Effective Co-Planning and Co-Teaching: An Introductionalex.state.al.us/ccrs/sites/alex.state.al.us.ccrs/files/CCRS Web... · Effective Co-Planning and Co-Teaching: An Introduction

Effective Co-Planning and Co-Teaching: An Introduction

Special Education Services

CCRS QM4 2015

Donna M. Ploessl, Ph.D.Pamela W. Howard, Ph.D.

Provide Participants with Knowledge of Co-Teaching as a

Collaborative Practice

Identify Professional Expectations for

Collaboration between General and

Special Educators

Explain the Six Approaches to Co-Teaching

Explain the Advantages of Co-Planning for Co-

Teaching.

2Ploessl & Howard, 2014

FREE AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION (FAPE)IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)

Ploessl & Howard, 2014 3

Indicator 5: Percent of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) aged 6 through 21 served:A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the school day.

ALABAMA’S 2014 DATA 83.83 percent of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the school day. (Annual Performance Report School Year 2013-14)



ALABAMA’S 2014 DATA 83.83 percent of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more or the school day.

ARMT DataProficiency Data for Students with Disabilities (SWD) have

remained static within the 40% range for several years.



ALABAMA’S 2014 DATA 83.83 percent of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more or the school day.

Percentage Proficient by Grades in Reading on 2014 ACT AspireStudents with Disabilities

Grade 3 – 11% Grade 4 – 11% Grade 5 – 7%

Grade 6 – 8% Grade 7 – 6% Grade 8 – 9%

Inclusive Environments =Inclusion confusion

DOES YOUR SCHOOL OR DISTRICT EXHIBIT SYMPTOMS OF

INCLUSION CONFUSION?

1. Are all the classes in your school or district inclusive?

2. What does a typical inclusive class look like in your district?

3. How does your school or district define collaboration?

4. List one or more examples of how adults in your school or

district collaborate. ________________________


Inclusive Environments =Inclusion confusion

• Confusion has accompanied the evolution of collaboration in

special education (SE)-- especially with the increase of inclusive

practices.

• Incorrectly, in some schools, the terms collaboration and

inclusion are used interchangeably even though one is the

style of interaction and the other is the belief system.

• In some schools, collaboration is considered a way to deliver

services to students with disabilities---often confused with co-

teaching a service delivery approach.

(Friend & Cook, 2013, p. 16)


Collaboration is A Style

8

“It 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”(Friend & Cook, 2013, p. 6).

Ploessl & Howard, 2014


Vocabulary Match

Inclusion Collaboration

Co-Teaching


Vocabulary Match

BELIEF

SYSTEM

Inclusion

STYLE

OF

INTERACTION

Collaboration

SERVICE

DELIVERY

APPROACH

Co-Teaching

Defining Co-teaching: The Gold Standard

“Two credentialed/licensed professionals— two teachers

(e.g., GE and SE teacher who may be highly qualified only in

special education or in special education, as well as in the

academic area);

a teacher and a related services professional (e.g., a

teacher and a speech/language therapist, or a teacher and an

occupational therapist);

or a teacher and another specialist (e.g., a teacher and a

literacy coach, or a teacher and an ESL teacher)”

(Friend & Cook, 2013, p. 163). 11Ploessl & Howard, 2014

Blend the Strengths, Draw on the Overlaps, Learn from Each Other to Raise Achievement of All Students in the Classroom (Friend & Cook, 2013)

GET-Curriculum expert

-Group/classroom management

-Knowledge of typical students

-Pacing

SET-Learning process expert

-Knowledge of special needs of students

-Legal procedures of SWD expert

-Teaching to mastery focused


Paraprofessionals and Co-Teaching

Definitions exclude paraprofessionals as co-teachers (Fizell, 2007).

Typical paraprofessionals have not had the professional

preparation (e.g., teacher education program) required. Co-

teaching is not an appropriate role for them (Fizell, 2007).

Paraprofessionals and other adults who work in a classroom

(e.g., community volunteers, practicum students) generally

should provide support, not co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 213, p. 163).

See Paraprofessional Handout


Research on Co-Teaching

Practicality

Co-Teachers more energized, creative, trusting, humorous…had more fun

(Gately & Gately, 2001).

Co-Teachers use more differentiated instructional groups, hands-on activities, and flexible

assessments

(Murawski, 2006; Murawski & Dieker, 2004).

Much research has described the benefits of co-teaching, including opportunity for the different instructional strategies that can target the diverse needs of students in inclusive settings

(Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).


Approaches to

Co-teaching

One Teach – One

Observe

Station Teaching

Parallel Teaching

Alternative Teaching

Team Teaching

One Teach – One Assist


Approaches to Co-Teaching

One - Teach

One - Observe

Both teachers are present, but one typically the general education teacher takes the lead.

