Transcript Inclusive Education Ardmore City Schools

Ardmore City Schools
Inclusive Education
Charles Evans Elementary
Mrs. Denise Brunk, Principal
Mr. Jake Falvey, Assistant Principal
Mrs. Kara Wendell, Assistant Principal
Charles Evans Elementary Teachers and Students
Jefferson Elementary
Mrs. Kristie Jessop, Principal
Jefferson Elementary Teachers and Students
Lincoln Elementary
Mrs. Ellen Patty, Principal
Lincoln Elementary Teachers and Students
Mr. Sonny Bates,
Superintendent
Mrs. Missy Storm,
Assistant Superintendent
Inclusion is the welcoming and acceptance of
all students to participate in the general
education classroom without being separated
from their peers.






Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Services
Accommodations/Modifications
504 or Individual Education Plan (IEP)
Differentiation

FAPE is defined as “the provision of regular or
special education and related aids and services
that are designed to meet individual needs of
handicapped persons as well as the needs of
non-handicapped persons are met and based
on adherence to procedural safeguards
outlined in the law.” 34 CFR 300.101


To the maximum extent appropriate, children with
disabilities, including children in public or private
institutions or other care facilities, are educated with
children who are not disabled, and special classes,
separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment
occurs only when the nature or severity of the
disability of a child is such that education in regular
classes with the use of supplementary aids and services
cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
34 C.F.R. §300.114(a)].






Higher expectations for student participation
Reduce transition between classes
Implementation of Common Core Standards
Overuse of Oklahoma Modified Alternative Assessment
Program (OMAAP) in the state of Oklahoma
Phasing out of the OMAAP assessment in math and reading
Rigorous instruction in general education classrooms
What Does Inclusion look like?
Every educator is
committed to the goal of
helping all students achieve
their potential.
There is cohesive
cooperation among all
teachers.
Special education does not
exist as a separate entity.
Differentiation is
considered the rule, not the
exception.
The term inclusion is rarely
needed because it is such
an integral part of the
school culture.







Curriculum Mapping
Teacher Collaboration
Title Programs
REAC3H
Increase in personnel
Technology
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)

Accommodations – Changes in materials or
procedures that enable students to
meaningfully access instruction and
assessment. Assessment accommodations do
not change the construct that is being
measured.
•Accommodations mediate the effects of a
student’s disability and do not reduce
learning expectations.

Modifications – Changes in materials or
procedures that enable students to access
instruction and assessment. Assessment
modifications do change the construct that is
being measured.
•Modifications create challenges for
assessment validity
What is it?
 Consistently using a variety of instructional
approaches to modify content, process, and/or
products in response to learning readiness and
interest of academically diverse students
Tomlinson, C. (2009). The goals of differentiation. In M. Scheerer, Ed. Supporting the
whole child: Reflections on best practices in teaching, learning, and leadership.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD, pp3-11.

Regardless of ability level, the majority of
students are spending more and more time
within a general education setting. With this
trend comes a vast level of student interests,
readiness and learning styles and therefore
teachers need to accommodate their curriculum
to meet the needs of ALL students.
Challenges during our
journey…
Scheduling, IEP Content and Paperwork
-Special Education Teachers daily schedules
-Paraprofessionals schedules
-General Education Teachers class schedules
-The service pages of the IEP had to be
reviewed and revised.
-There were inconsistencies with the IEP
correlating with the class schedules and
special education teacher
-Paraprofessional’s schedule
Parents who did not agree
with inclusion. Difficulty
explaining inclusion to
parents.
Parents requesting their child
continue to be “pulled
out” of the general
education classroom.
Parents’ complaints with the
state department.
How Students with Disabilities
are being supported in an
inclusive classroom
General education and
special education
teachers who were not
confident in the
process of inclusion.
Special education teachers
no longer have “their
own classroom.”





Regular class full time (more than 80% of the
day)
Part time classes (40-79% of the day including
lab/resource)
Less than 40% of the day in a regular setting
Separate class (full time)
Special school/homebound/correctional
facility









Who teaches what?
What is the role of the paraprofessional?
Are the paraprofessionals co-teaching?
Transition from the OMAAP to OCCT
“They can’t pass that test. Why do they have to take the regular
test.”
Teacher referrals for initial Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)
and Intellectual Disabilities (ID)
Increase in the ID classrooms.
Put all ID students in the ID classroom
iPads, what if the general education students break one of my
iPads?

Who is really the teacher of record?

Who assigns the grades?


Who will be accountable for their OCCT/OMAAP
test scores?
Board Meeting attendance increased from the
general public mostly consisting of the general
education teachers who were in protest of
inclusion.
PERSONNEL - STAFFING
Increase in funding to support the extra
personnel. ($$$)
There was a delay in posting the
positions, interviewing and completing
the process with board action. With the
delay there was concern of compliance
and the IEP.
Increase of enrollment district wide of
students on an IEP indicating special
education teachers being over caseload
TRANSITIONS
Service times scheduled during
restroom breaks and transition
to elective classes.


Lack of confidence in behavioral procedures for SWD.
General education teachers are no longer allowed to send the
students with an IEP to the resource room for a time-out.

Teachers sense of being unqualified to deal with this population.

It takes most of my day to give them extra instruction.

Consistency of district policy of discipline for SWD.

Who is making the modifications for these students?

I’m calling the state department.

General frustration about where the training will come from to
help prepare the them for inclusion.
LIMITATIONS



Distractions to the nondisabled
students by having the extra
person in the classroom talking
at the same time.
Students on an IEP will not ask
for help.
Grouping all students with an
IEP together in the seating chart.
BENEFITS




Access to curriculum
Inclusive learning with same
age peers
Smaller teacher-student ratio
(due to 2 teachers) therefore
access to immediate clarification
Better opportunity to include
students who are considered “at
risk”



Not all students who have disabilities require
specialized instruction.
For students with disabilities who do require
specialized instruction, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) controls the
procedural requirements, and an IEP is developed.
The IDEA process is more involved than that of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and requires
documentation of measurable growth on the IEP.



For students with disabilities who do not require specialized
instruction but need the assurance that they will receive
equal access to public education and services, a document is
created to outline their specific accessibility requirements.
Students with 504 Plans do not require specialized
instruction, but, like the IEP, a 504 Plan should be updated
annually to ensure that the student is receiving the most
effective accommodations for his/her specific circumstances
https://www.washington.edu/doit/Stem/articles?52
What does successful Inclusion
look like?

