Collaboration Patti Lee Flynn Longwood University SPED 689 February 11, 2009

1. CollaborationPatti Lee FlynnLongwood UniversitySPED 689February 11, 2009

2. OVERVIEW History of Special Education Special Education Law Related Court Cases Regular Education Initiative Collaboration Defined Issues with Collaboration Successful Collaboration Collaborative Models Teacher Preparation Highly Qualified Combining Methods

3. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION 1965 Public Law (P.L.) 89-10 Elementary & Secondary Education Act Re-addressed the issue of inequality of educational opportunity and became the basis upon which early special education legislation was drafted. 1965-1970  Four amendments to the act included: Federal & state grants programs targeted for youth with disabilities. Discretionary Programs VI The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA)

4. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 93-112 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) The first federal civil rights law protecting persons with disabilities from being excluded from any program or service receiving federal financial assistance. Public Law (P.L.) 93-280 The Education Amendments The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) Amendments of 1974 was the first to mention “appropriate” education for all children with disabilities. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act(FERPA)gave parents and students over 18 y.o. the right to examine records kept in the students’ personnel file.

5. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 94-142 The Education For All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA) 1975  Guaranteed free and appropriate public education (FAPE) 5-21 – special education & related services Those services designed to meet individual needs Individualized Education Program (IEP) based on a multi-disciplinary assessments Individualized Education Program (IEP) to include specific/related services provided To the maximum extent possible each student will be taught in their LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)

6. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Cont. 1983-1990  Public Laws (P.L.) Parent training Early Childhood Intervention Children’s protection 0-2 Early Intervention Program (EIP) 3-5 FPE and Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) Assistive technology services & devices for all Civil rights to include public accommodations

7. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 101-476 The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) Amendment of 1990  RENAMED Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Added autism & traumatic brain injury “handicapped child” became “child with disabilities.” Transition services by age 16 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) TO MAXIMUM EXTENT

8. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 105-17  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997(IDEA) Participation in state and district assessment, with or without accommodations Development of state & district alternate assessment with guidelines Enhanced parental participation in eligibility & placement decisions Streamlined student evaluation & reevaluation requirements

9. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Cont. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997(IDEA) Cont. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) ACCESS TO GENERAL EDUCATION Mediation to resolve parent-school differences Disciplinary procedures Developmentally delayed identification expanded for ages 3-9 at discretion of state & local education agency.

10. CURRENT EDUCATION LAW Public Law (P.L.) 107-110  No Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB). Accountability for all Children, including the disabled. Assessment results and State progress must be disaggregated by all disadvantaged including the disabled Assessments must provide accommodations for those with disabilities as defined in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Assessments must be valid and with the widest possible range of students

11. CURRENT EDUCATION LAW Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 107-110  No Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB) Cont. State developed grade-level standards for all students, disabled included, to meet Individualized Education Program (IEP) team determines if child cannot participate If child cannot participate, the state must provide one or more alternate assessments

12. CURRENT EDUCATION LAW Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 107-110  No Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB) Cont. Alternate assessments must yield results for the grade & content area in which the student is enrolled. Separate state standard-setting process for the most significant cognitively disabled (Three standard deviations below the mean). AYP data will include assessment results for all those who are not in the 1% limit of the cognitively disabled maximum. If school fails two consecutive years, students may be transferred to another school at no charge. Low income students in this bracket are also eligible for tutoring, after-school services and summer school.

13. CURRENT EDUCATION LAW Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 107-110  No Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB) Cont. State and school districts will be graded on student achievement, comparison of students at basic/proficient /advanced levels of achievement & drop out rate. Special Education Teachers in content areas must be “Highly Qualified”.

14. CURRENT SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW Cont. Public Law (P.L.) 108-446  Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Rights to Children With Disabilities & Their Parents To assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities

15. RELATED COURT CASES RONCKER V. WALTER, 700 F.2D 1058 (6TH CIR. 1983) Neil was chronologically 9 years old Neil had the mental capacity of a two or three year old Neil’s IQ was below 50 Neil’s parents disagreed with the IEP team’s placement decision Parents fought to have their son in core classes with reg. ed. Peers. The court developed the following two-part test to guide the appropriate placement for a student with a disability: (1) Can the educational services that make the segregated setting superior be feasibly provided in a non-segregated setting? (If so, the segregated placement is inappropriate.) (2) Is the student being mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate?

16. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. DANIEL R. R. V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 874 F.2D 1036 (5TH CIR. 1989) Daniel was chronologically 6 years old and has Downs Syndrome Daniel had the mental capacity of a three year old & started out in a school for children with special needs. School complied with parent’s request to mainstream him half the day School didn’t work out and placement was changed back This court, relying on Roncker, also developed a two- part test for determining if the LRE requirement is met. The test poses two questions: (1) Can an appropriate education in the general education classroom with the use of supplementary aids and services be achieved satisfactorily? (2) If a student is placed in a more restrictive setting, is the student "integrated" to the "maximum extent appropriate"?

17. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. GREER V. ROME, 950 F.2D 688 (1LTH CIR. 1991) Christy Greer had an IQ of 40 She was to be placed in a self-contained kindergarten class The parents objected, arguing that the appropriate placement should have been in a classroom at her neighborhood school. In finding for Christy and her parents, the court determined that the school had failed to consider any less restrictive setting prior to making the decision for a self-contained environment. From this case, the concept of the "continuum of placement options" was developed.

18. CONTINUUM OF SERVICES • Regular classes • Resource rooms • Special classes • Special Schools • Residential institutions

19. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. OBERTI V. CLEMENTON, 995 F.2D 1204 (3RD CIR. 1993) • Rafael had autism and disruptive in a general ed. class • School wanted to change to a more restrictive class. This is the case that begins the change from the IDEA's "mainstreaming" approach to the concept of "inclusion Success in special schools and special classes does not lead to successful functioning in integrated society, which is clearly one of the goals of the IDEA." Remember that the word "inclusion" did not appear in the IDEA; it is a judge-made law.

20. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. SACRAMENTO V. RACHEL H. 14 F.3D 1398 (9TH CIR. 1994) • Rachel Holland was a third-grade student with an IQ of 44. • Her parents argued that with appropriate aids and services, she could be educated in the general classroom. • The court ruled that in determining the appropriate placement, the educational benefits of the general education classroom with supplemental aids and services must be compared to the educational benefits of the special classroom. • The nonacademic benefits of interaction with nondisabled students also must be considered. • Further, the effect of the student's presence on the teacher and on other students must be evaluated. This three-pronged test is often called the Holland test. This case is the high- water mark of the inclusion movement

21. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. LIGHT V. PARKWAY 41 F.3RD 1223 (8TH CIR. 1994) • Lauren Light was "violent, dangerous, and disruptive" inher general classroom placement. • In rejecting the parents' request for a "stay-put" and a return to the general classroom, the court held, "A student who is violent, dangerous, and disruptive of the education of others is never properly placed in a regular classroom setting." This case marked a turn in the judicial belief that inclusion is a right. Further, the court indicated that all of the circumstances surrounding a student must be taken into account when determining the proper placement. For some students, a general classroom may not be appropriate even with aids and services.

22. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. • CLYDE K. V. PUYALLUP 35 F.3D 1396 (9TH CIR. 1997) Applying the Holland test, the court found that the student was not receiving academic benefits in the general education classroom and actually had regressed academically. Although appropriate aids and services had been provided, the student was socially isolated and therefore nonacademic benefits were minimal. The court acknowledged that the student's presence in the classroom had negative effects on the teacher and the student's peers. The language of the court's decision included the statement, "Disruptive behavior that significantly impairs the education of others strongly suggests a mainstream placement is no longer appropriate."

23. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. HARTMANN V. LOUDOUN, 118 F. 3D 996 (1997) Mark Hartmann was an 11-year old who had autism and disruptive behavior. • His IEP team found that he was making no academic progress in the regular classroom and proposed moving him to a smaller class specifically structured for students who had autism. His parents argued that his placement would violate IDEA's LRE provision. A lower court decision in the parents' favor was reversed. Hartmann is important because of the court's admonishment of the lower court for substituting its judgment for that of educators. • In rendering its decision, the court held for the following: (1) Mainstreaming is not required when a student with a disability will not receive an educational benefit from it. (2) Any marginal benefit from mainstreaming would be outweighed by benefits that could only be obtained in a separate educational setting; (3) A determination of whether the student is a disruptive force in the general education classroom is a legitimate issue; and (4) Any IDEA preference for mainstreaming is only that, and the receipt of social benefits is a subordinate goal to receiving educational benefits.

24. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. • HUDSON V. BLOOMFIELD HILLS, 108 F.3D 112 (6TH CIR. 1997) • 14- year-old girl in special education • An emphasis on "life skills" • Parent's preference for a general education placement. The court said that the appropriate purpose of her education was to give her the skills she needed to "function as an independent woman in society." In the judgment of the court, the student was not receiving those skills in her general classroom placement.

25. RELATED COURT CASES Cont. • DOE V. ARLINGTON COUNTY, 41 F.SUPP. 599 (ED. VA. 1999) The court upheld a segregated setting with some mainstreaming for a 10-year-old with mental retardation and ADHD rather than the full-inclusion program the parents advocated. The court found a lack of meaningful educational benefits in the general classroomsetting.

26. The Regular Education Initiative The Regular Education Initiative (REI) of 1986  Introduced in 1986 by former Assistant Secretary of Education, Madeleine C. Will Recognized the need for general educators to become more responsible for the education of students who have special needs in school. Regular Education Initiative (REI) was vague, what were each teacher’s roles?

27. COLLABORATION Technical Definition  Interpersonal collaboration is a style for direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal.

28. COLLABORATION Cont. Dictionary Definitions  To work, one with another; to cooperate. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort. To cooperate, usually willingly.

29. COLLABORATION Cont.Adjectives Used To Define Collaboration Interpersonal Co-equal Voluntary Cooperate Together Interaction Shared Common goal Joint Willingly

30. ISSUES WITH COLLABORATION Caseloads and distribution General Education class size How many student with IEPs in class Diversity of Student Needs Common Planning Time Commitment of both teachers to the model Administrative Support

31. SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATION Mutual Goals Voluntary Parity Shared Participation/Decision Making

32. SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATION Cont. Shared Resources Shared Accountability for Outcomes Value the Interpersonal Style Trust

33. MODELS ONE TEACH—ONE ASSIST (Low Frequency) One person keeps primary responsibility for teaching while the other professional circulates through the room providing unobtrusive assistance to students as needed. Note: In no samples are any teachers sitting without students or using a “docking station”. • Advantages • Great for Sp. Ed. Teachers who have little to no content area experience. • Little to no interruptions with instruction when pull-outs and individualized attention is needed for students. • Disadvantages • Sp. Ed. Teacher is seen as an aid and students are less likely to utilize their assistance. • Sp. Ed. Teacher often time takes on the duties of an aid and is not afforded necessary time to assist and/or teach Sp. Ed. Students.

34. MODELS Cont. ONE TEACH—ONE OBSERVE (Low Frequency) One teacher keeps primary responsibility for teaching, while the other observes the class in order to gather data about students’ behaviors, learning styles, gender bias etc. The information can be later used to better adapt lesson plans and seating arrangements. • Advantages • More detailed observation of students engaged in the learning process can occur Sp. Ed. Teachers have more time to observe the class. • co-teachers can decide in advance what types of specific observational information to gather • Afterwards, the teachers can analyze the information together • Disadvantages • Sp. Ed. Teacher is seen as an aid • Sp. Ed. Teacher is not afforded necessary time to assist and/or teach Sp. Ed. Students. • Teachers unfamiliar with the content area have little time to focus on material and are later unable to assist students with their work.

35. MODELS Cont. Advantages Some teachers refer to this as having “one brain and two bodies Sp. Ed. Teachers have more time to observe the class. Most teachers consider this style a satisfying way to co-teach. Disadvantages Most co-teachers consider this approach the most complex Mostly dependent on teachers’ styles Not effective if the Sp.Ed. Teacher is unfamiliar with the content area. TEAMING (Medium Frequency) In teaming, both teachers are delivering the same instruction at the same time. Some call it “tag teaming”.

36. MODELS Cont. ALTERNATIVE TEACHING (Medium Frequency) In alternative teaching, one teacher takes responsibility for the large group while the other works with a smaller group. . • Advantages • Great for students who need specialized attention. • Time for remediation • Enrichment opportunities • Make-ups • Pre-teaching • Disadvantages • Students can fall behind the rest of the class. • Sp. Ed. Students lose anonymity and are less likely to willingly participate • Can be disruptive to the rest of the class. • Can be abused by taking away the benefit and legal right to inclusion by creating a self-contained situation within the classroom

37. MODELS Cont. STATION TEACHING (High Frequency) In this co-teaching approach, teachers divide content and students. Each teacher then teaches the content to one group and subsequently repeats the instruction for the other group. If appropriate, a third “station” could give students an opportunity to work independently. • Advantages • Both teachers get shared teaching time. • Smaller teacher to student ratio • Those who need small group instruction don’t need to be pulled out • Third station provides time for independent application. • Sp. Ed. Teacher is viewed by the students as an equal authority in the classroom. • Disadvantages • May be difficult to create station learning in certain contents • Difficult if Sp. Ed. Teacher is not familiar with the content area.

38. MODELS Cont. • PARALLEL TEACHING (High Frequency) In parallel teaching, the teachers are both teaching the same material, but they divide the class group and do so simultaneously. • Advantages • Both teachers get shared teaching time. • Smaller teacher to student ratio • Those who need small group instruction may not need to be pulled • Sp. Ed. Teacher is viewed by the students as an equal authority in the classroom. • Disadvantages • Difficult if Sp. Ed. Teacher is not familiar with the content area. • May be distracting to students • Teaching methods are limited to avoid distractions to the other group.

39. TEACHER PREPARATION • Within Universities & Colleges • Traditional methods • Fast track/career switcher programs (Supply/Demand) • “Teach America” • Within School Divisions • Workshops • Seminars • Professional Development Days • Mentoring • Classes • Teacher Planning

40. HIGHLY QUALIFIED?NCLB • Para-Educators • Provisional • Five-year licensure • Content expertise

41. COMBINING METHODSTWO TEACHER TIER -YES- Teachers should use One Teach One Assist while participating in a consultative relationship. -NO- Is this the Sp. Ed. Teacher’s Second year teaching in the content area? -YES- Is this the Sp. Ed. Teacher’s Second year teaching with the same teacher? -NO- Has the Sp. Ed. Teacher taught with this Regular Ed. Teacher before? -YES- Teachers should use either Parallel or Station Teaching Models -NO- Teachers should use either Alternative or Parallel Teaching Models -YES- Teachers should use either Parallel or Station Teaching Models -NO- Teachers should use either Alternative, Parallel or Station Teaching

42. REFERENCES Correa, V. I., Jones, H. A., Thomas, C. C., and Morsink, C. V. (2005). Interactive teaming: Enhancing programs for students with special needs. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Friend, M., and Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. (5th ed.). Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon. Flexer, R. W., Baer, R. M., Luft, P., and Simmons, T. J. (2008). Transition planning for secondary students with disabilities. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

43. REFERENCES Cont. Murdick, N. L., Gartin, B. C., Crabtree, T. (2007). Special education law. Second Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. De Mary, J. L., (July 30, 2004) Memo from Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved from: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/suptsmemos/2004/inf157.html Top Education Degrees, Alternative Certification for Teachers: Fast Track Teaching Degrees. Retrieved from: http://www.topeducationdegrees.com/alternative-certification-for-teachers