1 / 47

CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE

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. Decreasing the number of students needing special education supports and services By Addressing the needs of all students

adrianal
Download Presentation

CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE

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. 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 REI:Blurring 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 IDEA’s mandate for Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) • Addresses PA’s 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

  13. Co-teacher feedback

  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 2006-7 Fall Semester Grades in Physical Science Higher Median scores in co-taught Physical Science • 0 = co-taught 1= not co-taught

  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 A’s • 5 B’s • 5 C’s • REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS WHO MOVED UP TO COLLEGE PREP ENGLISH EARNED: • 1 A • 3 B’s • 3 C’s

  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 • 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 # TEACHERS27.8 27.831.8 33.733.7 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 you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” ~ Albert Einstein

  34. REFERENCES • Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 245–255. • Cook, L. H., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(2), 1–12. • 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, 14–25. • 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), 60–66. • 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), 36–41. • Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40–47. • Geen, A. G. (1985). Team teaching in the secondary schools of England and Wales. Educational Review, 37, 29–38. • Hourcade, J. J., & Bauwens, J. (2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. Clearinghouse, 74, 242–247.

  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, 260–270. • Murawski, W. W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs through co-teaching: Take baby steps! Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2), 77–82. • Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52–58. • 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/publications/Perspectives/palches.htm

  37. REFERENCES • Salend, S., Gordon, I., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 195–200. • Steele, N., Bell, D., & George, N. (2005, April). Risky business: The art and science of true collaboration. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children’s Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD. • Trump, J. L. (1966). Secondary education tomorrow: Four imperatives for improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 50(309), 87–95. • 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), 14–20. • Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–265. • 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/intervention.

  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 SomeStudents Tier I: Foundation Standards Aligned Instruction for All Students

  43. High quality, effective instructionin the general education curriculum • Data Analysis Teaming • Universal Screening • Progress Monitoring • 4Sight Benchmark Assessments • Clear and high expectations for student learning and behavior • Support to enhance student engagement and to promote school completion Tier 1 Foundation-Standards Aligned Instruction for All Students

  44. Tier 2 Interventions for Some Students Students receive additional academic and behavioral support to successfully engage in the learning process and succeed in the standards-aligned system. • 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. Tier 3: Interventions for a Few Students • 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 R&R System

More Related