Improving Access to the General Curriculum for Students With Disabilities Through Collaborative Teaching

1. Improving Access to the General Curriculum for Students With Disabilities Through Collaborative Teaching Your name here Date, location, etc.

2. Session Overview • Introduction to national assistance centers and The Access Center • Introduction to co-teaching • Planning strategies • Scheduling examples • Stages of co-teaching applied to the classroom • Scenario examples

3. The Access Center • National Technical Assistance Center • Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs • Focus on issues of access • What is “access”? • Active learning for students with disabilities of the content and skills that define the general education curriculum

4. The Access Center’s Mission To provide technical assistance that strengthens state and local capacity to help students with disabilities learn through general education curriculum

5. The Access Center’s Goals • With an emphasis on research-based programs, practices, and tools, our services are intended to: • Increase awareness among educators • Help educators to be informed consumers • Assist educators to implement and evaluate programs, practices, and tools

6. Improving Access for Students With Disabilities Through Collaborative Teaching

7. Background General educators 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. Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

8. Background (cont.) 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. Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

9. Aligning Practices Through Co-Teaching • Co-teaching is becoming one of the fastest growing inclusive practices in school. • Despite this rapid increase in popularity, co-teaching remains one of the most commonly misunderstood practices in education. Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

10. Defining Co-Teaching Co-teaching occurs when two or more professionals jointly deliver substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space. Cook & Friend, 1995, p. 1

12. Three Major Models • Consultant model • Coaching model • Collaborative (or teaming) model Friend & Cook, 2003

13. Most Common Approaches • One Teaching, One Drifting • Parallel Teaching • Station Teaching • Alternative Teaching • Team Teaching Friend & Cook, 2003

14. 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 teacher, 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 Friend & Cook, 2003

15. Parallel Teaching • Teachers share responsibility for planning and instruction. • Class is split into heterogeneous groups, and each teacher instructs half on the same material. • Content covered is the same, but methods of delivery may differ. • Both teachers need to be proficient in the content being taught. Friend & Cook, 2003

16. 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. Friend & Cook, 2003

17. 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. Friend & Cook, 2003

18. 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. Friend & Cook, 2003

20. Getting Started

21. Where to Begin: Building Bridges Walking across the bridge, leaving the familiar ground of working alone, is the first act of collaboration. All parties are in neutral territory, with the security of knowing they can return to land better, stronger, and changed. And perhaps they will return to the same side of the bridge even though they started from opposite sides. Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

22. What is Change? Change is always: • Risky • Scary But it can also be: • Rewarding • Fun Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

23. Collaboration Won’t Just Happen • Deliberate • Structured • Systematic • Ongoing Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

24. Why Won’t it Just Happen? Some possibilities might be: • Little understanding of curriculum, instruction, and assessment between general and special educators • Collaboration does not occur without a student-driven reason and a deliberate structure with resources. Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

25. Why Won’t it Just Happen? (cont.) • 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. • No wonder we are talking different languages. Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

26. How Can We Work With This? • Provide purpose and structure • Create baseline and a plan for scaffolded change • Provide a visual map to guide discussion • Keep discussions objective • Allow many issues to be put on the table for consideration Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

27. Sounds Good . . . Now What? Getting Co-Teaching Started at the Building and Classroom Levels

28. Action Steps Administrators should • Provide information and encourage proactive preparation from teachers • Assess level of collaboration currentlyin place • Pre-plan • Implement slowly . . . baby steps! Murawski, 2005

30. Considerations • Teachers need to volunteer and agree toco-teach. • Co-teaching should be implemented gradually. • Attention needs to be given to individualized education plan (IEP) setting changes that an inclusive classroom may invoke. • Goals and support services need to reflectthe new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes. Murawski & Dieker, 2004

31. 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. Murawski, 2005

32. Limitations and Potential Drawbacks • Co-teaching is not easy to maintain in schools. • There may not be enough special educators for a co-teaching program. • Co-taught classrooms may be disproportionally filled with students with disabilities. • Special educators can function more as a teaching assistant than as a co-educator. Friend & Cook, 2003

33. 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 Friend & Cook, 2003

34. Effective Co-Planning

35. 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 Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002

38. 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 spend10 minutes to plan each lesson. Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

39. 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. Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

40. 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. Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

41. Two Stages of ClassroomCo-Planning • Getting to know each other • Weekly co-planning Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

42. Getting to Know Each Other • Ease into working with one another • Deal with the “little” things first • These typically become thedeal-breakers down the road, and preventing these road blocks earlycan make life easier. Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

45. Getting to Know Each Other (cont.) • Important to spend time talking and getting better acquainted with eachother’s skills, interests, and educational philosophies • Having a semistructured preliminary discussion can facilitate this process. • Discuss current classroom routinesand rules Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

47. Getting to Know Each Other (cont.) • Consider a “pilot test” • It may be necessary to plan together during the summer (i.e., prior to development days involving all staff). Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

48. 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. • Examples • http://fcrcweb.ftr.indstate.educationu/tstyles3.html • http://www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html

50. Weekly Co-Planning • Effective weeklyco-planning is based on regularly scheduled meetings,rather than “fittingit in.” • Important to stay focused • Review content in advance of meeting Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996