Your name here

1
Supervising Co-Teaching Teams Whose Line is it
Anyway?

• Your name here
• Date, location, etc.

2
Presentation Overview

• Introduction to national assistance centers and
  the Access Center
• Introduction to co-teaching
• Planning for scheduling co-teaching
• Suggestions for administrators
• Observing evaluating co-teaching teams
• Co-teaching Rating Scale (CtRS)
• Case study

3
Access Center Mission

• To provide technical assistance that strengthens
  state and local capacity to help students with
  disabilities learn through general education
  curriculum.

4
What is Access?

• Active learning of the content and skills that
  define the general education curriculum
• Supports to Improve Access
• Instructional and Learning Goals
• Research-based Instructional Methods and
  Practices
• Research-based Materials and Media
• Research-based Supports and Accommodations
• Appropriate Assessment and Documentation

5
Where to begin building bridges

• Walking across the bridge, leaving the familiar
  ground of working alone, is the first act of
  collaboration. All parties are on neutral
  territory, with the security of knowing they can
  return to land better, stronger and changed. And
  perhaps they will return to the same side of the
  bridge even though they started from opposite
  sides.

6
Collaboration wont just happen

• Deliberate
• Structured
• Systematic
• Ongoing

7
Why wont it just happen?

• Some findings
• 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
• No wonder we are talking different languages

8
How can we work with this?

• Provide purpose and structure
• Create baseline and a plan for scaffolded change
• Provide a visual map to guide discussion
• Keep discussions objective and data driven
• Allow many issues to be put on the table for
  consideration

9
What we have learned

• General educators 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.

10
What we have learned

• Parent concerns decrease when special and general
  education practices are aligned, data is shared
  and is used to identify how students are
  progressing in the general education domain first.

11
Aligning Practices through Co-Teaching

• Co-teaching is becoming one of the fastest
  growing inclusive school practices
• Despite this rapid increase in popularity,
  co-teaching remains one of the most commonly
  misunderstood practices in education

12
Defining Co-Teaching

• Co-teaching occurs when two or more professionals
  jointly deliver substantive instruction to a
  diverse, or blended, group of students in a
  single physical space (Cook and Friend, 1995, pg
  1)

13
(No Transcript)
14
Three Major Models

• Consultant model
• Coaching Model
• Collaborative (or Teaming) Model

15
Most Common Approaches

• One Teaching, One Drifting
• Parallel Teaching
• Station Teaching
• Alternative Teaching
• Team Teaching

16
One Teaching, One Drifting

• One teacher plans and instructs, 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, who may also
  become dependent on drifting teacher

17
Parallel Teaching

• Teachers share responsibility for planning and
  instruction
• Class is split into heterogeneous groups and each
  teacher instructs half on the same material
• Content covered is the same, but methods of
  delivery may differ
• Both teachers need to be proficient in the
  content being taught

18
Station Teaching

• Teachers divide the responsibility of planning
  and instruction
• Students rotated on pre-determined schedule
  through stations
• Teachers repeat instruction to each group that
  comes through--though delivery may vary according
  to student needs
• Approach can be used even if teachers have very
  different pedagogical approaches
• Each teacher instructs every student

19
Alternative Teaching

• Teachers divide responsibility for planning and
  instruction
• The majority of students remain in large group
  setting, while some students work in a small
  group for pre-teaching, enrichment, re-teaching
  or other individualized instruction
• Allows for highly individualized instruction to
  be offered
• Teachers should be careful that the same students
  are not always pulled aside

20
Team Teaching

• Teachers share responsibility 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 that they are able to mesh
  their teaching styles

21
(No Transcript)
22
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

23
Sounds goodnow what?

• Getting co-teaching started at the building and
  classroom levels

24
Considerations

• Teachers need to volunteer and agree to co-teach
• Gradual implementation
• Attention needs to be given to 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

25
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
  co-taught classroom for only part of the day

26
Limitations and Potential Drawbacks

• Not easy to maintain in schools
• May not be enough special education teachers to
  go around
• Co-taught classrooms may be disproportionally
  filled with SWDs
• Special educators can function as more of a
  teaching assistant than a co-educator

27
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

28
Action Steps

• Administrators should provide information,
  encourage proactive preparation from teachers
• Assess level of collaboration currently in place
• Pre-plan
• Implement slowlybaby steps!

29
(No Transcript)
30
Planning and Scheduling

• Requires thoughtful planning time
• Administrative support is essential
• Here is where the alignment of special and
  general education occurs, as well as the
  alignment of assessment and instruction
• School-level scheduling should be done after
  student needs have been identified

31
Perspective Matters

• Depending on the orientation of supervisor, the
  same co-taught lesson could be viewed in
  diametrically opposing ways

32

• The two teachers looked at each other in
  disbelief. One was a tenured secondary English
  teacher who had taught for 6 years in this large
  middle-class, suburban high school. The other
  was a first year special education teacher who
  recently received her masters degree. They had
  been co-teaching a ninth grade English class for
  4 months, and although the beginning weeks were a
  bit overwhelming, they were rather proud of their
  cooperative and respectful relationship. They
  had been co-planning, co-grading, and
  co-teaching, and they were certain the class
  would go well. The students responded to the
  co-teachers combined efforts, and both social
  and academic progress was noted for all students
  in the class.
• The teachers were looking at their observation
  reports. The special education and English
  chairpersons had decided to observe the
  co-teaching class at the same time. The special
  education teacher read her report it was
  glowing. Her supervisor recognized the
  adaptations that were made in the materials, saw
  that she worked with individual students,
  observed her contribution to the teaching of the
  mini-lesson, noted the parity she enjoyed with
  her co-teacher, and acknowledged the acceptance
  and respect of her students.
• The general education teacher held back tears
  as she read her write-up. How could this be? She
  had never received an unsatisfactory observation,
  and prided herself on her competency in the
  classroom. Her supervisors had repeatedly
  recognized her skills as a teacher. She read
  through the commentsher chairperson thought
  there hadnt been enough time spent developing
  the content of the lesson and that the student
  group work detracted from more formal delivery of
  content. The chair also felt the general
  education teacher had relinquished too much of
  her role as content specialist to the special
  education teacher and noted there was too much
  interaction between the co-teachers.

33
District Level Planning Issues

• District-level planning helps reduce duplication
  of effort
• Facilitates communication within the system and
  in the larger community
• Fosters better cooperation and collaboration
  among schools

34
District Level Planning Task Force

• Administrators
• Teacher leaders
• Related services professionals
• Families
• Other appropriate community agency
  representatives

35
District Level Planning Task Force (contd)

• District level planning ensures that potential
  consequences are considered before new programs
  and services are implemented.
• The effect of one seventh grade team initiating
  co-teaching on the other 7th grade teams
• How will it impact the elementary and high school
  programs?

36
Building-Level Planning Issues

• Communicate Administrative Support and Leadership
• Select Capable and Willing Participants
• Provide Ongoing Staff Development
• Establish Balanced Classroom Rosters
• Provide Weekly Scheduled Co-Planning Time
• Develop Appropriate IEPs

37
Suggestions for Administrators Regarding
Co-teaching
38
Communicate Administrative Support and Leadership

• Principal support, understanding, and involvement
  serve as pivotal factors in lasting success
  (Barth, 1990 Pugach Johnson, 1990)
• Effective principals provide vision, recognition,
  and encouragement during the implementation
  process (Adams Cessna, 1991 Barth, 1990
  Chalfant Pysh, 1989 Fullan, 1993)

39
Select Capable and Willing Participants

• Teachers viewed as leaders by their colleagues
• Willing to make the commitment of additional time
  and effort
• Select capable volunteers for co-teaching
  assignments
• Both members of the team must be capable
  contributors
• Participants should make a good faith commitment
  to work together for a minimum of 2 years

40
Provide Ongoing Staff Development

• 3-5 days of preparation before classroom
  implementation
• Sessions should provide instruction related to
• Effective co-planning
• Co-teaching models
• Student scheduling
• Instructional considerations
• Ongoing performance assessment
• Interpersonal communication
• Time for partners to discuss concerns, solve
  problems, and formulate initial implementation
  plans

41
Provide Ongoing Staff Development

• Ongoing skill development and support should be
  provided
• Participation in college courses, summer
  workshops, and professional conferences should be
  encouraged
• Site visits to model programs
• Monthly problem-solving meetings with other
  co-teachers
• Building administrators should participate with
  co-teaching teams in staff development events

42
Establish Balanced Classroom Rosters

• School teams need to carefully assess student
  needs and available resources
• In a class of 25 students, no more that 6 class
  members should have identified disabilities in
  the mild to moderate range

43
Provide Weekly ScheduledCo-Planning Time

• Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one
  scheduled planning period (45-60 minutes) per
  week
• 10 minutes per lesson for experienced teams
  (Dieker, 2001)

44
Develop Appropriate IEPs

• Attention needs to be given to 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

45
Observing and Evaluating Co-teaching Teams
46
Critical Components for Evaluating a Co-Taught
Classroom

• What makes a good lesson?
• Are there components of a co-taught lesson that
  require unique perspectives in order to be
  evaluated effectively?

47
What Makes a Good Lesson?

• Lessons are student-centered
• Recognition of diverse learning styles of
  students
• Questions tap high-order thinking
• Engagement of students and evidence that students
  are not on task

48
A Good Lesson

• Makes use of materials that are useful and
  available
• Pays attention to motivation
• Incorporates awareness of transitions
• Contains aims that are open-ended

49
A Good Lesson

• Summation at the middle and end of the lesson
• Activities that apply the information
• Connections made to students experiences
• Positive student-teacher relationships

50
A Good Lesson

• Appropriate use of technology
• Adherence to state standards
• Reinforcement of previously learned and new
  material
• Positive teacher-teacher relationships

51
Are there components of a co-taught lesson that
require unique perspectives in order to be
evaluated effectively?

• Roles of the teachers
• The supervisor is to look at the roles of
  co-teachers, such as parallel teaching, one
  teaching one drifting, station teaching, and
  alternative team teaching. (Vaughn, Schumm,
  Arguelles, 1997)

52
Are there components of a co-taught lesson that
require unique perspectives in order to be
evaluated effectively?

• Instructional strategies
• How are strategies incorporated into a lesson?
  Evidence of co-planning needs to be easily seen
  through the strategies and modification
  integrated throughout the lesson.

53
Are there components of a co-taught lesson that
require unique perspectives in order to be
evaluated effectively?

• Assessment processes
• Is there a continuous and conscious effort to
  assess student achievement? Is there evidence of
  reflective questioning?

54
Questions to Consider When Observing Co-teaching
Teams

• Are co-teachers to be treated as one and receive
  a single observation report?
• Could the special education supervisor comment on
  the general educators performance, even if the
  focus of the observation was the special
  educator?
• Should the general and special education
  supervisors observe the same lesson?

55
Questions to Consider

• Should supervisors write one observation? Are
  there different criteria of performance for the
  general and special education teachers?
• What criteria should be used to judge teacher
  performance in a co-taught class or program?
• What roles do teachers perform? Are these roles
  meaningful?

56
Questions to Consider

• How often and for how long are teachers
  interacting with each other?
• Who is initiating and ending these interactions?
• What is the nature of these interactions (e.g.,
  cooperative, reciprocal, supportive,
  complementary, individualistic)

57
Questions to Consider

• Which students are the recipients of these
  interactions?
• What are the outcomes of these interactions for
  teachers and their students?
• What factors appear to promote and limit these
  interactions?
• How are these components incorporated into an
  effective observation tool?

58
(No Transcript)
59
Characteristics of an Observation Tool

• Specific questions may be chosen that seem most
  appropriate so as not to overwhelm the supervisor
• Importance of the pre-observation conference and
  the need for a mutual decision made by the
  supervisor and the teacher as to what questions
  in each area would be used.
• Discussions in the post-lesson debriefing would
  lead to the choice of questions for future
  observations
• Need for examples of modifications for materials,
  and types of assessments that could be
  incorporated easily within daily lessons.

60
Characteristics of an Observation Tool

• Helped supervisors focus on essential components
  of co-teaching
• Helped supervisors structure the writing of their
  observation reports.
• Sharing the guide with the co-teachers in the
  pre-observation meeting fostered a positive and
  trusting relationship between supervisors and
  co-teachers b/c expectations were clearly defined.

61
Co-teaching Rating Scale(CtRS)
62
Co-teaching Rating Scale

• Informal instrument for co-teachers and their
  supervisors
• Examines the effectiveness of co-teaching
  classrooms.
• Helps focus on areas that need improvement, and
  which components contribute to success.
• Results can be used to develop co-teaching model
• Can be modified for use as part of supervisory
  tool for examining effectiveness on co-teaching

63
Co-teaching Rating Scale

• 3 Forms
• one for special educator
• one for general educator
• one for supervisors
• identifies a profile of strengths and weaknesses.
  
• focuses on components of co-teaching
  relationship,
• determines the effectiveness of classroom
  practices,
• facilitates the formulation of goals for
  improving practice,
• refines strategies to improve and enhance
  programs.

64
(No Transcript)
65
Additional Tools, Guidelines, and Strategies for
Evaluating Co-teaching Teams
66
Interviews and Surveys

• Educators responses to surveys can provide
  insight into strengths and gaps in program
• Can be Lichert type format
• Or qualitative, open-ended

67
Lichert Type

• I prefer to work in a cooperative teaching team.
• I believe that students improve educationally and
  socially when they are taught by a cooperative
  teaching team.
• I feel that our cooperative teaching team shares
  responsibility for all activities.
• I feel uncomfortable having another adult in the
  classroom

68
Lichert (contd)

• I find it easy to communicate with my cooperative
  teaching partner.
• I perform a subordinate role in our cooperative
  teaching team.
• I feel that I have more work as a result of
  working in a cooperative teaching team.

69
Open-Ended

• How do you feel about working in a cooperative
  teaching team?
• What factors contribute to the success of your
  cooperative teaching team?
• What problems has your cooperative teaching team
  encountered?
• What support, resources, and training have been
  most helpful? Least helpful?

70
Open-Ended (contd)

• How has your cooperative teaching team affected
  your students?
• How do our students families and other
  professionals feel about your cooperative
  teaching team?
• Has working in a cooperative team changed your
  roles? If so, in what ways?
• What school wide and district wide policies have
  aided or hindered your cooperative teaching team?

71
Best Practices Checklist

• Allows for self-evaluation on various dimensions
  of collaborative efforts
• Measures overall program quality
• Can be completed individually or as a co-teaching
  team

72
For example

• We blend each others abilities, values,
  preferences, teaching styles, educational
  philosophies, and cultural perspectives.
• We discuss and agree on our programs objectives,
  curricula, assessment, teaching, and classroom
  management techniques, classroom schedules, and
  grading criteria.
• We employ a range of cooperative teaching
  instructional arrangements based on the lessons
  goals, the type of the material to be taught, and
  the needs of students.

73
For example (contd)

• We vary our roles and share the workload to that
  all team members perform meaningful activities
  that are recognized by others.
• We have sufficient time to communicate, assess
  the effectiveness of our program, and revise the
  program.
• We receive the planning time and administrative
  support to work successfully.
• We address all of our differences immediately and
  directly.

