TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER

TRUMBULL COUNTYEDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER LEADINGFOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE

Effective Co-teaching Dale Lennon Director of Pupil Services Trumbull County Educational Service Center August 12, 2010

Outline • Overview of inclusion • Summary of research • Planning • Scheduling • Co-teaching in action • Evaluating your experience • Planning

Inclusion • Inclusive education is a special education service delivery model where students with disabilities are supported in chronologically age-appropriate general education classes in their home schools and receive the specialized instruction required by their IEPs within the context of the core curriculum and general class activities. Halvorsen & Neary, 2001

Three Major Models • Consultant model • Coaching model • Collaborative (or co-teaching) model Friend & Cook, 2003

Co-teaching • Co-teaching is a service delivery mechanism • Co-teaching is a means for providing the specially designed instruction to which students with disabilities are entitled while ensuring access to general curriculum in the least restrictive environment with the provision of supplementary aids and services Friend, 2007

Co-teaching: Research • Administrators, teachers and students perceive the co-teaching model to be generally beneficial Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007

Co-teaching: Research • Teachers have identified a number of conditions needed for co-teaching to be effective • Sufficient planning time • Compatibility of co-teachers • Training • Appropriate student skill level Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007

Co-teaching: Research • The predominant co-teaching model is “one teach, one assist” • Special education teachers often play a subordinate role • Teachers typically employ whole class, teacher-led instruction with little individualization Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007

Co-teaching: Research • Classroom instruction has not changed substantially in response to co-teaching • Practices known to be effective were rarely observed • The co-teaching model is employed far less effectively than possible Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007

Collaboration • “Interpersonal collaboration is a style of direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal" Friend & Cook, 2003

Benefits of Collaboration • Shared responsibility for educatingall students • Shared understanding and use of common assessment data • Supporting ownership for programming and interventions • Creating common understanding • Data-driven problem solving Friend & Cook, 2003

Obstacles to Collaboration • General educators begin with the curriculum first and use assessment to determine what was learned • Special educators begin with assessment first and design instruction to repair gaps in learning Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Obstacles to Collaboration Special educators have developed a tendency to “own” students on individualized education plans (IEPs), which decreases the “voice” and participation of classroom teachers in collaborative problem solving Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Promoting Collaboration • Teachers are more receptive to change when they have background knowledge and a chance to participate in the decisions rather than being given a special education mandate to follow Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Most Common Approaches • One Teaching, One Drifting • Parallel Teaching • Station Teaching • Alternative Teaching • Team Teaching Friend & Cook, 2003

One Teaching, One Drifting • One teacher plans and instructs, and one teacher provides adaptations and other support as needed • Requires very little joint planning • Should be used sparingly • Can result in one teacher, most often the general educator, taking the lead role the majority of the time • Can also be distracting to students, especially those who may become dependent on the drifting teacher Friend & Cook, 2003

Station Teaching • Teachers divide the responsibility of planning and instruction • Students rotate on a predetermined schedule through stations • Teachers repeat instruction to each group that comes through; delivery may vary according to student needs • Approach can be used even if teachers have very different pedagogical approaches • Each teacher instructs every student Friend & Cook, 2003

Alternative Teaching • Teachers divide responsibilities for planning and instruction • The majority of students remain in a large group setting, but some students work in a small group for preteaching, enrichment, reteaching, or other individualized instruction • Approach allows for highly individualized instruction to be offered • Teachers should be careful that the same students are not always pulled aside Friend & Cook, 2003

Team Teaching • Teachers share responsibilities for planning and instruction • Teachers work as a team to introduce new content, work on developing skills, clarify information, and facilitate learning and classroom management • This requires the most mutual trust and respect between teachers and requires that they be able to mesh their teaching styles Friend & Cook, 2003

Considerations • Teachers need to volunteer and agree toco-teach • Co-teaching should be implemented gradually • Attention needs to be given to IEP setting changes that an inclusive classroom may invoke • Goals and support services need to reflectthe new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Effective Co-planning

Pre-planning • Co-teaching requires thoughtful planning time • Administrative support is essential • Here is where the alignment of special and general education occurs • Make this time as focused as possible • Take turns taking the lead in planning and facilitating Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002

Provide Weekly Scheduling Co-planning Time • Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one scheduling/planning period (45–60 minutes) per week • Experienced teams should spend10 minutes to plan each lesson Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Effective Classroom-level Planning • Co-teachers should show a shared commitment and enthusiasm • Both teachers’ names should be posted on the door and in the classroom • All meetings and correspondence with families should reflect participation from both co-teachers • Skilled planners trust the professional skills of their partners Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Effective Classroom-level Planning (Cont.) • Effective planners design learning environments for their students and for themselves that demand active involvement • Effective co-planners create learning and teaching environments in which each person’s contributions are valued • Effective planners develop effective routines to facilitate their planning • Planning skills improve over time Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Two Stages of ClassroomCo-planning • Getting to know each other • Weekly co-planning Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Getting to Know Each Other • Ease into working with one another • Deal with the “little” things first • These typically become thedeal-breakers down the road, and preventing these road blocks earlycan make life easier Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Getting to Know Each Other (Cont.) • Important to spend time talking and getting better acquainted with eachother’s skills, interests, and educational philosophies • Having a semi-structured preliminary discussion can facilitate this process • Discuss current classroom routinesand rules Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Getting to Know Each Other (Cont.) • Consider completing a teaching style inventory • Compare how each of you prefers to structure assignments, lessons,classroom schedule, etc • Example:http://www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html

Weekly Co-planning • Effective weekly co-planning is based onregularly scheduled meetings, rather than “fittingit in” • Important to stay focused • Review content in advance of meeting Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Weekly Co-planning (Cont.) • Guide the session with the following fundamental issues: • What are the content goals? • Who are the learners? • How can we teach most effectively? Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Scheduling Co-teaching

Collaborative Scheduling • Collaborative Scheduling A • Collaborative Scheduling B • Collaborative Scheduling C Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling A • Special educator divides teaching time between two different classes in the same day Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling A • Enables students with disabilities to access a broader range of general education classrooms, including AP and honors • Ensures the availability of direct support from a special educator for critical parts of the instructional programs • Improved ratio of students with disabilities to students without disabilities Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling A • Requires effective consulting skills on the part of the special educator • Larger danger that the special educator will not be seen as an equal partner to the general educator • Could possibly disrupt the class routine Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling B • The special educator divides time between two different classes • The involvement of the special educator varies by days of the week, not within classes in the same day Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling B • Advantages are similar to Collaborative Scheduling A • Co-teachers report an ability to implement a full range of co-teaching models because of the planned involvement of both teachers in complete classes on certain days of the week Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B • Challenges are similar to Collaborative Scheduling A • Teachers need to be cognizant of the presence of two teachers on only certain days of the week • Students with specific support and accommodation requirements have to be well aligned to the schedule Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B (Cont.) • Requires general educator to be able to implement IEP requirements in the absence of the special educator • Special educator burnout is an issue because of the greater demand of knowledge of the general education curriculum • Requires supervisory judgment regarding which teachers can effectively plan and implement this model Walsh & Jones, 2004

TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER