Transcript HIGHLIGHTS of the CO
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 within the regular education setting to the maximum extent appropriate
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 APPROACHES TO REI AT RADNOR
Strategies to: 1) 2) INCREASE INCLUSION INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS IN REGULAR EDUCATION Through:
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)
CO-TEACHING
REI CONTINUUM
Referral Formal IST Process Change in Regular Education Placement to Targeted REI Class (co taught, essentials, intervention) Team Collaboration (Data, IST, SAP, Grade Level) Regular Education Classroom Intervention and Monitoring of Progress Regular Education with Teacher Observation and Data Collection
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.
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
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)
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: 1.
Increased overall student achievement 2.
3.
Decreased referrals for intensive special ed. services Fewer behavior and discipline problems
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
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
2007-2008 2006-2007
Academy Training
Cohorts - 4 Limited by sub budget 44 Open : EDU 630 -29 Mandatory 64
Flex option
Study group 12 Workshops 44 2005-2006 2004-2005 Invitation to all -23 Research & Mandatory 30 Development
Co-teacher feedback
Students more accepting of peers Collegial relationships develop Data gathering and assessment increases Increased motivation for students and teachers Students become active learners Resources are shared Increased flexibility in grouping More immediate and accurate diagnosis of student need Students benefit from different teaching styles and strategies Management strategies more consistent with frequent feedback Less wait time increases time on task Cohesive programming for special needs students Individualization more likely with multiple views of student Students can imitate cooperation of adults Academic gains in literacy Decreased referrals in co taught classes
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
SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS
# of students served.
5 Sections
•Advanced Physical Science •Academic Physical Science •Advanced Biology
50 40 30 20 10 0
19
2005-6
44
2006-7
31
2007-8 2008-9
25/41
spec.
ed./IST Reg. Ed
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 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Comparison of Physical Science Sections 0 class type 1
SCIENCE CO TEACHING AT RHS
2006-7 Fall Semester Grades Advanced Physical Science Higher Median and low scores in co-taught Advanced Physical Science Comparison of Advanced Physical Science Sections Semester grades 100 90 80 70 60 50 0 1 class type – 0 = co-taught 1= not co-taught
SCIENCE CO TEACHING AT RHS
2006-7 Fall Semester Grades in Advanced Biology Higher scores and greater variability Comparison of Advanced Biology Sections 95 85 75 65 55 – 45 0 class type 0 = co-taught 1= not co-taught 1
2.5
G P A
1.5
1 2 0.5
0
COMPARATIVE RHS MATH DATA
27 Students in Topics of Math earned D- average 1st semester 27 Students in Co-taught Topics of Math earned C average Regular Education 2007-08 Regular Education 2006-07
RHS ENGLISH DATA
24 special ed. students 2006-2007 35 students in 9 th grade co-taught academic classes 11 regular ed students.
14 special ed. students moved from academic to college prep 2007-2008 21 Students moved to 10th grade college prep classes 7 regular ed. students moved to college prep. without needing further support
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
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%
COST COMPARISON IN ELEMENTARY
Elementary Cost Comparison
$20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Pull-out Co-Taught
Types of Teaching
Reg. Education Series1
COST COMPARISON IN SECONDARY
Secondary Cost Comparison
$9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 Pull-out CoTaught
Types of Teaching
Regular Educ.
Series1
AVERAGE DISTRICT COSTS OF EACH PROGRAM
District Cost Comparison
$20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Elem Sec
Types of Teaching
Ave Pull-out Co-Taught Regular Ed.
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
600
Number of Special Education Referrals
500 400 457 428 422 484 392 300 200 100 232 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 8-Mar
Percentage of Difference between PA State and RTSD Number of special education students 2002-2005
03
04
05 06 02 Over the last 5 years, the difference between RTSD and 537 State % of Special Education Students 16.4
561 16.8
573 16.6
584 16.5
575
is decreasing
.
13.5
14
14.4
14.8
RTSD # RTSD % State % +2.9
+2.8
+2.2
+1.6
% Diff
Special Education Staffing Increases
# TEACHERS 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 27.8 27.8
31.8 33.7
2006 3.4 Elementary .6 RMS 2007 .5 RMS 1.4 RHS ******************************************************
TOTAL STAFFING INCREASE 2004-2008 = 5.9 33.7
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
RTSD and State Percentage of Exits from Special Education
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 RTSD State 5.6
0 0 21.2
9.0
6.1 6.1 4.4
Q & A Even while they teach, men learn. ~ Seneca
“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”
~ Albert Einstein
REFERENCES
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Education, 22, Cook, L. H., & Friend, M. (1995). Co teaching guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28 (2), 1–12.
Remedial and Special 245–255.
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? School Failure, 46, Dieker, L. (2002). 14–25.
Preventing Co-planner (semester) . Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
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, Hourcade, J. J., & Bauwens, J. (2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. Clearinghouse, 74, 29–38. 242–247.
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. 58.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 36 (5), 52– 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
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. Education, 17, Remedial and Special 255–265.
http://www.K8accesscenter.org
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...
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
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
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.
Response to Intervention Framework Tier 3: Interventions for A Few Students Tier 2: Interventions for Some Students
Tier I:
Foundation Standards Aligned Instruction for All Students
▪
High quality, effective instruction in 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
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
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
RtI Continuum
Conceptual Framework for R&R System