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

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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Decision-Making and Planning

35. Decision-Making and Planning

36. Decision-Making and Planning

37. 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%

38. 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).

39. 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).

40. Performance Growth Level

41. Student Growth (Math SMI)

42. 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