1. CO-TEACHING IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE
RTSD
April 15, 2008

2. AGENDA
REI Task force
Framework for REI
Co-teaching
Q & A

3. 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

4. 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. 5 APPROACHES TO REI AT RADNOR
Strategies to:
INCREASE INCLUSION
INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS IN REGULAR EDUCATION
Through:
COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
USE OF PARAPROFESSIONALS
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)
CO-TEACHING

6. 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)
Classroom Intervention and Monitoring of Progress
Regular Education
Regular Education with Teacher Observation and Data Collection
REI
CONTINUUM

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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:
Increased overall student achievement
Decreased referrals for intensive special ed. services
Fewer behavior and discipline problems

11. 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

12. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Academy
Training
Flex option
Cohorts - 4
Limited by sub budget - 44
Study group- 12
Open : EDU
Mandatory 64
Workshops -44
Invitation to all -23 30
Research &
Development

13. Co-teacher feedback Students more accepting of peers
Students become active learners
Students benefit from different teaching styles and strategies
Cohesive programming for special needs students
Collegial relationships develop
Resources are shared
Management strategies more consistent with frequent feedback
Individualization more likely with multiple views of student
Data gathering and assessment increases
Increased flexibility in grouping
Less wait time increases time on task
Students can imitate cooperation of adults
Increased motivation for students and teachers
More immediate and accurate diagnosis of student need
Academic gains in literacy
Decreased referrals in co-taught classes

14. CO-TEACHING IN RTSD 2006 THROUGH 2008 RHS SCIENCE ENGLISH MATH
SOCIAL STUDIES
RMS
LANGUAGE ARTS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

15. SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS # of students served.
5 Sections
Advanced Physical Science
Academic Physical Science
Advanced Biology 19 44 31
25/41 15

16. SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS
Higher
Median scores
in co-taught
Physical
Science
0 = co-taught 1= not co-taught
Fall Semester Grades in Physical Science

17. SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS
Fall Semester Grades Advanced Physical Science
Semester grades
Higher
Median and low
scores
in co-taught
Advanced Physical
Science
0 = co-taught 1= not co-taught

18. SCIENCE CO-TEACHING AT RHS
Fall Semester Grades in Advanced Biology
Higher scores and greater variability
0 = co-taught 1= not co-taught

19. COMPARATIVE RHS MATH DATA
GPA
Traditional Regular Education
Co-taught Regular Education

20. RHS ENGLISH DATA 14 special ed. students moved from academic
to college prep

21. 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

22. 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%

23. COST COMPARISON IN ELEMENTARY
Average Number of students in pull-out classes is 4 at aver cost/student of $17,500
co-taught classes is 22 at aver. cost/student of $3,365
reg. Classes air 22 at aver, cist.student of $3,365

24. COST COMPARISON IN SECONDARY
9 STUDENT IN Pull-out average cost = $7,777
22 STUDENTS IN Co-teaching $6,666
18 STUDENTS IN Reg. Education Classes $3,888

25. AVERAGE DISTRICT COSTS OF EACH PROGRAM

26. 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

27. Number of Special Education Referrals

28. Percentage of Difference between PA State and RTSD Number of special education students 2002-200503 04 05 06
537
561
573
584
575
RTSD #
16.4
16.8
16.6
16.5
RTSD %
13.5 14
14.4
14.8
State%
+2.9
+2.8
+2.2
+1.6
% Diff
Over the last 5 years, the difference between RTSD and State % of Special Education Students
is decreasing.

29. Special Education Staffing Increases
# TEACHERS
Elementary
.6 RMS
RMS
1.4 RHS
******************************************************
TOTAL STAFFING INCREASE = 5.9
Teachers – On Average 1:14 (not considering level of need or # of regular education students included in classes/co teaching and collaborative)
Total Students – approx 497
IES students
RES students
WES students (1 level 6 class)
RMS Students
RHS students

30. 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

31. RTSD and State Percentage of Exits from Special Education
RTSD
State

32. Even while they teach, men learn. ~ Seneca
Q & A
Even while they teach, men learn. ~ Seneca

33. “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”
~ Albert Einstein

34. REFERENCES
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 245–255.
Cook, L. H., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(2), 1–12.
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? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14–25.
Dieker, L. (2002). Co-planner (semester). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
References

35. 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, 29–38.
Hourcade, J. J., & Bauwens, J. (2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. Clearinghouse, 74, 242–247.

36. 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. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52–58.
Palches, Ann. “Collaborative Consultation: Strategies for Supporting the Learning of All Children within the Classroom.” Massachusetts Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development,
References

37. 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. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–265.

38. 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...

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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.

42. Response to Intervention Framework
Tier 3:
Interventions
for
A Few Students
Percentage of Students Requiring
Intensive Supports Decreases
Continuum of Time, Intensity and Data Increases
Tier 2:
Interventions
for
Some Students
Tier 1: Foundation-Standards Aligned Instruction for All Students
Definition: Standards aligned instruction and schoolwide foundational interventions are provided to all students in the general education core curriculum. Tier I also is used to designate students who are making expected grade level progress (benchmark students )in the standards-aligned system and who demonstrate social competence.
Foundation/Benchmark Interventions
High quality, effective instruction designed to engage and challenge students
Clear and high expectations for student learning and behavior
Effective support to enhance student engagement in the learning process and to promote school completion
4Sight Benchmark Assessments or other periodic progress monitoring benchmark assessments
Tier 2: Strategic Interventions for Some Students
Definition: Academic instruction and behavioral strategies, methodologies and practices designed for some students not making expected progress in the standards-aligned system and are at risk for academic and behavioral failure. Students require additional academic and behavioral support to successfully engage in the learning process and succeed in the standards-aligned system.
Strategic Interventions
Standards-aligned instruction with supplemental, small group instruction which may include specialized materials
Use of standard protocol interventions - A Standard Protocol Intervention is scientifically research-based and has a high probability of producing change for large numbers of students. Usually designed to be used in a standard manner across students and is typically delivered in small groups.
Scientifically research-based interventions
Academic content areas (reading, mathematics)
Behavior
Specialists assist with small group instruction
Tier 3: Intensive Interventions for a Few Students
Definition: Academic instruction and behavioral strategies, methodologies and practices designed for a few students significantly below established grade-level benchmarks in the standards-aligned system or who demonstrate significant difficulties with behavioral and social competence.
Tier 3: Intensive Interventions
Use of standard protocols interventions
May use supplemental instructional materials for specific skill development
Small intensive, flexible groups
Additional tutoring provided by specialists as part of the school day
Generally week interventions with biweekly progress monitoring
Instructional changes based on data based decision making
Tier I:
Foundation
Standards Aligned Instruction for All Students

43. 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
Definition: Standards aligned instruction and schoolwide foundational interventions are provided to all students in the general education core curriculum. Tier I also is used to designate students who are making expected grade level progress (benchmark students )in the standards-aligned system and who demonstrate social competence.
Effective support to enhance student engagement in the learning process and to promote school completion

44. Interventions for Some 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.
Standards-aligned instruction with supplemental, small group instruction which may include specialized materials
Use of standard protocol interventions - A Standard Protocol Intervention is scientifically research-based and has a high probability of producing change for large numbers of students. Usually designed to be used in a standard manner across students and is typically delivered in small groups.
Scientifically research-based interventions
Academic content areas (reading, mathematics)
Behavior
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

45. Intensive instruction Use of standard protocols interventions
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

46. RtI Continuum

47. Conceptual Framework for R&R System