TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER LEADING FOR 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

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 Use the notes below to present a brief overview of the three co-teaching models: In the consultant model, the special educator serves as a consultant to the general educator in areas pertaining to curriculum adaptation, skills remediation, and assessment modification. The coaching model involves the special and general educators taking turns coaching each other in areas of the curriculum and pedagogy in which they are the acknowledged experts. The collaborative (or teaming) model incorporates equitable sharing of lesson planning, implementation, and assessment. This model is increasingly becoming recommended as the preferred model by researchers, particularly because of its efficacy in valuing the contributions of both teachers through task and responsibility sharing. 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 Co-Teaching Connection. Slide retrieved 7/8/10 from http://www.marilynfriend.com/basics.htm Friend, 2007

Emphasize the following points on this handout: Although paraprofessionals/instructional aides are essential, it is not fair to expect them to be able to deliver instruction, particularly in content areas. Be sure that having two teachers in the same room is a value-add. One teacher should not always be in the supportive role; otherwise students will pick up on that and begin to treat that teacher differently. Both teachers’ areas of expertise should be included in the classroom. Be sure that the teachers are co-teaching, not just coexisting. It is important to understand and realize that small groups of students will still need to be taken aside or elsewhere for instruction. This is OK, as long as it is meeting the needs of the students, but it should not be the method of choice.

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" Collaborative teaching isn’t something that you can just start doing tomorrow. It should be a careful, thoughtful, gradual process that continues to grow over time. In some cases, we’ve heard of the process taking 2 years to get to a comfortable, collaborative relationship. What does this mean? Simply, don’t give up and don’t worry. It is going to take time, and no one does it perfectly. Friend & Cook, 2003

Benefits of Collaboration Shared responsibility for educating all students Shared understanding and use of common assessment data Supporting ownership for programming and interventions Creating common understanding Data-driven problem solving Briefly mention the points on this slide, and share the following: Working together can be very exciting. For as much as we may acquire high levels of knowledge and experience on our own, increasing the interaction with others within and across education creates opportunities for learning beyond these traditional boundaries and encourages learning as a system. Instead of “what can each of us do for OUR kids,” it becomes “what can we do together for ALL kids.” 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 Briefly mention each point on the slide, and elaborate as follows: If we start from different places, no wonder our paths are different as well. Rarely are we working with the same curriculum—more confusion. 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 Similar to the previous slide: We really love our students, which should be encouraged, as long as we allow others to love them too. Being too possessive of students is counterproductive to working collaboratively. Although we may know more about the students that we’ve worked with, that knowledge should be shared and communicated effectively. 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 Note the following: Understanding co-teaching options promotes teachers’ capacity to improve the process. The next section of the presentation is designed to develop a greater awareness of options. Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Most Common Approaches One Teaching, One Drifting Parallel Teaching Station Teaching Alternative Teaching Team Teaching Ask the participants to review H2: “Co-Teaching Models Between General and Special Educators” This is a two-sided handout that the participants need to become familiar with for a discussion of slides 15–21. 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 Briefly mention each point on the slide, and elaborate as follows: This approach is also known as “One Teaching, One Supporting” or “Lead and Support.” It is the most commonly used approach—why? Because it is the easiest approach to start with, since it does not need much time for co-planning. This is also a fall-back approach. However, careful attention should be paid to this approach, because if one teacher continues to take the lead, it can diminish the role and/or credibility of the other 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 Elaborate on the points on this slide with the following: Since each teacher has separate responsibilities for instruction, this approach can be used if the teachers have differing pedagogical approaches. Drawbacks to this approach can be the amount of movement and noise it can entail—it can be distracting. However, many classrooms make use of stations, or centers, so this can usually be integrated fairly seamlessly. Some noise may be minimized by using headphones or study carrels or by having the teachers move rather than the students. 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 Briefly mention the points on this slide, and elaborate with the following: One consideration here is that teachers should be mindful of the groupings. Groups should vary so that one group of particular students is not always pulled aside. A benefit of this approach is that it acknowledges the fact that there are times when small groups of students need instruction that is different from what the large group is participating in. 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 Briefly mention the points on this slide, and elaborate with the following: While one teacher explains or speaks, the other can demonstrate a concept or strategy, such as note-taking or summarizing. When this approach is used, co-teachers should engage in frequent checks for level of comfort and satisfaction because the approach can be intensive. Friend & Cook, 2003

Go over H2: “Co-Teaching Models Between General and Special Educators” This handout outlines some ideas or tips that you can refer back to when you need to refresh your memory on each of the approaches. The tips are categorized into three major elements of classroom life: lesson design, instruction, and monitoring behavior. Benefits of each approach are also summarized. Optional Group Activity As a review, time permitting, the group can be divided into the areas of lesson design, instruction, and monitoring behavior, and report back to the group comparing the different models in regards to these areas. Allow 5 minutes for small group work, and 10 minutes for discussion.

Considerations Teachers need to volunteer and agree to co-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 reflect the new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes Briefly mention the points on this slide, and share the following: Researchers agree that teachers must agree to co-teach voluntarily (when possible). Co-teaching should also be implemented slowly. It represents a major change to teachers, and steps should be explained clearly. Start slowly. At the building level, this may mean just one or two pairs of co-teachers at first. At the classroom level, this may mean that a special educator provides in-class support through circulating, assisting with students who are struggling, or suggesting modifications. Although this type of in-class support differs from co-teaching, it may provide a safe starting point. It should be short term, but can serve to demonstrate the value of another teacher’s assistance. Goals and support services need to reflect the new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes. That is, to the greatest extent possible, these goals should reflect the skills that students will need to achieve success in the general education setting (e.g., organizational skills, test-taking strategies, social skills, self-monitoring). Offer opportunities for participants to make suggestions, voice concerns, etc. Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Discuss the following points about H3: “Preparing to Co-Teach.” This handout covers questions that should be asked and answered before co-teaching is implemented. Or, if co-teaching is already implemented at your site, you can look at these to see if the questions have been addressed for your classroom or building. This handout can be particularly helpful for teachers to use when they are initiating co-teaching from within (bottom-up as opposed to being an administrative priority), or if they are in an environment that may not be very supportive in terms of the administration.

Effective Co-planning Part IV. Effective Co-Planning Approximate time: 40 minutes Mention the following points: Adequate planning time is among the top concerns for co-teaching teams. This is an additional concern for special educators who work with more than one general educator. The need for planning time is a systemic barrier, requiring administrative action at the school and/or district level.

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 Share the following: As we talk about pre-planning and planning, I realize that it may cause some stress or anxiety in terms of how to fit it all in. However, although it may be some extra work at the beginning, if you do it, it WILL make your life easier down the road. Planning is essential. Planning should center on determining which instructional techniques are going to be the most effective in helping students meet content standards. The general educator can provide an overview of the content, curriculum, and standards to be addressed before the planning meeting. The special educator should provide an overview of any student IEP goals, objectives, and needed accommodations or modifications that have to be incorporated into the lessons. Planning sessions should focus on what is going to be taught (the content) and how it will be taught. Student-specific concerns should be saved for the end of the planning session. Several premade co-teaching plan books are commercially available and may be helpful to structure lessons. Include days when the special educator will take the lead in planning. Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002

Make the following points about H4: “General Education Curriculum Snapshots.” This page is for the general educator to complete. This information will give the special educator an idea of how far the students have to come in one quarter’s time. It is also helpful for the general educator to break down the unit or quarter and plan for what part is going to be the most difficult each week. Given that accommodations or modifications may be a reality for some students, it is also helpful for the teachers to come to agreement on what minimum level of mastery for each topic is going to be required. You can start with the standard or unit and map it out. Think about what students must be able to do as a result of the unit or lesson. This can also be compared to taking the content standards and developing modified standards for students. When planning, sometimes it is also helpful to do what is called “backward mapping.” That is, complete the last week first and then figure out how to get there. Those of you who have taught U.S. History and have never gotten past the Vietnam War understand why this can be beneficial!

Make the following points about H5: “Individual Student Needs Summary This page allows the special educator to break down or summarize each of the students’ IEPs. We talked earlier about how well special educators know their students and tend to “own” them. This page allows them to share not only what the IEP says about each child’s needs, but it also has room for notes from the special educator (or psychologist or speech-language therapist) that share additional information or tips that he/she knows from working more intensively with the child. Even in my everyday practice I have found a tool like this to be helpful. A “one pager” on each of the kids I work with is very helpful. Also, general educators will react much more favorably to a packet of one pagers than they will to a 2-foot stack of IEPs to read through.

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 spend 10 minutes to plan each lesson Share the following: Believe it or not, research has shown, and we have seen, that 10 minutes really will become all you need to co-plan a 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 Make the following points about this slide: When co-teaching, we really want to present ourselves as a unified front! As trust develops, everything gets easier—in terms of planning, instruction, and management. 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 Briefly mention each point on this slide. Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Two Stages of Classroom Co-planning Getting to know each other Weekly co-planning Share that there are two stages for co-planning, and then say: We will discuss how to effectively get to know each other, and then how to begin the daunting task of carving out co-planning time. 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 the deal-breakers down the road, and preventing these road blocks early can make life easier Make the following points about this slide: Again, these things will pay off big time for you later. This isn’t about adding more things to your already full plates. Instead, it’s about learning from the lessons of others. I think that you will find that your workload does get easier, and throughout this presentation, we can also help you work through specific issues. Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Refer to H6, “What Behaviors Are Critical for Success in Each Area Refer to H6, “What Behaviors Are Critical for Success in Each Area?”, and explain the purpose and use of this tool: This is an example of a tool that co-teachers can use to determine the “non-negotiables” in their classroom. Writing them down before you come to a meeting about them allows the process to be more neutral and less about “you vs. me.” This puts the attention/focus of the meeting on what is on the paper rather than simply having an open discussion that can easily get off track. It is important to get these things out of the way before you begin co-teaching because you want to avoid disagreeing with or unintentionally undermining each other as much as possible. For example, one of you might expect your students to come to class with all of their materials/supplies, while the other doesn’t mind giving out pens or pencils. Or, one of you may allow students unlimited restroom or hall passes while the other prefers a limit on passes. Agreeing or compromising on these issues before co-teaching can make for a smoother path. Optional: At this point, ask for input from participants. Ask if there are any points that they would add for discussion, etc.

Refer to H7, “S.H.A.R.E.,” and explain the purpose and use of this tool: Here is another example of a tool that can help co-teaching teams come to terms with sharing a classroom space. As you can see from the instructions, this asks each co-teaching pairs to complete the questions individually and then share the answers with his/her partner. The partner then reads it independently, and codes each response with an A for “agree,” a B for “disagree,” or a C for “agree to disagree or compromise.” Completing these separately allows for more honesty and less pressure. This is another way of getting at similar outcomes—we’ll give you many new things for your “toolbox” and you can pick and choose what works best for you and your situation. Do the first question with participants—ask them to share their hopes for a co-teaching experience.

Getting to Know Each Other (Cont.) Important to spend time talking and getting better acquainted with each other’s skills, interests, and educational philosophies Having a semi-structured preliminary discussion can facilitate this process Discuss current classroom routines and rules Make the following points about this slide: Semistructured preliminary discussion can facilitate this process. See H8: “Preliminary Discussion Questions” Discuss current classroom routines and rules (as mentioned before—what are the classroom non-negotiables?) Current classroom routines and rules might include having access to the bathroom, drinking fountain, and pencil sharpener; talking during class; using instructional materials; and patterns of parental contact Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Briefly describe H8, “Preliminary Discussion Questions,” and make the following points: Here is another way to get to know each other. Pick and choose whichever method or form is most effective/comfortable for you and your partner. You may be wondering why I keep focusing on the little details, and I’ll tell you why I am doing so. This is to avoid situations like the following: When thinking about choosing a co-teaching partner, I think to myself, “Oh, I really like Tracy. We’ll have no problems co-teaching.” Then you get into the classroom and think “you let your kids do THAT,” which of course leads to problems, because now the kids are involved and it is more difficult to change things.

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 Briefly mention the points on this slide and then share: The materials at the following Web addresses are examples of structured teaching style inventories that will allow you and your co-teaching partner the opportunity to systematically evaluate and collaborate based on your differing styles.

Refer the participants to H9: “Teaching Style Inventory.” Tell them that this is an example of a simple, less formal teaching style inventory. If time permits (5–10 minutes), ask the participants to complete this form (prepare handouts in advance) and share their style preferences with the person to their right. Ask participants to include in their discussions whether, based on this inventory, they would anticipate any conflicts working as a co-teaching team.

Weekly Co-planning Effective weekly co-planning is based on regularly scheduled meetings, rather than “fitting it in” Important to stay focused Review content in advance of meeting Make the following points about this slide: “Fitting it in” planning doesn’t work for a couple of reasons: We tend to not actually end up fitting it in anywhere because we are pressed for time or have more immediate concerns (kind of like me and going to the gym). Hallway conversations are never the most effective—they tend to end up going like this: One teacher sees another in the hallway and is reminded of something he/she needs to tell that teacher. “Oh, there’s Mrs. Smith, I’ve been meaning to talk to her about _______ (insert kid’s name).” Why is this not ideal? First, only one teacher is prepared for this conversation to happen. Secondly, there is limited time in the hallway. We often have only 5 minutes to get coffee, use the restroom, etc., let alone have a detailed and worthwhile conversation. 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? Make the following points about this slide: We want our planning meetings to be structured and purposeful. Some things to think about: Where do we want our students to be? What are the biggest bumps going to be along the way? How can we work together to make the road less bumpy? Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Scheduling Co-teaching Part V. Scheduling Approximate time: 40 minutes Scheduling Co-Teaching

Collaborative Scheduling Collaborative Scheduling A Collaborative Scheduling B Collaborative Scheduling C Introduce this section in the following way: So, now that we’re ready with our co-teaching partners, how can we work it into the day? We are going to talk about three different approaches to collaborative scheduling. Perhaps one of these, or a combination of parts of them, will meet your specific needs. Small group activity: Divide the group into three small groups, assigning each group to either Collaborative Scheduling A, B, or C. Ask each group to become familiar with their assigned scheduling format and report back to the large group. Allow 5 minutes for small group work and 10–15 minutes for reporting back and having a discussion with the large group. Show Slides 56–66 as the participants report back about each collaborative schedule. Be certain that the points in the facilitator’s notes on each of the slides (56–66) are emphasized if they are not mentioned by the participants. Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling A Special educator divides teaching time between two different classes in the same day This model ensures the availability of direct support from a special educator for critical parts of the instructional programs. It does require careful planning by the co-teaching teams, because the special educator might be on two teams. 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 Slide 58 is self-explanatory. Ask for any personal reflections of similar scheduling models. 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 Slide 58 is self-explanatory. Ask for any personal reflections of similar scheduling models. 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 The advantages and challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B are similar to Collaborative Scheduling A. While the special educator may still be on two different teams, he/she has the advantage in Collaborative Scheduling B of staying with the same teacher for an entire day, thus involving less disruption to his/her schedule and the students’ 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 On days when both teachers are in attendance for the full day, teachers can plan differentiated activities (led by both teachers) and team teaching strategies for the entire class period. 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 Emphasize the second and third points, and again, ask for personal reflections. 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 This slide needs no further discussion, beyond emphasizing each point. Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling C The special educator serves as a resource to the interdisciplinary team His/her schedule is established weekly on the basis of instructional activities Requires the greatest amount of flexibility and planning by an interdisciplinary team of teachers The team of teachers identifies the essential opportunities for IEP instruction and support throughout the school day and week, and a schedule is established accordingly. Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling C Special educator is present when needed most for instructional support Instructional need dictates the cooperative teaching role, not the calendar or time of day Most responsive to students’ needs and schedules Ask the participants to discuss a “typical day” or “typical week” if this model was chosen. Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling C Requires the highest degree of planning and buy-in by a team of teachers Following the discussion of these three scheduling models, ask the participants if they have had experiences with other scheduling models that have been successful . . . or unsuccessful. Walsh & Jones, 2004

Co-teaching in Action Part VI. Co-Teaching in Action Approximate time: 30 minutes Co-Teaching in Action

Instruction Most difficult but also the most rewarding There are things that can be done to maximize success and rewards: Review the different approaches to co-teaching and think about how each might look in a classroom Discuss each other’s learning style preferences to see how these can be incorporated into the lesson to assist students with varying styles Point out the following: Teaching in the same room at the same time is often the most difficult part of co-teaching. However, the instruction component has also been frequently reported to be the most rewarding part of co-teaching, provided teachers follow some tips for success. Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Instructional Tips Develop unobtrusive signals to communicate with each other Create signals for students that are consistent and can be used by either teacher Vary instructional practices Clearly display an agenda for the class, which includes the standard(s) to be covered and any additional goals Elaborate on this slide as follows : Unobtrusive signals should cover such cues as when it is time to move on, when extra time is needed, when one teacher needs to leave the room for an emergency, or when the teachers need to briefly meet. Signals for students can be used to indicate transitions, gain attention, or make an announcement. One of the distinctive features of co-teaching is that two teachers allow for more flexibility and creativity during lessons. Study skills are frequently part of students’ IEP goals and can help all students find success. Use occasions of potential disagreement to model appropriate communication techniques (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). No one teacher should always be with a small group or circulating while the other is always providing large group instruction. To avoid stigmatization, circulate students and maintain heterogeneous groups within both large and small group instruction (Murawski, 2005). Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Instructional Tips Avoid disagreeing with or undermining each other in front of the students Strive to demonstrate parity in instruction whenever possible by switching roles often Avoid stigmatization of any one group of students Elaborate on this slide as follows : Unobtrusive signals should cover such cues as when it is time to move on, when extra time is needed, when one teacher needs to leave the room for an emergency, or when the teachers need to briefly meet. Signals for students can be used to indicate transitions, gain attention, or make an announcement. One of the distinctive features of co-teaching is that two teachers allow for more flexibility and creativity during lessons. Study skills are frequently part of students’ IEP goals and can help all students find success. Use occasions of potential disagreement to model appropriate communication techniques (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). No one teacher should always be with a small group or circulating while the other is always providing large group instruction. To avoid stigmatization, circulate students and maintain heterogeneous groups within both large and small group instruction (Murawski, 2005). Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Three Stages of Co-teaching Relationships Beginning Stage Compromising Stage Collaborative Stage Introduce the three stages of co-teaching relationships by sharing the following: Throughout the next section, we will be looking at the various areas of a co-taught classroom in terms of how the co-teachers work together and apply that to a continuum throughout three stages. Gately, 2005

Three Stages of Co-teaching As They Apply To: Physical Arrangement Familiarity With the Curriculum Curriculum Goals and Modifications Instructional Presentation Classroom Management Assessment Refer to each area on this slide, and indicate that each will be mapped onto the continuum of stages. Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement First, let’s take a look at the progression of the physical arrangement in a co-taught classroom.

Physical Arrangement: Beginning Stage Impression of separateness Students with disabilities vs. general education students Little ownership of materials or space by special educator Delegated spaces which are rarely abandoned Special educator asks permission to use materials or brings them in. This leads to the feeling of being an outsider. The special educator feels like a visitor here. Often, it is the special educator who is coming into the general educator’s classroom. Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Beginning Stage (Cont.) Invisible walls A classroom within a classroom Elaborate on this slide as follows: There are invisible walls that divide special education from general education. It can look more like a resource room inserted into a general classroom—not much integration happening. Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Compromising Stage More movement and shared space Sharing of materials Territoriality becomes less evident Special educator moves more freely around the classroom but rarely takes center stage Point out the negative effect on the special educator: Although there is more movement and more sharing of space and materials, the special educator may not yet feel comfortable taking the lead as an equal partner in the instructional delivery to all students. Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Collaboration Stage Seating arrangements are intentionally interspersed All students participate in cooperative grouping assignments Teachers are more fluid in an unplanned and natural way Point out why it is beginning to look like one unified classroom. The important element here is that the students are working together and not seeing any differences—walls are disappearing for the students and the teachers. For the teachers, it becomes less intentional and more intuitive. Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement: Collaboration Stage (Cont.) Both teachers control space: Like an effective doubles team in tennis, the classroom is always “covered” Space is truly jointly owned The doubles team analogy really sums up this stage: The two teachers work in unison to cover questions from all students. Gately & Gately, 2001

Familiarity With the Curriculum Let’s begin to explore how teachers with different backgrounds become comfortable and competent with each other’s areas of expertise.

Familiarity With the Curriculum: Beginning Stage Special educator may be unfamiliar with content or methodology used by the general educator General educator may have limited understanding of modifying the curriculum and making appropriate accommodations Unfamiliarity creates a lack of confidence in both teachers Ask the special educators in the audience if they’ve ever seen the general education curriculum. It’s important to keep point of view/perspective in mind. What may be obvious to one of us may not be familiar at all to the other. Here is where the pre-planning tools come in handy—where the general educator provides an overview of the curriculum and the special educator provides an overview of individual student needs. This may be a good time to refer back to the pre-planning tools (H4–H9). Communicating about what the other doesn’t know can help the teachers get on the same page and gain confidence in the other’s areas of expertise. Gately & Gately, 2001

Familiarity With the Curriculum: CompromisingCollaborative Stages Special educator acquires a knowledge of the scope and sequence and develops a solid understanding of the content of the curriculum Special educator gains confidence to make suggestions for modifications and accommodations Make the following points about this slide: In this stage, the teachers begin to relinquish control of some of “their” respective territories. The special educator begins to be confident enough to deliver instruction, and the general educator begins to be familiar enough with the modifications to be able to provide them on his/her own. Ask participants for anecdotes about their student teaching experiences (e.g., they didn’t take control of a whole lesson right away but gradually eased into things). Gately & Gately, 2001

Familiarity With the Curriculum: CompromisingCollaborative Stages (Cont.) General educator becomes more willing to modify the curriculum, and there is increased sharing in planning and teaching Both teachers appreciate the specific curriculum competencies that they bring to the content area Elaborate on this slide as follows : Here, teachers are beginning to see the value that they bring to the other’s area. Here, teachers will also find that “special education” techniques will likely benefit more students than just those with IEPs. Gately & Gately, 2001

Curriculum Goals and Modifications This is an area in which the special educator really needs to serve as a mentor to the general educator, as they work together to develop a classroom that meets the needs of each student.

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Beginning Stage Programs are driven by textbooks and standards, and goals tend to be “test-driven” Modifications and accommodations are generally restricted to those identified in the IEP; little interaction regarding modifications to the curriculum Special educator’s role is seen as “helper” Explain the difficulty with this step: The Beginning Stage is pretty much status quo, or even a step backward. Because it’s an unfamiliar situation, teachers will often revert back to “this is what we have to do,” thus, strictly following the curriculum. The special educator may feel particularly inadequate with regard to the curriculum and thus, with his/her contribution to the classroom. This is a tough stage to get through. Gately & Gately, 2001

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Compromising Stage General educator may view modifications as “giving up” or “watering down” the curriculum Share the following: Although the general educator has had time to understand the special educator’s role, he/she may still not be at the point where he/she can break down the standards into things that every student must learn—may not be comfortable differentiating the curriculum based on needs. Gately & Gately, 2001

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Collaborative Stage Both teachers begin to differentiate concepts that all students must know from concepts that most students should know Modifications of content, activities, homework assignments, and tests become the norm for students who require them Describe what happens in this stage in the following way. You may refer back to H4, “General Education Curriculum Snapshots,” for this slide. Both the general educator and special educator can identify the big ideas, the most difficult concepts, and the minimum level of mastery. Here, because the teachers have become familiar with each other’s area, both of them can look at the curriculum and know how to break it down based on student needs. Modifications become something not just for students with IEPs but also something that many students in the class can benefit from. Gately & Gately, 2001

Instructional Presentation Is it really possible for the chalk to be shared equally?

Instructional Presentation: Beginning Stage Teachers often present separate lessons One teacher is “boss”; one is “helper” Elaborate on this slide as follows: At this stage, the instruction is still clearly divided between the general educator and the special educator, with each teaching his/her “own” students. There is a clear division of the chain of command, with the general educator tending to take control of the instruction. Gately & Gately, 2001

Instructional Presentation: Compromising Stage Both teachers direct some of the activities in the classroom Special educator offers mini-lessons or clarifies strategies that students may use Elaborate on this slide as follows: Here, the special educator is beginning to provide whole group instruction in some isolated instances. He/she is still seen as the teacher of the students who aren’t “getting it.” This is, however, a step forward, because now there are most likely students without disabilities in the group who are receiving instruction from the special educator. Gately & Gately, 2001

Instructional Presentation: Collaborative Stage Both teachers participate in the presentation of the lesson, provide instruction, and structure the learning activities The “chalk” passes freely Students address questions and discuss concerns with both teachers The special educator and general educator cover the “court” equally. Both of them have had a hand in planning the lesson, delivering the lesson, and assessing the lesson. One of the most important indicators of the successful transition into the collaborative stage is that the students do not differentiate between the teachers. They feel comfortable asking questions of either teacher. Gately & Gately, 2001

Classroom Management Now, let’s take a look at what it takes for the special educator—and the students with disabilities—not to be perceived as “separate” in terms of behavior and the management of inappropriate behavior.

Classroom Management: Beginning Stage Special educator tends to assume the role of “behavior manager” Elaborate on this slide as follows: Although the general educator is teaching, the special educator is “floating” around the classroom dealing with disruptive and inattentive behavior. This significantly undermines the special educator’s position as a classroom teacher. Gately & Gately, 2001

Classroom Management: Compromising Stage More communication and mutual development of rules Some discussion for individual behavior management plans Elaborate on this slide as follows: The general educator is beginning to relinquish control and work more collaboratively with the special educator in developing and implementing rules and routines. Individual behavior management plans for all students still tend to be resisted in favor of group approaches to management. Gately & Gately, 2001

Classroom Management: Collaborative Stage Both teachers are involved in developing a classroom management system that benefits all students Common to observe individual behavior plans, use of contracts, tangible rewards, and reinforcers Development of community-building and relationship-building activities as a way to enhance classroom management Elaborate on this slide as follows: Rules, routines, and expectations are mutually developed for the class as a whole and for individuals. Individual behavior management plans are in place for students with and without disabilities and are being monitored equally by both teachers. Gately & Gately, 2001

Assessment Assessment in the co-taught classroom involves developing systems for evaluating individual students and adjusting standards and expectations for performance to meet individual needs, while maintaining course integrity.

Assessment With the current emphasis on high-stakes tests, co-teaching provides an effective way to strengthen the instruction–assessment link: Discuss grading before it becomes an issue Consider a variety of assessment options Offer menus of assignments Share the grading load and align grading styles Discuss the following points: Grading can become one of the trickiest issues for co-teaching teams and should address education proactively to the greatest extent possible. In particular, at the secondary level, grades can carry great importance, and general educators may be concerned about the implications of accommodations or modifications. A method for assessing progress and effort should be determined. A way for students with IEPs to have their goals assessed and how attaining those goals will be reflected in grading should also be determined. It is recommended that each teacher grade a few of the same papers individually to see how their grading styles correlate. They should then discuss the process and refine their grading standards to ensure reliability between grading styles. Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Assessment: Beginning Stage Two separate grading systems are often maintained separately by the two teachers One grading system may also be exclusively managed by the general educator Measures tend to be objective in nature and based only on a student’s knowledge of the content Typically, there are two separate grading systems or one system is exclusively controlled by the general educator. At this point, the general educator is not likely to be involved in the monitoring of progress toward goals in IEPs for students with disabilities. That system would be maintained by the special educator. Gately & Gately, 2001

Assessment: Compromising Stage Two teachers begin to explore alternate assessment ideas Teachers begin to discuss how to effectively capture students’ progress, not just their knowledge of the content Ask participants for examples of grading systems or assessment ideas that might be appropriate in a co-taught classroom that would effectively capture students’ progress, not just their knowledge of the content. It is not just the general educator “giving up” assessment of content knowledge—that remains critical. It is going beyond point-in-time assessment to growth measures. Gately & Gately, 2001

Assessment: Collaborative Stage Both teachers appreciate the need for a variety of options when assessing students’ progress Provide examples of what the collaborative stage looks like: Individualization of grading procedures for all students, specific progress monitoring, use of both objective and subjective standards for grading Both teachers consider ways to integrate the goals and objectives that are written into students’ IEPs. Assessment procedures are developed on an ongoing basis. Summarize by saying: We’ve found that being aware of these stages is very helpful for teachers. It makes it real that they’re not going to be doing it perfectly right from the get go. Some of the tools that we talked about earlier can help us progress through the stages more quickly. Gately & Gately, 2001

Introduce H12, “Tracking Our Progress Through the Three Stages,” as follows: This is another tool that co-teachers can use to see how they are doing in terms of moving through the stages in each area. Co-teachers can identify (separately or together) the stage in which they are functioning and their strengths and areas of challenge for each element.

Introduce H13, “Co-Teaching in the Classroom,” as follows: This tool is a “tip sheet” of activities for the co-taught classroom. This is not an ideal or complete list, but it can help both teachers to be active participants in classroom activities.

Evaluation Researchers have been reluctant to measure outcomes of co-teaching. This provides a good opportunity for teachers to engage in their own action research. They should begin to collect data on their own to document outcomes Teachers and administrators should evaluate co-teaching situations at least once per year The rule that assessment informs instruction should also apply to co-teaching: As co-teachers continue to assess their situation, they must ensure that they are improving their instruction to best meet students’ needs in an inclusive classroom Share the following: The cause of this reluctance has been the fact that the success of co-teaching depends heavily on the relationship between the teachers. In fact, co-teaching relationships are often compared to marriages. Evaluating co-teaching situations at least once per year ensures that co-teaching teams are functioning as intended. Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2003

Evaluating Your Experience Planning and implementation Effectiveness Strengths and gaps Refer to Co-teaching Evaluation handout

Essential Ingredients for Successful Collaboration: From the Eyes of the Practitioner to the Ears of the Administrator Part VII. Essential Ingredients for Successful Collaboration: From the Eyes of the Practitioner to the Ears of the Administrator Approximate time: 15 minutes This section highlights what co-teachers feel are the essential ingredients for supervisors to consider.

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning Share long- and short-term implementation strategies Share the research base that supports co-teaching Share anticipated need for resources Slides 85–88 suggest several ways to engage administrators. Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont.) Develop an “information sharing community” or “community of practice” Determine the most effective methods of communication between teams and administrators Emphasize the importance of pre-observation conferences Incorporate the co-teaching initiative into the team’s annual professional growth plan Make the following point for this slide: To incorporate the co-teaching initiative into the team’s annual professional growth plan, it may be appropriate to make it a focus of the performance evaluation. Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont.) Set specific times for observation Encourage students to talk with the administrator about the benefits from learning in collaborative classrooms Involve parents Encourage advice and feedback on your performance from the administrators, accept it graciously, and use it Briefly mention the points on this slide. Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont.) Inform administrators of any problems or controversies related to co-teaching efforts Teachers Support staff Parents Students Briefly mention the points on this slide. Rea, 2005

Not an All-or-nothing Approach Teachers do not have to commit to only one approach of co-teaching Teachers do not have to only co-teach Co-teaching is not the only option for serving students Some students with disabilities may be in a co-taught classroom for only part of the day Briefly mention the points on this slide, and share the following: Teachers should consider which approach to co-teaching will be most appropriate for each lesson or unit they teach. These points are really just things to keep in mind. Deciding to co-teach does not mean that it has to be your only answer. The major point is that the whole process is flexible. Murawski, 2005

Planning for 2010-11 Briefly mention the points on this slide, and share the following: Teachers should consider which approach to co-teaching will be most appropriate for each lesson or unit they teach. These points are really just things to keep in mind. Deciding to co-teach does not mean that it has to be your only answer. The major point is that the whole process is flexible.

Access Center http://www.K8accesscenter.org Visit The Access Center’s Web site

References Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school co-taught teams? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14–25. Dieker, L. (2002). Co-planner (semester). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design. 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. Halvorsen, A. T. & Neary, T. (2001). Building Inclusive Schools: Tools and Strategies for Success. Allyn & Bacon. 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.

References (cont.) Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52–58. Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312–316. Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. and McDuffie, K.A. (2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Exceptional Children, 73-4, 392-416. 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. 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. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–265.

Trumbull County Educational Service Center LEADING FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE