Co-Teaching and Collaboration A Model for Mentoring Teacher Candidates

Genesis of the Project  Hesitancy of teachers to cede control to a novice in light of teacher evaluation models.  Difficulty placing student teachers  “Hosting a Student Teacher in the Age of Teacher Evaluation”  Discovery of the St. Cloud University model  Training – four of us  Application for sabbatical to work on developing a co- teaching model unique to CMU  Decision to use the framework of the St. Cloud model and work to make it fit our uniqueness  Primarily the huge geographic area that we serve

Background  History  Developed at St. Cloud State University in the Teacher Education program to prepare teacher candidates to be ready for the collaboration needed in P-12 schools today  The result of a $15 million US Department of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grant  Initially between St. Cloud State University and St. Cloud Public Schools; now in over 40 school districts in Minnesota, as well as around the country

Definitions / Common Language  Defined as two teachers (cooperating teacher and teacher candidate) working together with groups of students – sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of instruction, as well as the physical space  Both teachers are actively involved and engaged in all aspects of instruction

Co-Teaching Strategies  One Teach, One Observe  One Teach, One Assist  Station Teaching  Parallel Teaching  Supplemental Teaching  Alternative / Differentiated Teaching  Team Teaching

Why Co-Teach?  Builds better relationships  Enhances communication and collaboration  Allows co-planning to co-teach  Promotes an active vs. passive attitude  Encourages full use of the experience and expertise of the cooperating teacher

Why Co-Teach?  Meets the classroom students’ needs in the best way possible  Reduces student / teacher ratio  Enhances the ability to meet student needs in a large and diverse classroom  Allows for greater student participation and engagement  Increases instructional options for all students  Provides consistent classroom management  Provides Cooperating Teachers assurances that in the high stakes environment currently taking place, their students are making required growth.

Data to Support the Model  4 years of data collected show statistically significant gains in reading and math achievement as measured by the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) and the Woodcock Johnson III Research Edition  MCA = reading and math – grades 3 – 5 – 7 (entire population, group administered)  Woodcock Johnson III = reading and math – grades K-12 (random sample, individually administered)  Limitations:  Single site (although a 10,000 student district)  Volunteer basis of cooperating teachers  Lack of secondary academic achievement data

Data Collection P-12 Learners  Academic Achievement (Elem)  7-12 Survey  Focus Groups Teacher Candidates  Summative Assessment  End of Experience Survey  Focus Groups Cooperating Teachers  End of Experience Surveys  Focus Groups

Measuring Achievement Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) Woodcock Johnson III – Research Edition (WJIII) Reading/Math – Grades 3-5-7Reading/Math – Grades K-12 Group AdministeredIndividually Administered Compares cohorts Can use as pre/post intervention Results reported as scale score, index points and proficiency Results include raw score and standard score, but can also compute gain scores

Reading Gains - Elementary  Woodcock Johnson III – Research Edition  Individually administered  Pre/Post test  Statistically significant gains in all four years Woodcock Johnson III Research Edition W Score Gains Co-Taught Not Co- Taught p Year One 15.7 N= N= Year Two 24.4 N= N= Year Three 14.8 N= N= Year Four 19.6 N= N=

Reading Proficiency - Elementary  Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment  NCLB proficiency test for Minnesota  Statistically significant findings in all four years MCA Reading Proficiency Co-Taught Not Co-Taught p Year One 82.1% N= % N= Year Two 78.7% N= % N= Year Three 75.5% N= % N=1964 <.001 Year Four 80.8% N= % N=2246 <.001

Math Gains - Elementary  Woodcock Johnson III – Research Edition  Individually administered  Pre/Post test  Statistically significant gains in two of four years; positive trend in each year Woodcock Johnson III Research Edition W Score Gains Co-Taught Not Co-Taught p Year One 17.2 N= N= Year Two 20.3 N= N= Year Three 14.3 N= N= Year Four 17.9 N= N=

Math Proficiency - Elementary Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment NCLB Approved proficiency test for Minnesota Statistically significant findings in all four years MCA Math Proficiency Co-Taught Not Co-Taught p Year One 82.3% N= % N= Year Two 68.9% N= % N= Year Three 69.0% N= % N= Year Four 74.5% N= % N=2217 <.001

Co-Teaching Strategies  One Teach, One Observe  One Teach, One Assist  Station Teaching  Parallel Teaching  Supplemental Teaching  Alternative / Differentiated Teaching  Team Teaching

One Teach One Observe  One teacher has primary instructional responsibility while the other gathers specific observational information on students or the (instructing) teacher.

One Teach One Assist  One teacher has primary instructional responsibility while the other assists students’ with their work, monitors behaviors, or corrects assignments.

Station Teaching  The co-teaching pair divide the instructional content into parts. Each teacher instructs one of the groups, groups then rotate or spend a designated amount of time at each station.

Parallel Teaching  In this approach, each teacher instructs half the students. The two teachers are addressing the same instructional materials using the same teaching techniques.

Supplemental Teaching  This strategy allows one teacher to work with students at their expected grade level, while the other teacher works with those students who need the information and/or materials extended or remediated.

Alternative or Differentiated Teaching  Alternative teaching strategies provide two different approaches to teaching the same information. The learning outcome is the same for all students, however the avenue for getting there is different.

True Team Teaching  Well planned, team taught lessons exhibit an invisible flow of instruction with no prescribed division of authority. Both teachers are actively involved in the lesson.  From a student’s perspective, there is no clearly defined leader as both teachers share the instruction, are free to interject information, and available to assist students and answer questions.

Issues addressed when designing the pilot:  “Many teachers “already do this”  Admit that we do not think this is a brand-new concept  Emphasize that the strength of the model is that it:  Names seven specific strategies  Makes using them intentional  Rename the “training” as “orientation” to lessen the likelihood that we think we are teaching a brand- new concept  “One more thing” for Cooperating Teachers  See above!

Issues  Attending “training” on their own time  This has no easy answer  In August, during pre-planning ?  In January,  During the second week after school resumes, late in the school day so that teachers attend on school time for much of the orientation, while student teachers oversee the classes  After school  We really must make it worth their time  We must treat them well (feed them!)  Have online training available when weather, illness, emergencies prevent attendance (but not made known initially nor as a first option)

Issues  Role of the University Coordinator (one more thing?)  Inform teachers and administrators of the co- teaching model when placing teacher candidates  The need for positive communication from us cannot be overstated  Support the CTs and TCs as they implement the model  Ask that 3 of the 5 on-site observations illustrate a co- teaching strategy  Attend / lead orientation

Issues  Orientation of Teacher Candidates  Eventually in EDU 380  For implementation in Pre-Student teaching  Until then, at initial orientation in January / August

Reaction so far  Mostly positive  Two administrative teams  The idea for the promotional video came from one of these meetings  Principals  Unlikely placement  Once asked if it was a “make or break” on the deal (this HS History Teacher attended the Orientation)  One of my Coordinators reported on a HS History lesson that was co-taught using Stations (!) that was well done and very well received by the students. (The same HS History teacher as above)

From here…….  Pilot in West Michigan Center in Spring, 2016  18 Teacher Candidates  19 Cooperating Teachers  4 University Coordinators  14 districts  72 miles (farthest drive)