Transcript Co-Teaching – A Pathway to Excellence and Equity for All Presented by:

Co-Teaching –
A Pathway to Excellence and Equity for All
January 22, 2010
Presented by:
La Toyua Tolbert – ELA Elementary Program Coordinator – Cherry Creek School District
Outcomes
Develop an understanding of the rationale behind coteaching as a viable programming structure for
linguistically diverse learners
Increase knowledge of the research supporting coteaching
Develop a clear, collective definition of co-teaching
Deepen understandings of the approaches to co-teaching
Understand the essential components for embarking on
the co-teaching journey
Step to the Line
After
each statement, step to the
to indicate
the correlation
Iline
have
experienced
working
between
the
statement
and
your
within a co-teaching partnership
beliefs
about
the
statement.
in some capacity.
Step to the Line
“The joint accountability in coteaching environments should afford
All
ofwith
classroom
teaching
theaspects
educators
a mutual ownership
relationship.
Pooling equally
resources,
sharing
should
be shared
among
prep time, andduring
collapsing
attendance
co-teachers
the
and grade book lists into one all make
designated co-teaching time.
the atmosphere one of ownership,
unity, and empowerment.”
TRUE
Huggins, M., Huyghe, J., & Iljkoski, E., 2007
Step to the Line
“The two co-teaching professionals will
grow their relationship gradually over
The success and effectiveness
time. Co-teachers usually begin at a
of
a
co-teaching
partnership
can
co-existence level and slowly build
be determined
after
toward
co-working,
then one
co- year of
co-teaching
together.
instructing,
and
finally co-teaching
with the most responsibility: presence,
planning, presentation, problem solving,
and processing.”
FALSE
Huggins, M., Huyghe, J., & Iljkoski, E., 2007
Step to the Line
“The relationship is no bigger than the
investment of time it reflects. A minimum
ofCo-teaching
45 minutes a week
is a must. even
How can
is plausible
two
their
if teachers
there ispractice
no time
to craft
co-plan.
simultaneously in front of a class full of
students without having time to plan? If
the co-teaching team fails to plan together,
co-teaching should not be used. Schools
should make mutual planning a high priority.
It is that important!”
FALSE
Kohler-Evans, P. A.
Step to the Line
Parity must exists in a co-taught classroom. “Parity
occurs when co-teachers perceive that their unique
In co-taught
classrooms,
contributions
and their
presence on the the
team are
valued. [Co-teachers] demonstrate parity by
classroom
teacher
should
alternatively engaging in the dual roles of teacher
and
learner, expert
and novice,
giver and recipient
maintain
his or
her status
as
of knowledge or skills. . . . The outcome is that each
the lead
member
of theteacher.
co-teaching team gives and takes
direction for the co-teaching lesson so that the
students can achieve the desired benefits.”
FALSE
Villa, R., Thousand, J. A. & Nevin, A. I., 2008
ELA Programming Vision
help English Language
Federal
WhyRequirement:
are weTo considering
Learners learn English and provide access to
the core curriculum
Cherry Creek School District ELA
Programming Vision:
To provide linguistically diverse learners with
equitable access to cohesive learning
opportunities that accelerate their social and
academic English, provide access to grade level
content, and increase their overall achievement
through collaboration and co-teaching
co-teaching as a viable
programming model for
servicing English
language learners?
Why Not Pull
Out?


Pullout ESL services are “. . . generally considered a remedial
service for English language learners, and students that
transition out of these programs consistently demonstrate
low levels of language proficiency and academic achievement.”
By segregating students, we are promoting a class system in
this country for the reason that we know that the students
who meet eligibility for special education, at-risk, ESL, and
title programs are often typically of poverty and/or racially
non-White (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). We then
unintentionally teach all children that typically White
students and those of middle class belong to the normed
group and every once in a great while someone of poverty and
non-White status has the opportunity to become part of the
norm.
(Frattura & Topinka, 2006)
“I remember being pulled out of class. I think it was three times a week. It
made me feel like I was dumb and didn’t know anything. Kids think maybe
something is wrong with you if you need extra services.”
Mo Chang, Special Schools Coordinator and Charter School Liaison for St. Paul Public Schools
Why Not Pull
Out?
Pull out programs:


Result in some students receiving services and others being
denied services.
Fragment a student’s day. Teachers schedule services for
students to best meet the demands of the schedule.

Blame and label students.

Enable educators and students not to change.


Prevent the transfer of educator and student’s knowledge back
to integrated environments.
Act to remove the student from the classroom, resulting in
missed instructional opportunities.
(Frattura & Topinka, 2006)
Assessment of Diverse Children:
Bilingual Education Models and Achievement
60
General Pattern of Bilingual
Education Student Achievement
on Standardized Tests in English
*Note 1
40
52(54)* Late-exit bilingual and
content ESL
30
40(32)* Early-exit bilingual and
content ESL
20
34(22)* Content-based ESL
10
24(11)* ESL pullout traditional
0
Normal Curve Equivalents
50
61(70)* Two-way bilingual
K
2
4
6
8
10
12
Grade Level
*Note 1: Average performance of native-English speakers making
one year's progress in each grade. Scores in parentheses are
percentile ranks converted from corresponding NCEs.
Adapted from: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
6%
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
14%
50
70
84
16
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
6%
Two way bilingual (dual immersion) – 6% At-Risk
Ortiz, S. PhD., 2008
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
11%
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
14%
50
54
84
16
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
11%
Late exit bilingual and content based ESL – 11% At-Risk
Ortiz, S. PhD., 2008
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
27%
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
14%
32 50
84 RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
16
scores for monolingual English students
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
27%
Early exit bilingual program with content ESL – 27% At-Risk
Ortiz, S. PhD., 2008
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
41%
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
14%
22
50
84 RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
16
scores for monolingual English students
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
41%
Early exit bilingual program with traditional ESL – 41% At-Risk
Ortiz, S. PhD., 2008
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
60%
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
14%
11
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
50
84
16
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
60%
Traditional (non-content) ESL pullout support only – 60% At-Risk
Ortiz, S. PhD., 2008
What does research say?
Raw Scores
25
23
TEAE
Writing SPPS ELL
21
TEAE
Writing State ELL
19
17
15
2003
2004
2005
Pardini, P., 2006
What does research say?
Percent of students showing proficiency
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment
80
70
60
50
Reading ELL
Students
40
Reading NonELL Students
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
The achievement gap between ELL and non-ELL students in St. Paul Public
Schools is narrowing in reading.
Pardini, P., 2006
What does research say?
260
Raw Scores
250
240
TEAE Reading SPPS ELL
230
TEAE Reading State ELL
220
210
200
2003
2004
2005
The TEAE (Testing of Emerging
Academic English) is Minnesota’s
exam to measure the ability of
children in grades 3-12 to read and
write in English. These raw scores
estimate the amount of English a
student has learned.
SPPS ELL students in every grade level have outperformed the rest of the state’s ELL
students for each of the last three years.
Pardini, P., 2006
What does Research Say?
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
Math - ELL
Students
Math Non-ELL
Students
2003
2004
2005
The achievement gap between ELL and non-ELL students in St. Paul Public
Schools is narrowing, especially in math.
Pardini, P., 2006
Co-Teaching Defined
 Co-teaching
is two or more people sharing
Co-teaching
can be likened
to a marriage.
the
responsibility
for teaching
some or all
Partners must establish trust,
of the students assigned to a classroom.
develop and work on communication, share the
It
involves
the distribution
of creatively to
chores,
celebrate,
work together
responsibility
among people
for and
planning,
overcome the inevitable
challenges
instruction,
evaluation
forand
a classroom
problems, andand
anticipate
conflict
handle it
in astudents.
constructive way.
of
Villa, R., Thousand, J. A. & Nevin, A. I., 2008
Four Approaches to
Co-Teaching
Complementary Teaching
Supportive Teaching
Which approaches
constitute
Team
Teachingco-teaching?
Parallel Teaching
Visual Images of Co-Teaching
Review:
Describe the 4 approaches to co-teaching.
What are the benefits and challenges of each?
What questions does the video
answer/clarify for you?
Prerequisite Skills
As a group:
Generate a list of the prerequisite skills
that co-teachers should have in each of the three
identified domains: personal, pedagogical, and
discipline-specific.
Individually:
Rate your own skills as they pertain to each of the
identified domains
Discipline-Specific
What are the implications for your preparation for co-teaching?
3 Cs of Co-Teaching
1. Communicate
2. Communicate a different way
3. Communicate again
“Successful co-teaching relies on effective communication. It’s
surprising how simple matters, if not clarified, can lead to
misunderstandings that interfere with co-teaching success.”
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective
practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
Successful Co-Teaching
•Select a fundamental issue from the handout.
•Compare and contrast the two extremes of the issue.
•Brainstorm ways of balancing the extremes.
A noisy
classroom is
indication of
learning and
engagement.
Noise
Noisy classrooms
interfere with
some students’
learning
Getting Started
Provide opportunities for staff to:
Whole staff foundational
presentations
Understand the
rationales for
co-teaching
Understand
the
prerequisite skills
for co-teaching
Personal skills
Pedagogical skills
Discipline-specific skills
Have ongoing
dialogue around
co-teaching successes
and challenges
Ensuring
Co-Teaching
Success
Create a common
understanding
of co-teaching
A Guide to Co-Teaching
The Power of Two video series
Professional learning teams
Lesson study opportunities
Instructional coaching
Move beyond the
basics of co-teaching
District level courses
University courses
Have choice
within the
co-teaching
process
Volunteers
Cluster Classrooms
Personality analysis
Reflection
 How
will the ideas presented impact you in
your role as a co-teacher?
 What
lingering questions do you have
regarding co-teaching?
References
Frattura, E. M. & Topinka, C. (2006). Theoretical Underpinnings of Separate Educational Programs: The
Social Justice Challenge Continues. Education and Urban Society, 38(327), 327-344. doi:
10.1177/0013124506287032
Huggins, M., Huyghe, J. & Iljkoski, E. (2007). Co-Teaching 101: Lessons from the Trenches. Retrieved
from The Council for Exceptional Children. Web site:
www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTE
NTID=11473
Kohler-Evans, P. A., Co-teaching: How to Make This Marriage Work in Front of the Kids, Education 127
(2), 260-264
Villa, R., Thousand, J. A. & Nevin, A. I. (2008). A Guide to Co-Teaching: Practical Tips for Facilitating
Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ortiz, S. PhD. (2008) Best Practices in Nondiscriminatory Assessment [PowerPoint slides]. Web site:
www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/Best%20Practices%20in%20Nondiscriminatory
%20Assessment.ppt
Pardini, P. (2006). In One Voice. National Staff Development Council. Fall, 2006, 27(4).