students with disabilities vs. general education students Little ownership of materials or space by special educator Delegated spaces which are rarely abandoned Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Beginning Stage (Cont. ) § § Invisible walls A classroom within a classroom Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Compromising Stage § § More movement and shared space Sharing of materials Territoriality becomes less evident Special educator moves more freely around the classroom but rarely takes center stage Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Collaboration Stage § § § Seating arrangements are intentionally interspersed All students participate in cooperative grouping assignments Teachers are more fluid in an unplanned and natural way Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Collaboration Stage (Cont. ) § § Both teachers control space: Like an effective doubles team in tennis, the classroom is always “covered” Space is truly jointly owned Gately & Gately, 2001

Familiarity With the Curriculum

Familiarity With the Curriculum: Beginning Stage § § § Special educator may be unfamiliar with content or methodology used by the general educator General educator may have limited understanding of modifying the curriculum and making appropriate accommodations Unfamiliarity creates a lack of confidence in both teachers Gately & Gately, 2001

Familiarity With the Curriculum: Compromising Collaborative Stages § § Special educator acquires a knowledge of the scope and sequence and develops a solid understanding of the content of the curriculum Special educator gains confidence to make suggestions for modifications and accommodations Gately & Gately, 2001

Familiarity With the Curriculum: Compromising Collaborative Stages (Cont. ) § § General educator becomes more willing to modify the curriculum, and there is increased sharing in planning and teaching Both teachers appreciate the specific curriculum competencies that they bring to the content area Gately & Gately, 2001

Curriculum Goals and Modifications

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Beginning Stage § § § Programs are driven by textbooks and standards, and goals tend to be “test-driven” Modifications and accommodations are generally restricted to those identified in the IEP; little interaction regarding modifications to the curriculum Special educator’s role is seen as “helper” Gately & Gately, 2001

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Compromising Stage § General educator may view modifications as “giving up” or “watering down” the curriculum Gately & Gately, 2001

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Collaborative Stage § § Both teachers begin to differentiate concepts that all students must know from concepts that most students should know Modifications of content, activities, homework assignments, and tests become the norm for students who require them Gately & Gately, 2001

Instructional Presentation

Instructional Presentation: Beginning Stage § § Teachers often present separate lessons One teacher is “boss”; one is “helper” Gately & Gately, 2001

Instructional Presentation: Compromising Stage § § Both teachers direct some of the activities in the classroom Special educator offers mini-lessons or clarifies strategies that students may use Gately & Gately, 2001

Instructional Presentation: Collaborative Stage § § § Both teachers participate in the presentation of the lesson, provide instruction, and structure the learning activities The “chalk” passes freely Students address questions and discuss concerns with both teachers Gately & Gately, 2001

Classroom Management

Classroom Management: Beginning Stage § Special educator tends to assume the role of “behavior manager” Gately & Gately, 2001

Classroom Management: Compromising Stage § § More communication and mutual development of rules Some discussion for individual behavior management plans Gately & Gately, 2001

Classroom Management: Collaborative Stage § § § Both teachers are involved in developing a classroom management system that benefits all students Common to observe individual behavior plans, use of contracts, tangible rewards, and reinforcers Development of community-building and relationship-building activities as a way to enhance classroom management Gately & Gately, 2001

Assessment

Assessment § With the current emphasis on high-stakes tests, coteaching provides an effective way to strengthen the instruction–assessment link: § Discuss grading before it becomes an issue Consider a variety of assessment options Offer menus of assignments § Share the grading load and align grading styles § § Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Assessment: Beginning Stage § § § Two separate grading systems are often maintained separately by the two teachers One grading system may also be exclusively managed by the general educator Measures tend to be objective in nature and based only on a student’s knowledge of the content Gately & Gately, 2001

Assessment: Compromising Stage § § Two teachers begin to explore alternate assessment ideas Teachers begin to discuss how to effectively capture students’ progress, not just their knowledge of the content Gately & Gately, 2001

Assessment: Collaborative Stage § Both teachers appreciate the need for a variety of options when assessing students’ progress Gately & Gately, 2001

Evaluation § Researchers have been reluctant to measure outcomes of co -teaching. This provides a good opportunity for teachers to engage in their own action research. They should begin to collect data on their own to document outcomes § § Teachers and administrators should evaluate co-teaching situations at least once per year The rule that assessment informs instruction should also apply to co-teaching: As co-teachers continue to assess their situation, they must ensure that they are improving their instruction to best meet students’ needs in an inclusive classroom Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2003

Evaluating Your Experience § § § Planning and implementation Effectiveness Strengths and gaps

Essential Ingredients for Successful Collaboration: From the Eyes of the Practitioner to the Ears of the Administrator

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning § § § Share long- and short-term implementation strategies Share the research base that supports co-teaching Share anticipated need for resources Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont. ) § § Develop an “information sharing community” or “community of practice” Determine the most effective methods of communication between teams and administrators Emphasize the importance of pre-observation conferences Incorporate the co-teaching initiative into the team’s annual professional growth plan Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont. ) § § Set specific times for observation Encourage students to talk with the administrator about the benefits from learning in collaborative classrooms Involve parents Encourage advice and feedback on your performance from the administrators, accept it graciously, and use it Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont. ) § Inform administrators of any problems or controversies related to co-teaching efforts § § Teachers Support staff Parents Students Rea, 2005

Not an All-or-nothing Approach § § Teachers do not have to commit to only one approach of co-teaching Teachers do not have to only co-teach Co-teaching is not the only option for serving students Some students with disabilities may be in a cotaught classroom for only part of the day Murawski, 2005

Planning for 2010 -11

Access Center http: //www. K 8 accesscenter. org

References n n n n Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school cotaught teams? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14– 25. Dieker, L. (2002). Co-planner (semester). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design. Friend, M. , & Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4 th ed. ). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gately, S. E. (2005). Two are better than one. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 36– 41. Gately, S. E. , & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40– 47. Halvorsen, A. T. & Neary, T. (2001). Building Inclusive Schools: Tools and Strategies for Success. Allyn & Bacon. Mastropieri, M. A. , Scruggs, T. E. , Graetz, J. E. , Nordland, J. , Gardizi, W. , & Mc. Duffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260– 270. Murawski, W. W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs through co-teaching: Take baby steps! Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2), 77– 82.

References (cont. ) § § § Murawski, W. W. , & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52– 58. Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312– 316. Scruggs, T. E. , Mastropieri, M. A. and Mc. Duffie, K. A. (2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Exceptional Children, 73 -4, 392416. Steele, N. , Bell, D. , & George, N. (2005, April). Risky business: The art and science of true collaboration. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children’s Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD. Walsh, J. M. , & Jones, B. (2004). New models of cooperative teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 14– 20. Walther-Thomas, C. , Bryant, M. , & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255– 265.

Trumbull County Educational Service Center LEADING FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE