CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 47
About This Presentation
Title:

CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE

Description:

CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE RTSD April 15, 2008 AGENDA REI Task force Framework for REI Co-teaching Q & A GOAL OF REI: Blurring the lines ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:123
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 48
Provided by: bla4153
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE


1
CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE
  • RTSD
  • April 15, 2008

2
AGENDA
  • REI Task force
  • Framework for REI
  • Co-teaching
  • Q A

3
GOAL OF REIBlurring the lines
  • Decreasing the number of students needing special
    education supports and services
  • By
  • Addressing the needs of all students
  • within the regular education setting to the
    maximum extent appropriate

4
REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE (REI)
  • Madeline Will 1986
  • Past Secretary of Education
  • Goals
  • Integrate special education and regular education
    services into one program that addresses needs of
    all students.
  • Increase in full mainstreaming for students with
    disabilities
  • Strengthening of academic achievement for
    students with mild and moderate disabilities and
    their underachieving classmates

5
5 APPROACHES TO REI AT RADNOR
  • Strategies to
  • INCREASE INCLUSION
  • INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW PERFORMING
    STUDENTS IN REGULAR EDUCATION
  • Through
  • COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION
  • DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
  • USE OF PARAPROFESSIONALS
  • RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)
  • CO-TEACHING

6
REI CONTINUUM
7
CO-TEACHING
  • Two teachers share professional responsibility
    for all students assigned to a class.
  • Both teachers work together to plan, assess,
    instruct, adapt, modify, remediate, enrich.

8
LEGAL RATIONALE FOR CO-TEACHING
  • Addresses IDEAs mandate for Least Restrictive
    Environment (LRE)
  • Addresses PAs proposed mandate for RtI
  • Meets the requirements of the Gaskin court
    decision
  • Addresses the District Strategic Plan Goal
  • Effective Interventions for Academic Success
    Addressing the Needs of Low Performing Students
  • Strategy- Integration of Special Education and
    increased Opportunities for Lower Performing
    Students through development and implementation
    of REI

9
GASKINS SETTLEMENT
  • Settlement is prevailing mandate
  • Before considering removal of a student with
    disabilities from a regular education classroom,
    the IEP team must first determine whether the
    goals in the student's IEP can be implemented in
    a regular education classroom with supplementary
    aids and services and school districts will
    consider the full range of supplementary aids and
    services, based on peer-reviewed research to the
    extent practicable, that can be utilized in
    regular education classrooms before contemplating
    removal of a student with disabilities from a
    regular classroom"  (page 9)

10
RESEARCH STUDY
  • Richard Villa reports the most comprehensive
    study done to date was done by Schwab Learning in
    California (2003).  In 16 CA. schools
    (elementary, middle, and secondary) findings
    included
  • Increased overall student achievement
  • Decreased referrals for intensive special ed.
    services
  • Fewer behavior and discipline problems

11
BENEFITS OF CO-TEACHING
  • At risk students are given the strategies and
    supports to be academically successful without
    having to be identified for special education
    services.
  • Meets the requirements of federal and state
    mandates of Least Restrictive Environment
  • Raises the academic rigor and behavioral bar for
    special education students

12
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Academy Training Flex option
2007-2008 Cohorts - 4 Limited by sub budget - 44 Study group- 12
2006-2007 Open EDU 630 -29 Mandatory 64 Workshops -44
2005-2006 Invitation to all -23 Mandatory 30
2004-2005 Research Development
13
Co-teacher feedback
Students more accepting of peers Students become active learners Students benefit from different teaching styles and strategies Cohesive programming for special needs students
Collegial relationships develop Resources are shared Management strategies more consistent with frequent feedback Individualization more likely with multiple views of student
Data gathering and assessment increases Increased flexibility in grouping Less wait time increases time on task Students can imitate cooperation of adults
Increased motivation for students and teachers More immediate and accurate diagnosis of student need Academic gains in literacy Decreased referrals in co-taught classes
14
CO-TEACHING IN RTSD
  • 2006 THROUGH 2008
  • RHS
  • SCIENCE
  • ENGLISH
  • MATH
  • SOCIAL STUDIES
  • RMS
  • LANGUAGE ARTS
  • SCIENCE
  • MATH
  • SOCIAL STUDIES
  • ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
  • LANGUAGE ARTS
  • MATH

15
SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS of students served.
  • 5 Sections
  • Advanced Physical Science
  • Academic Physical Science
  • Advanced Biology

19
44
31
25/41
16
SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS
  • Higher
  • Median scores
  • in co-taught
  • Physical
  • Science
  • 0 co-taught 1 not co-taught

2006-7 Fall Semester Grades in Physical Science
17
SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS
2006-7 Fall Semester Grades Advanced Physical
Science
Semester grades
  • Higher
  • Median and low
  • scores
  • in co-taught
  • Advanced Physical
  • Science
  • 0 co-taught 1 not co-taught

18
SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS
2006-7 Fall Semester Grades in Advanced Biology
Higher scores and greater variability
  • 0 co-taught 1 not co-taught

19
COMPARATIVERHS MATH DATA
GPA
Traditional Regular Education 2007-08
Co-taught Regular Education 2006-07
20
RHS ENGLISH DATA
14 special ed. students moved from academic
to college prep
21
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
  • STUDENTS WITH IEPs WHO MOVED UP TO TRADITIONAL
    COLLEGE PREP ENGLISH ARE EARNING
  • 4 As
  • 5 Bs
  • 5 Cs
  • REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS WHO MOVED UP TO
    COLLEGE PREP ENGLISH EARNED
  • 1 A
  • 3 Bs
  • 3 Cs

