TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER

1
TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER

• LEADING FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE

2
Effective Co-teaching

• Dale Lennon
• Director of Pupil Services
• Trumbull County Educational Service Center
• August 12, 2010

3
Outline

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

4
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
5
Three Major Models

• Consultant model
• Coaching model
• Collaborative (or co-teaching) model

Friend Cook, 2003
6
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
7
(No Transcript)
8
Co-teaching Research

• Administrators, teachers and students perceive
  the co-teaching model to be generally beneficial

Scruggs, Mastropieri McDuffie, 2007
9
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 McDuffie, 2007
10
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 McDuffie, 2007
11
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 McDuffie, 2007
12
Collaboration

• Interpersonal collaboration is a style of direct
  interaction between at least two co-equal parties
  voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as
  they work toward a common goal"

Friend Cook, 2003
13
Benefits of Collaboration

• Shared responsibility for educatingall 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
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
Most Common Approaches

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

Friend Cook, 2003
18
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
19
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
20
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
21
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
22
(No Transcript)
23
Considerations

• Teachers need to volunteer and agree toco-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 reflectthe
  new learning experiences that students will
  receive in general education classes

Murawski Dieker, 2004
24
(No Transcript)
25
Effective Co-planning
26
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
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
Provide Weekly Scheduling Co-planning Time

• Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one
  scheduling/planning period (4560 minutes) per
  week
• Experienced teams should spend10 minutes to plan
  each lesson

Dieker, 2001 Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
30
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
31
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 persons
  contributions are valued
• Effective planners develop effective routines to
  facilitate their planning
• Planning skills improve over time

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
32
Two Stages of ClassroomCo-planning

• Getting to know each other
• Weekly co-planning

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
33
Getting to Know Each Other

• Ease into working with one another
• Deal with the little things first
• These typically become thedeal-breakers down the
  road, and preventing these road blocks earlycan
  make life easier

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Getting to Know Each Other (Cont.)

• Important to spend time talking and getting
  better acquainted with eachothers skills,
  interests, and educational philosophies
• Having a semi-structured preliminary discussion
  can facilitate this process
• Discuss current classroom routinesand rules

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
37
(No Transcript)
38
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
• Examplehttp//www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html

39
(No Transcript)
40
Weekly Co-planning

• Effective weekly co-planning is based
  onregularly scheduled meetings, rather than
  fittingit in
• Important to stay focused
• Review content in advance of meeting

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, Land, 1996
41
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
42
Scheduling Co-teaching
43
Collaborative Scheduling

• Collaborative Scheduling A
• Collaborative Scheduling B
• Collaborative Scheduling C

Walsh Jones, 2004
44
Collaborative Scheduling A

• Special educator divides teaching time between
  two different classes in the same day

Walsh Jones, 2004
45
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
46
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
47
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
48
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
49
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
50
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
51
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
52
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
53
Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling C

• Requires the highest degree of planning and
  buy-in by a team of teachers

Walsh Jones, 2004
54
Co-teaching in Action
55
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 others learning style preferences
  to see how these can be incorporated into the
  lesson to assist students with varying styles

Murawski Dieker, 2004
56
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 and any
  additional goals

Murawski Dieker, 2004
57
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
58
Three Stages of Co-teaching Relationships

• Beginning Stage
• Compromising Stage
• Collaborative Stage

Gately, 2005
59
Three Stages of Co-teaching As They Apply To

• Physical Arrangement
• Familiarity With the Curriculum
• Curriculum Goals and Modifications
• Instructional Presentation
• Classroom Management
• Assessment

Gately Gately, 2001
60
Physical Arrangement
61
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
62
Physical ArrangementBeginning Stage (Cont.)

• Invisible walls
• A classroom within a classroom

Gately Gately, 2001
63
Physical ArrangementCompromising 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
64
Physical ArrangementCollaboration 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
65
Physical ArrangementCollaboration 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
66
Familiarity With the Curriculum
67
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
68
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
69
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
70
Curriculum Goals and Modifications
71
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 educators role is seen as helper

Gately Gately, 2001
72
Curriculum Goals and Modifications Compromising
Stage

• General educator may view modifications as
  giving up or watering down the curriculum

Gately Gately, 2001
73
Curriculum Goals andModifications 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
74
Instructional Presentation
75
Instructional PresentationBeginning Stage

• Teachers often present separate lessons
• One teacher is boss one is helper

Gately Gately, 2001
76
Instructional PresentationCompromising 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
77
Instructional PresentationCollaborative 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
78
Classroom Management
79
Classroom ManagementBeginning Stage

• Special educator tends to assume the role of
  behavior manager

Gately Gately, 2001
80
Classroom ManagementCompromising Stage

• More communication and mutual development of
  rules
• Some discussion for individual behavior
  management plans

Gately Gately, 2001
81
Classroom ManagementCollaborative 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
82
Assessment
83
Assessment

• With the current emphasis on high-stakes tests,
  co-teaching provides an effective way to
  strengthen the instructionassessment 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
84
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 students knowledge of the content

Gately Gately, 2001
85
AssessmentCompromising 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
86
AssessmentCollaborative Stage

• Both teachers appreciate the need for a variety
  of options when assessing students progress

Gately Gately, 2001
87
(No Transcript)
88
(No Transcript)
89
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
90
Evaluating Your Experience

• Planning and implementation
• Effectiveness
• Strengths and gaps

91
Essential Ingredients for Successful
Collaboration From the Eyes of the Practitioner
to the Ears of the Administrator
92
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
93
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
  teams annual professional growth plan

Rea, 2005
94
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
95
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
96
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

Murawski, 2005
97
Planning for 2010-11
98

• Access Center
• http//www.K8accesscenter.org

99
References

• Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics
  of effective middle and high school co-taught
  teams? Preventing School Failure, 46, 1425.
• Dieker, L. (2002). Co-planner (semester).
  Whitefish Bay, WI Knowledge by Design.
• Friend, M., Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions
  Collaboration skills for school professionals
  (4th ed.). Boston Allyn and Bacon.
• Gately, S. E. (2005). Two are better than one.
  Principal Leadership, 5(9), 3641.
• Gately, S. E., Gately, F. J. (2001).
  Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching
  Exceptional Children, 33(4), 4047.
• 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., McDuffie, K.
  (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the
  content areas Successes, failures, and
  challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic,
  40, 260270.
• Murawski, W. W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs
  through co-teaching Take baby steps! Kappa Delta
  Pi Record, 41(2), 7782.

100
References (cont.)

• Murawski, W. W., Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and
  strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
  level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5),
  5258.
• Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in
  your collaboration initiative. Intervention in
  School and Clinic, 40(5), 312316.
• Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. and McDuffie,
  K.A. (2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms
  A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research.
  Exceptional Children, 73-4, 392-416.
• Steele, N., Bell, D., George, N. (2005, April).
  Risky business The art and science of true
  collaboration. Paper presented at the Council for
  Exceptional Childrens Annual Conference,
  Baltimore, MD.
• Walsh, J. M., Jones, B. (2004). New models of
  cooperative teaching. Teaching Exceptional
  Children, 36(5), 1420.
• Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., Land, S.
  (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching The
  key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special
  Education, 17, 255265.

101
Trumbull County Educational Service Center

• LEADING FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE