1 / 42

Lima City Schools The Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching

Lima City Schools The Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching. Presenters: Dana Garrison, General Education Teacher; Shanda Lochard, Intervention Specialist; Julie Stewart, Principal; Teresa Gantz, Special Education Supervisor; Bill Nellis, SST6 Consultant. Our School’s Demographics.

abram
Download Presentation

Lima City Schools The Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Lima City SchoolsThe Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching Presenters: Dana Garrison, General Education Teacher; Shanda Lochard, Intervention Specialist; Julie Stewart, Principal; Teresa Gantz, Special Education Supervisor; Bill Nellis, SST6 Consultant

  2. Our School’s Demographics • Second Year as a 5th and 6th Grade Building • Approx. 450 students • 20% Special Education Students • Approx. 90% Free and Reduced Lunch Students • 45.9% African American • 36.9% White • 2.8% Hispanic • 14.2% Multi-Racial • .2% Asian

  3. Co-Teaching Professional Development Opportunities • May 2012 - 2 day Co-teaching training • Oct 2012 – 1 day Co-Teaching training • Oct 2012 – Marilyn Friend webinar • Nov 2012 – 1 day Co-Teaching training • Dec 2012 – Marilyn Friend webinar • Feb 2013 – Marilyn Friend webinar • March 2013 – Sonya Kunkle webinar • April 2013 – Sonya Kunkle webinar • May 2013 – Marilyn Friend webinar

  4. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)Professional Development • Oct 2012 • Nov 2012 • Dec 2012 • Feb 2013 • April 2013

  5. Professional Development • SST6 provided on-site consultant services • Jan 2013 – SST6 consultants met with Principal and Special Education Supervisor • March 2013 – SST6 Consultants met with each co-teaching team

  6. Our Teaching Experiences Dana Shanda 10 years of classroom instruction (2003 – 2012) K – 5 self contained ED unit with 2 aides 5th Grade Inclusion (2 years) On a team of 5 General Education Teachers (Departmentalized) 6th Grade Inclusion (7 Years) The team that I worked with changed every year in one way or another. • 14 years of classroom instruction (1998-2012) • 4th/5th grade multi-age (without a co-teacher) • 4th/5th grade multi-age (with a co-teacher) • 5th grade general education with a shared co-teacher • 4th grade general education with a shared co-teacher • 2nd grade general education with a shared co-teacher • 5th grade general education with a shared co-teacher • 6th grade general education with a shared co-teacher

  7. Common Misconceptions • Special education services are best delivered in a pull-out setting. • Intervention specialists serve as classroom helpers. • The accountability for planning, instruction, and assessment falls solely on the general education teacher. • The accountability for modifications, accommodations, and IEP goals falls solely on the intervention specialist.

  8. Shanda’s Perspective • I was aware of the different models of co-teaching. • I knew that what had been happening wasn’t working. • I knew that together we could offer the students so much more. • I knew that I wanted to be more than a bump on a wall, BUT • I couldn’t get the general education teachers on board. • Previous Intervention Specialists had slept at their desks during class. • Intervention Specialists pulled to cover other classes so we weren’t always available as planned. • Not willing to share responsibilities including planning • Not willing to try a different strategy or give up some “power”

  9. Clarifications from Training • The accountability in my classroom should be SHARED! • As co-teachers, WE are both accountable for planning, instruction, assessment, modifications, accommodations, and IEP goals. • It is not MY classroom; it is OUR classroom! • Co-teachers are not classroom helpers. They are qualified teachers and should be treated as such. • By sharing the classroom and the accountability, we can “divide and conquer.” The workload is shared.

  10. Takeaways from the Training • Co-teaching Approaches • One Teach, One Observe • Station Teaching • Parallel Teaching • Alternative Teaching • Teaming • One Teach, One Assist • New Understanding and Appreciation for Intervention Specialists • Open Discussion and Planning for the School Year • Support from school leadership and the State Support Team

  11. 6 Co-teaching Approaches One teach One Observe: Station/rotation teaching: Parallel teaching: Teaming: One teach, one assist: Alternative teaching: Marilyn Friend - More Power!

  12. Don’t forget: You can copy-paste this slide into other presentations, and move or resize the poll.

  13. Don’t forget: You can copy-paste this slide into other presentations, and move or resize the poll.

  14. Don’t forget: You can copy-paste this slide into other presentations, and move or resize the poll.

  15. Don’t forget: You can copy-paste this slide into other presentations, and move or resize the poll.

  16. Don’t forget: You can copy-paste this slide into other presentations, and move or resize the poll.

  17. Don’t forget: You can copy-paste this slide into other presentations, and move or resize the poll.

  18. Level 1 Co-Teaching(whole group) • A process by which one teacher assumes the main teaching responsibility of the classroom and one teacher assumes a support role (Sonya Kunkel, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success)

  19. Level One Practices30% of the time • Speak and Add • Speak and Write • One Teach, One Facilitate (Assess, Take Data, Handle Materials) • Two Facilitate the whole group • Turn Taking – teachers in front of the room together • Cooperative Learning Groups with 1 or 2 teacher facilitation CAUTION: The biggest problem is one of enabling student dependence on a co-teacher who is facilitating the room

  20. Level 2 Co-Teaching (flexible grouping)“good teaching does not happen in rows” • An approach that adds value to instruction by specifically increasing the instruction intensity and the opportunities for students to respond  • Both teachers teach at the same time to smaller groups of students • Focus is on data based interventions using flexible, small group instruction • Teach specific skills or address needs identified by data • Specific IEP instruction Use 70% of the time

  21. Meshing Friend’ Models with Level 2 Strategies Pages 50 – 64, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success

  22. Meshing Friend’ Models with Level 2 Strategies Pages 50 – 64, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success

  23. Meshing Friend’ Models with Level 2 Strategies Pages 50 – 64, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success

  24. 2 Levels of Co-Teaching Level 1 Co-teaching - 30% • One teacher assumes main teaching responsibility, one teacher assumes a support role. (Kunkel) • One Teach, One Observe • One Teach, One Assist • Teaming Level 2 Co-teaching - 70% • Each teacher as specific teaching responsibilities • Teaches to planned objectives • Conducts a smaller group of students, simultaneously • Alternative Teaching • Station Teaching • Parallel Teaching Heineman Kunkel, Sonya. Advancing Co-Teaching Practices. Cromwell: Kunkel Consulting Services, 2012. Print.

  25. Meet Our Classes Class #1 Class #2 28 students 2/28 students scored a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. Median score on SMI was 605Q. • 24 students • 2/24 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. • Median score on SMI was 520Q.

  26. Our SWD Subgroup Class #1 Class #2 4 SWD students (14%) 0/4 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. Median score on SMI was 512Q. • 7 SWD students (29%) • 2/7 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. • Median score on SMI was 460Q.

  27. Decision-Making and Planning • Our greatest successes were primarily in the Station Teaching approach. • We primarily used data from formative assessments and Ohio’s 5-Step TBT process to drive the planning for each station. • We used the Station Teaching approach in these ways – • To remediate concepts/skills with which students did not demonstrate mastery • To practice multiple skills within one lesson (e.g., perimeter and area) • To provide challenge to students who had already demonstrated mastery of concepts/skills being covered • To provide alternative teaching strategies for varied learning styles

  28. Decision-Making and Planning • Prime and Composite Numbers, Prime Factorization • Pre-Assessment Class #1 Class #2 Blue – 0% Blue – 0% Green – 5% Green – 4% Yellow – 18% Yellow – 4% Red – 77% Red – 92% • Analyze student work and looks for trends • Are there students who already know how to do this? • Set A SMART Goal • 38 out of 52 students will score an 80% or higher on the post-assessment by October 26, 2012.

  29. Decision-Making and Planning • Plan Instruction • Ms. Lochard works with students who don’t understand the difference between prime and composite numbers. • Miss Garrison works with students who need support with prime factorization. • Students who have already demonstrated mastery are provided with a challenge activity to complete independently • Formative Assessment • Are students making progress? • Have some moved on to mastery? • Plan Intervention • Ms. Lochard continues to work with students who have not yet mastered the skills in a small group.

  30. Decision-Making and Planning • Summative Post-Assessment Class #1 Class #2 SWD Blue 39% 48% 20% Green 43% 26% 30% Yellow 0% 11% 10% Red 17% 15% 40% • Throughout the process, the decision-making and planning is data-driven, and it is shared.

  31. Decision-Making and Planning

  32. Decision-Making and Planning

  33. Decision-Making and Planning

  34. Student Growth • Scholastic Math Inventory scores • 6th grade growth in our building • Fall – 13% proficient • Spring – 48% proficient • Growth – 35% • Our Class #1 • Fall – 8% Proficient • Spring – 56% Proficient • Growth – 48% • Our Class #2 • Fall – 7% Proficient • Spring – 63% Proficient • Growth – 56%

  35. Student Growth Class #1 Class #2 27 students 4 SWD students (15%) 17/27 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the end of the year. Median SMI score was 900Q (gain of 295Q). • 25 students • 6 SWD students (24%) • 14/25 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the end of the year. • Median SMI score was 875Q (gain of 355Q).

  36. Growth in SWD Subgroup Class #1 Class #2 Median SWD score on SMI in the fall was 512Q. Median SWD score on SMI in the spring was 705Q (gain of 193Q). • Median SWD score on SMI in the fall was 460Q. • Median SWD score on SMI in the spring was 682Q (gain of 222Q).

  37. Performance Growth Level

  38. Student Growth (Math SMI)

  39. Contact Information • Shanda Lochard – Slochard@limacityschools.org • Dana Garrison – Dgarrison@limacityschools.org • Julie Stewart – Jstewart@limacityschools.org • Theresa Gantz – Tgantz@limacityschools.org • Bill Nellis – bnellis@sst6.org • Resources used today • http://www.sst6.org/index.php/training-archives/1315-connect-for-success-conference-june-18-2013

More Related