74
These data can be analyzed to identify program
strengths, educators concerns about their
cooperative teaching teams and possible solutions
to these concerns surrounding
75

• Attitudes about working in cooperative teaching
  teams
• Satisfaction with their roles working in
  cooperative teaching teams
• Success at working in cooperative teaching teams
• Observations about the factors that contribute to
  the success of their cooperative teaching teams

76

• Concerns about working in cooperative teaching
  teams
• Beliefs about the effect of their collaborative
  team on their students families and themselves
• Satisfaction with and needs in terms of
  resources, planning time, support from others,
  and training
• Satisfaction with school wide and district wide
  cooperative teaching policies and practices

77
Evaluating the Co-teaching Model
78
Evaluation

• Teachers and administrators should evaluate
  co-teaching situations at least once yearly
• The rule that assessment informs instruction
  should apply to co-teaching as wellas
  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.

79
Geneseo Central School District

• Rural
• Western New York State

80

• Elementaryspecial and general education teacher
  in a heterogeneous classroom
• Middle schoolspecial ed. teacher at each grade
  level/also teacher assistant for 6th

81
Elementary

• 1/3 of students with IEPsSpecial Ed. teacher
  provides resources as a preventive measure for
  those students who are not classified
• Student/teacher ratio lowered
• Students often have services provided in
  classroom rather than being pulled out

82
Middle School

• Follows students with greater academic needs
  through general ed. classes
• Teacher assistant follows other students
• Teachers participate in advisory groups, grade
  level team meetings, and study groups to
  facilitate communications with peers

83
Evaluation of the Co-teaching Program

• Goals and objectives to be evaluated
• Evaluation questions and methods addressing the
  objectives
• Parent Survey Protocol
• Results

84
(No Transcript)
85
Evaluation Aided In

• Assisting administrators in achieving equilibrium
  with the reform
• Providing a vehicle for monitoring program
  success
• Establishing structure for teachers to explore
  alternative approaches to teaching
• Allowing students new access to their peers in
  the general education curriculum

86
Essential Ingredients for Successful
Collaboration From the Eyes of the Practitioner
to the Ears of the Administrator
87
Involve the Administrator from the Beginning

• Share long and short term implementation
  strategies
• Share research base supporting co-teaching
• Share anticipated need for resources

88
Involving the administrator

• 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
  teams annual professional growth plan.

89
Involving the administrator

• Set specific times for observation.
• Encourage students to talk with the administrator
  about the benefits they see form learning in
  collaborative classrooms.
• Involve parents.
• Encourage advice and feedback on your performance
  from the administrators, accept it graciously,
  and use it.

90
Involving the administrator

• Inform administrators of any problems or
  controversies related to co-teaching efforts
• Teachers
• Support staff
• Parents
• Students

91
Suggestions for success

• Accept responsibility if a mistake results from
  your actions
• Videotape the class and share particularly
  interesting segments with the administrator
• Highlight student progress through data

92
Suggestions for success

• Volunteer the administrator (with prior
  permission) to speak or serve as a guest panelist
  in graduate classes
• Co-author articles for publication
• Attend professional conferences together

93
Suggestions for success

• Immediately deal with any sense of waning support
• Let the school be on the circuit of site visits
  for teams learning about co-teaching.
• Spread the word about the successes

94
References

• Gately, Susan E., and Frank J. Gately, J. 2001.
  Understanding Co-teaching Components. Teaching
  Exceptional Children. Mar/Apr 40-47
• Rea, Patricia Jordan. 2005. Engage Your
  Administrator in Your Collaboration Initiative.
  Intervention in School and Clinic. 40, 5,
  312-316.
• Salend, S.J., Gordon, J., and Lopez-Vona, K.
  2002. Evaluating Cooperative Teaching Teams.
  Intervention in School and Clinic. 37, (4),
  195-200.
• Wischnowski, M.W. Salmon, S.J. Eaton, K. 2004.
  Evaluating Co-teaching as a Means for Successful
  Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in a
  Rural District. Rural Special Education
  Quarterly. Summer, 23, 3, 3-14.
• Wilson, Gloria Lodato. (2005) This Doesnt Look
  Familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic,
  40(5), 271-275.

95

• The Access Center
• Improving Outcomes for All Students K-8American
  Institutes for Research1000 Thomas Jefferson St.
  NW Washington, DC 20007
• website www.k8accesscenter.org