22
MOST STUDENTS WITH IEPS FLOURISHING IN CO-TAUGHT
CLASSES
  • CLASSROOM EVIDENCE
  • Middle School LA (1 example)
  • MEAN CLASS AVERAGE 80.6
  • REGULAR EDUCATION AVERAGE 84
  • SPECIAL EDUCATION AVERAGE 77
  • Elementary Math (1 example)
  • MEAN CLASS AVERAGE 90.8
  • REGULAR EDUCATION AVERAGE 90.81
  • SPECIAL EDUCATION AVERAGE 90.85

23
COST COMPARISON IN ELEMENTARY
24
COST COMPARISON IN SECONDARY
25
AVERAGE DISTRICT COSTS OF EACH PROGRAM
26
CONCLUSION OF COST-ANALYSIS
  • Co-teaching benefits both regular education and
    special education students
  • The cost of placing special education students in
    co-taught classes is 50 less than in the
    traditional pull-out self-contained classrooms

27
Number of Special Education Referrals
28
Percentage of Difference between PA State and
RTSD Number of special education students
2002-2005
02 03 04 05 06
537 561 573 584 575 RTSD
16.4 16.8 16.6 16.5 RTSD
13.5 14 14.4 14.8 State
2.9 2.8 2.2 1.6 Diff
  • Over the last 5 years, the difference between
    RTSD and State of Special Education Students
  • is decreasing.

29
Special Education Staffing Increases
  • 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
  • TEACHERS 27.8 27.8 31.8
    33.7 33.7
  • 2006 3.4 Elementary
  • .6 RMS
  • 2007 .5 RMS
  • 1.4 RHS

  • TOTAL STAFFING INCREASE 2004-2008 5.9

30
Reasons for Staffing Increases
  • Attain compliance with caseloads
  • Provide mandated direct instruction to remediate
    core basic skills
  • Address the needs of both regular and special
    education students
  • Meet the mandates of LRE
  • Meet the district goal of integration

31
RTSD and State Percentage of Exits from Special
Education
  • 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
  • RTSD 5.6 0 0 21.2
  • State 9.0 6.1 6.1 4.4

32
Q A
Even while they teach, men learn. Seneca
33
If you always do what youve always done, youll
always get what youve always got.
  • Albert Einstein

34
REFERENCES
  • Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers beliefs about
    co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22,
    245255.
  • Cook, L. H., Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching
    guidelines for creating effective practices.
    Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(2), 112.
  • Cook, L. H., Friend, M. (2003). Interactions
    Collaboration skills for school professionals
    (4th ed.). Boston Allyn and Bacon.
  • 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.

35
REFERENCES
  • Fennick, E. (2001). Co-teaching An inclusive
    curriculum for transition. Teaching Exceptional
    Children, 33(6), 6066.
  • 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.
  • Geen, A. G. (1985). Team teaching in the
    secondary schools of England and Wales.
    Educational Review, 37, 2938.
  • Hourcade, J. J., Bauwens, J. (2001).
    Cooperative teaching The renewal of teachers.
    Clearinghouse, 74, 242247.

36
REFERENCES
  • 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.
  • Murawski, W. W., Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and
    strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
    level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5),
    5258.
  • Palches, Ann. Collaborative Consultation
    Strategies for Supporting the Learning of All
    Children within the Classroom. Massachusetts
    Association of Supervision and Curriculum
    Development, 2005. http//www.mascd.org/publicati
    ons/Perspectives/palches.htm

37
REFERENCES
  • Salend, S., Gordon, I., Lopez-Vona, K. (2002).
    Evaluating cooperative teams. Intervention in
    School and Clinic, 37(4), 195200.
  • 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.
  • Trump, J. L. (1966). Secondary education
    tomorrow Four imperatives for improvement. NASSP
    Bulletin, 50(309), 8795.
  • Villa, R. Nevin, A. (2004) A guide to
    co-teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin Press.
  • 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.
  • http//www.K8accesscenter.org

38
COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION
  • Two educators systematically work together to
    adapt and modify the learning environment.
  • This collaboration can be accomplished through
    the techniques of coaching, modeling,
    co-planning, and intermittent direct intervention
    with students in and/or out of the classroom...

39
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION/ FLEXIBLE GROUPING
  • Not all students learn alike.
  • Instructional approaches should vary to meet
    diverse needs of students in the class.
  • Adapt/modify
  • Content
  • Process
  • Product

40
Para-educator Support
  • Trained instructional para-educators assist
    teachers and students in selected classroom
    situations.
  • Data collection and reporting for progress
    monitoring
  • Behavioral support interventions and data
    collection for behavior plans

41
RESPONSE to INTERVENTION (RtI)
  • RtI is
  • the practice of providing high quality research
    based instruction and interventions matched to
    data based student need
  • monitoring progress data frequently to make
    decisions about changes in instruction or goals
  • applying student response data to important
    educational decisions.
  • The use of RtI will result in accurate decisions
    about the effectiveness of instruction/interventio
    n.

42
Response to Intervention Framework
Tier 3 Interventions for A Few Students
Percentage of Students Requiring Intensive
Supports Decreases
Continuum of Time, Intensity and Data Increases
Tier 2 Interventions for Some Students
Tier I Foundation Standards Aligned Instruction
for All Students
43
(No Transcript)
44
  • Increased Time and Opportunity to Learn
    Supplemental small group instruction in addition
    to
  • Use of standard protocol interventions
  • More Frequent Progress Monitoring (every other
    week)
  • FBA/BIP

45
  • Intensive instruction
  • Use of standard protocols interventions
  • Supplemental instructional materials for specific
    skill development
  • Small intensive, flexible groups
  • Additional tutoring
  • Weekly progress monitoring
  • FBA/BIP

46
RtI Continuum
47
Conceptual Framework for RR System
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com