For Inclusion and Co-Teaching to be successful,
a framework needs to be in place. This includes
a vision and mission statement as well as a step
by step process, timeline and who is
responsible for each specific area of the
program.
Mathematics: Comparisons of Winter 2011 to Winter
2012Gains and/or Losses
* Denotes post inclusion results
Charles Evans
Jefferson
WI – 2011 WI – 2012
WI -2011
1st Grade
11.1
Lincoln
WI -2012 WI – 2011 WI 2012
8.3
*7.9
2nd
Grade
6.6
*4.5
-2.3
*7.7
8.0
*6.8
3rd
Grade
4.5
*8.5
5.5
*29.5
3.3
*-0.9
4th
Grade
1.7
*5.4
2.5
*6.8
-0.4
*2.0
5th
Grade
3.5
*2.2
-24.0
*19.0
7.3
*-0.3
CE
JF
LN
1st Grade
2nd Grade
-2.1
9.9
-1.3
3rd Grade
4.0
24.0
-4.2
4th Grade
3.7
4.3
2.4
5th Grade
-1.2
43.0
-7.7
Note: Gains at all three sites in 4th grade level.
Note: Gains at all grade levels at Jefferson.
50
43
40
30
24
CE
20
JF
9.9
10
3.7 4.3 2.4
4
LN
0
-10
-20
-2.1
-1.3
2nd Grade
-1.2
-4.2
3rd Grade
4th Grade
-7.7
5th Grade
Charles Evans
WI –
2011
1st Grade
WI –
2012
Jefferson
WI –
2011
*6.8
WI –
2012
Lincoln
WI –
2011
*5.7
WI –
2012
*5.1
2nd
Grade
3.0
*6.3
12.5
*0.3
4.5
*2.5
3rd Grade
4.7
*8.7
-10.5
*7.0
11.3
*7.4
4th Grade
5.2
*1.4
8.9
*5.2
3.8
*6.2
5th Grade
-0.8
*4.7
6.9
*4.7
13.7
*5.0
CE
JF
LN
2nd Grade
3.3
-12.2
-2.0
3rd Grade
3.9
17.5
-3.9
4th Grade
-3.8
-3.7
2.4
5th Grade
5.6
-2.2
-8.7
1st Grade
Note: All grade levels from different sites showing a gain.
20
17.5
15
10
5
5.6
3.9
3.3
CE
2.4
JF
0
LN
-2
-5
-3.9
-3.8-3.7
-10
-15
-2.2
-8.7
-12.2
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
Mathematics 3-Year Projections based on the Jefferson Model
Reading 3-Year Projections based on the Charles Evans Model
Charles Evans
WI –
2011
1st Grade
WI –
2012
WI –
2013
WI –
2014
WI –
2015
11.1
19.7
22.7
23.9
2nd
Grade
6.6
4.5
13.1
16.1
17.3
3rd Grade
4.5
8.5
17.1
20.1
21.3
4th Grade
1.7
5.4
14.0
17.0
18.2
5th Grade
3.5
2.2
10.8
13.8
15.0
30
25
20
W-11
W-12
15
W-13
W-14
10
W-15
5
0
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
W-11
1st Grade
W-12
W-13
W-14
W-15
7.9
16.5
19.5
20.7
2nd Grade
8.0
6.8
15.4
18.4
19.6
3rd Grade
3.3
0.9
7.7
10.7
11.9
4th Grade
0.4
2.0
10.6
13.6
14.8
5th Grade
7.3
0.3
8.3
11.3
12.5
25
20
W-11
15
W-12
W-13
10
W-14
W-15
5
0
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
WI-11
1st Grade
WI-12
WI-13
WI-14
WI-15
8.3
16.9
19.9
21.1
2nd Grade
-2.3
7.7
16.3
19.3
20.5
3rd Grade
5.5
29.5
38.1
41.1
42.3
4th Grade
2.5
6.8
15.4
18.4
19.6
5th Grade
-24.0
19.0
27.6
30.6
31.8
50
40
30
WI-11
20
WI-12
10
WI-13
WI-14
0
-10
-20
-30
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
WI-15
WI-11
1st Grade
WI-12
WI-13
WI-14
WI-15
6.8
9.1
10.9
12.1
2nd Grade
3.0
6.3
8.6
10.4
11.6
3rd Grade
4.7
8.7
11.0
12.8
14.0
4th Grade
5.2
1.4
3.7
5.5
6.7
5th Grade
-0.8
4.7
7.0
8.8
10.0
16
14
12
10
WI-11
WI-12
8
WI-13
6
WI-14
WI-15
4
2
0
-2
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
WI-11
1st Grade
WI-12
WI-13
WI-14
WI-15
5.1
7.4
9.3
10.5
2nd Grade
4.5
2.5
4.8
6.7
7.9
3rd Grade
11.3
7.4
9.7
11.6
12.8
4th Grade
3.8
6.2
8.5
10.4
11.6
5th Grade
13.7
5.0
7.3
9.2
10.4
16
14
12
WI-11
10
WI-12
8
WI-13
6
WI-14
WI-15
4
2
0
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
WI-11
1st Grade
WI-12
WI-13
WI-14
WI-15
5.7
8.0
9.9
11.1
2nd Grade
12.5
0.3
2.6
4.5
5.7
3rd Grade
-10.5
7.0
9.3
11.2
12.4
4th Grade
8.9
5.2
7.5
9.4
10.6
5th Grade
6.9
4.7
7.0
8.9
10.1
15
10
5
WI-11
WI-12
0
WI-13
1st Grade
-5
-10
-15
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
WI-14
WI-15



Agree 48%
Indifferent 44%
Disagree 6%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agree NeitherDisagree



Agree 91%
Indifferent 6%
Disagree 1%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agree NeitherDisagree



Agree 9%
Indifferent 38%
Disagree 51%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agree NeitherDisagree



Agree 74%
Indifferent 19%
Disagree 5%
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agree NeitherDisagree



Agree 61%
Indifferent 33%
Disagree 3%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agree NeitherDisagree
Where do we
go from here?
Areas of
Concentration:
Professional
Development
Parent Involvement
Teacher Input



Encourage teacher participation in training
opportunities for co-teaching, inclusion, DLM, by
participating in the webinars and on-site trainings.
Develop trainings for paraprofessionals to expand their
knowledge of inclusion, co-teaching and the standards.
Conduct Fall and Spring teacher surveys and compare
the results. Invite comments and suggestions.
Encourage parental
participation at Parent
Power Nights offered by the
district.

Include excerpts of successful
inclusion in the principals
newsletters
Conduct parent surveys for
pre and post survey results
Lincoln Elementary Teachers and Principals
Jefferson Elementary Teachers and Principal
Charles Evans Elementary Teachers and Principal
Phillip Black, Cornerstone
Scott Foster, Technology
Reagan Carroll, Technology
Ty Carr, Technology
Courtney Yelton, Technology