MODEL SCHOOLS CONFERENCE 2009

1. MODEL SCHOOLS CONFERENCE2009 Lawrence Gloeckler,Executive Director, Special Education Institute

2. Special Education Institute Assuring students with disabilities are part of all the research, technical assistance and leadership efforts we undertake • Leadership Training • Needs Assessment • Data analysis for decision making and resource allocation • Strategic planning and implementation

3. Special Education Institute – May 2009 State Presentations Other TA LEA technical assistance

4. Fundamental ChallengeChanging the expectations of educators, parents, community members and students regarding what is possible

5. The Process of Change Dr. Richard Jones • Revolutionary in spirit, evolutionary in time frame • Schools produce the results they are designed to produce • Different results require change in the system, not simply demanding the system work better. • School-change occurs guided by leadership, driven by data, supported by continuous professional learning. • Begin with the end in mind • Beware of changing too quickly or without a clear destination.

6. Sustaining Success Valerie Chrisman • Eighty-three low performing schools that showed sustained growth – 273 growth for only a year. • Neither specific characteristics at schools or qualities of students account for difference between successful and unsuccessful schools. • Rather how well a school operates, quality of leadership and instructional programs and practices.

7. A Vision People with Disabilities Will: • Live Independently • Enjoy Self-Determination • Make Choices • Pursue Meaningful Careers • Enjoy Full Inclusion and Integration in the Economic, Political, Social, Cultural and Educational Mainstream of American Society New York State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, June 2003

8. Efficient and Effective Framework High Student Performance Special Education X Special Education High Cost Low Cost Special Education X Special Education Low Student Performance

9. STRENGTHS • Almost always, the major strength identified is the staff – dedicated and caring. • Almost always “pockets of excellence” that would be worthy of replication across the district.

10. STRENGTHS • Inclusive practices, particularly collaborative teaching, were identified consistently as a best practice and highly beneficial to both general education and special education students.

11. STRENGTHS • Technology systems that provided timely performance data to teachers and eased the paper work burden were always viewed extremely positively.

12. STRENGTHS • Strong and consistent communication with parents. • A willingness within the district to try new strategies to improve services and performance.

13. STRENGTHS • A willingness among administrators and teachers to talk frankly and collegially about issues involving special education services.

14. STRENGTHS • Relationships between general education and special education faculty were generally seen as collegial and supportive.

15. Strengths • Students in inclusion classes appear to be making greater effort than when in self-contained classes and behaviors are generally more appropriate. • The co-teaching model has expanded opportunities for special needs students to access the general education curriculum.

16. Strengths • Co-teaching is viewed as an instructional strength when partners are kept together from year to year and has also helped in reducing behavior problems. • Strong intervention systems, deeply rooted in general education, reduced over-reliance on special education.

17. Issues • There is no systematic intervention system across the district. This has led to what many participants in the group discussions believe is an over-referral of students to special education. • General education teachers would like more training on intervention strategies for struggling students.

18. Issues • There is a general perception that expectations for students with disabilities are too low. • General education teachers are left on their own to figure out how to implement accommodations, and there is no process to determine if accommodations are being implemented correctly.

19. Issues • The curriculum offered to students with disabilities is not systematically aligned with the general education curriculum, and not aligned from elementary, to middle, to high school. Career and technical education programs are not easily accessible.

20. Issues • The issue of inconsistency of programs among buildings is identified frequently at all levels. This was considered problematic for students as they transition to the next level as well as for students who are mobile within the district. There is little communication regarding programs and services between buildings.

21. Issues • There is consistent perception that the culture of the district, particularly at the secondary level, results in a “my kids/your kids” environment. There is not a perception that all staff are responsible for all of the students.

22. Issues • There is substantial agreement that new programs are frequently implemented without proper training, staff development and follow through to ensure deep implementation.

23. Issues • The curriculum in self-contained classes appears to be teacher and building driven, with inconsistency across classrooms and buildings.

24. Issues • Teachers feel that districts change direction and program approaches too frequently.

25. Issues • There has been a lack of training on the collaborative model. Training has not been presented to special education and general education teachers together. Recently hired teachers have not had training in the model. This has led to teachers having to “figure out” how to implement the model effectively.

26. Issues • Schools are using co-teaching as their full inclusion model with few, if any, other program approaches available to students receiving special education services.

27. Issues • There is inadequate common planning time for teachers involved in the collaborative model. This issue is raised consistently as an obstacle to having an effective program. • Limited use of various co-teaching approaches with teach and assist being the predominant model.

28. Interventions are planned strategies designed to change behavior or skill Not simply placing a student in a program, service or setting. STUDENT SPECIFIC Less than expected performance is not considered failure, rather a signal to provide other and varied means of instruction What is an Intervention? Patty Laney, 2008

29. School based Intervention Teams meet on a regular basis to design strategies to change behavior or skill. Each member of the team has been trained in the problem-solving approach and meeting procedures to implement this approach. Who is involved in designing an intervention plan? Patty Laney, 2008

30. Each team member has a specific role and responsibility with the process during the meeting. A member of the team conducts a “critical conversation” with the classroom teacher prior to the team meeting. Who is involved in designing an intervention plan?

31. School based Intervention Teams meet on a regular basis to design strategies to change behavior or skill. Each member of the team has been trained in the problem-solving approach and meeting procedures to implement this approach. Each team member has a specific role and responsibility with the process during the meeting. A member of the team conducts a “critical conversation” with the classroom teacher prior to the team meeting. Parents Are Team Members Who is involved in designing an intervention plan?

32. Team: Roles and Responsibilities How is an Intervention Plan developed?30 Minute Meeting Problem-solvingMeeting Procedures Carthage, MO Patty Laney, 2008 Resources: Placemat, Intervention Form and Poster

33. Intervention System Carthage, Missouri Laney, 2008

34. ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION SYSTEM IN CARTHAGE RESULTED IN A 13% REDUCTION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

35. 1996-97 Public and Private Special Education Placements in Separate Settings for Each BOCES Region and New York City New York State Education Department National Average (1996-97) : 4.3 percent 2 Regions - Less than 2% in Separate Settings 9 Regions - 2-4.3% in Separate Settings 12 Regions - 4.4-7% in Separate Settings 16 Regions - Over 7% in Separate Settings

36. 2001-02 Public and Private Special Education Placements in Separate Settings for Each BOCES Region and New York City Based on 12/3/01 PD Data New York State Education Department National Average (2000-01) : 4.2 percent 12 Regions - Less than 2% in Separate Settings 11 Regions - 2-4.3% in Separate Settings 9 Regions - 4.4-7% in Separate Settings 7 Regions - Over 7% in Separate Settings

37. Projected 2003-04 Public and Private Special Education Placements in Separate Settings for Each BOCES Region and New York City Based on Space Plan Progress Reports New York State Education Department National Average (2000-01) : 4.2 percent 15 Regions - Less than 2% in Separate Settings 11 Regions - 2-4.3% in Separate Settings 9 Regions - 4.4-7% in Separate Settings 4 Regions - Over 7% in Separate Settings

38. Faculty Arrangements • Collaborative approaches work best – if done right • Co-teaching • Team teaching

39. Signs of Trouble • “I feel like a teacher aide” • “We don’t want to step on each other’s toes” • “We are trying to figure it out as we go” • “I’m glad we were given common planning time, but I need it to do my I.E.P.’s”

40. Co-teaching Definition • Two certified teachers with a shared commitment and responsibility for the learning of every student in a class. • The purpose is to provide equal access to general education content area instruction. • The content is provided through intentional strategic instructional practices to support the learning of every student.

41. Co-Responsibilities - Examples • “Ours” rather than “yours” or “mine” • Shared materials and lesson planning • Both names on classroom door • One class roster • One syllabus with both names • Shared parent/teacher conferences • Work with all students • Common language for co-teaching approaches • “Must Haves” • Procedures for testing, paper distribution, grouping students, grading, discipline, attendance and accommodations

42. Identifying and Assigning Students in Co-Teaching Classrooms • It is not meant to serve as a “full inclusion” approach. • Which students can benefit from access to core academic subjects through this approach. • Teacher survey said limit ratio to 1/3 or less.

43. Scheduling • Schedule the students receiving special education services first. • You can only implement what makes sense given personnel available. • Schedule common planning time on a regular basis. • More flexibility with content assignments at elementary level.

44. Best Practices • Two teachers work together all day. • Special Education teacher remains in one core content area: • Teaches that content area when teaching special class (improves curriculum). • Administrators protect the co-teaching schedule.

45. Co-Planning • Insist on accountability to use it well (not for IEP’s or paperwork). • Build in co-planning time to get ready for the first week of school.

46. Building administrators need to be on the same page - have a common understanding and expectations for co-teaching partners.

47. Essential Tasks for Building Administrators in Ensuring a Successful Co-Teaching Program: • Provide ongoing professional development regarding the design and implementation of co-teaching. • Arrange site visits for staff to schools that are implementing co-teaching successfully.

48. Monitor the fidelity of implementation of the co-teaching model, effective instruction, and positive classroom/behavior management • Communicate with parents about the use of co-teaching through school newsletters, curriculum nights, and parent training opportunities.

49. Rigor/Relevance Framework and Co-Teaching Model Laney, 2008

50. Develop data-driven strategies to improve performance. These strategies should be used at all levels, from the administrative level to make policy decisions to the classroom level to make instructional decisions. Special Education Review March 2005