The other teacher observes students often collecting data.



Station Teaching

Teachers divide the content to be delivered, and each takes responsibility for part of it. Some students may also work independently. Eventually all students participate in all "stations."



Parallel Teaching

Teachers jointly plan instruction, then each delivers the content to half of the group.

Teachers’ presentation methods vary based on the needs of the students



Alternative Teaching

One teacher works with a small group ofstudents to pre-teach, re-teach, supplement, or enrich.

The other teacher instructs the large group.



Team Teaching

• Both teachers share the instruction of students.

• They may take turns leading a discussion, demonstrating concepts or learning strategies, and modeling appropriate question-asking or conflict resolution behavior.



One - Teach

One - Assist

Both teachers are present, but one often the general education teacher takes the lead.

The other teacher "drifts" around the room assisting students.


How Often Should Teams Use Each Approach?

• Frequently (For brief periods of time)

One Teach, One Observe

• Frequently

Station

• Frequently

Parallel

• Occasionally

Alternative

• Occasionally

Teaming

• Seldom or LESS

One Teach, One Assist


Co-Teaching is NOT…

One teacher teaching one subject followed by another

who teaches a different subject

One teacher teaching one subject while another prepares

instructional materials corrects papers

One teacher conducts a lesson and the other stands or

sits by and watches

When the ideas of one teacher on what or how something

should be taught prevails over the ideas of the other

Simply the assignment of someone to act as a tutor(Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008)


Factors that Influence Which Approach to Use:

Students

Number of students

with IEPs and their

class distribution

Stability of enrollment & caseload

composition

Teachers

Number & disciplines

of specialists available to

co-teach

Role responsibilities of co-teachers

Logistics

Size and grade levels of the school

Level of administrative

support

Curriculum Features

Relevance of IEP to

general education

curriculum



NO

CO-PLANNING

NO

CO-TEACHING

Co-Planning for Co-Teaching

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Alan Lakein

Pre-Planning is KEY

Co-Teachers Need to Consider…

Individual philosophies

Pet peeves (Friend & Cook, 2013)

Perspectives on issues such as:

Fairness,

Grading,

Behavior management

(Dieker, L., 2008).


Co-Planning is Key

Co-Teachers Need to…

• Regularly scheduled time to plan.

• Commitment to the planning process.

• At a minimum, 10 minutes per daily lesson to plan

(experienced teams).

• Avoid beginning the planning with kid specific issues (e.g.

the latest mischief)

• Focus on planning a lesson for all students

*If no common planning time is available, this will limit the

effectiveness of the co-teaching experience (Dieker, L., 2008).


MORE on C0-Planning

Co-Teachers must…

o Ensure the support of the administrators and coordinators

o Create lessons together (side-by-side or virtually)

o Decide which co-teaching model fits the content

o Consider the IEPs of SWD (Friend & Cook, 2013)

Co-Planning Tools:1. Co-Planning Form (Ploessl et al. , 2010) 2. Decision-Making Matrix for Accommodations Form (Ploessl et al. , 2010)


Planning Form Decision Making Matrix


See Co-Teaching Planning Form and Decision Making Matrix

MORE on Co-Planning…

Building administrators must

• Plan (before the school year)

• Co-teacher volunteers• Recruiting non-volunteers• Shared co-planning time • Caseloads/class sizes• Distribution of SWD• Schedules

– Teacher– Student– Specialist/Related Service

• Co-teaching along with other projects/initiatives(Hentz & Jones, 2011)


Eight Components for Observing a Co-Taught Classroom

( See Sample Walk-through Form for a Co-Teaching Classroom from TEA/ESC.)

1. General Information

2. Co-Teacher communication

3. Lesson Development/Presentation

4. Classroom Climate

5. Student Engagement

6. Co-Teaching Approach/Model

7. Classroom management

8. Differentiation


Essential Questions (EQ) for the Co-Teachers and Administrators:

Is what we are doing making a positive difference

for students?

Could we do the same thing alone or is there a

reason there are two of us here?

(Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Wilson, 2005)


References

• Bahamonde, C., & Friend, M. (1999). Teaching English language learners: A proposal for effective service delivery through

collaboration and co-teaching. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10(1), 1-24.

• Dieker, L. (2008). Co-teaching lesson plan book. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

• Fizell, S. G. (2007). Paraprofessionals and teachers working together. Manchester, NH: Cogent Catalyst.

• Friend, M. (2013). Co-Teach! Building and Sustaining Effective Classroom Partnerships in Inclusive Schools (2nd ed.).

Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend, Inc.

• Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2013). Interactions: Collaboration for school professionals (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

• Friend, M., & Hurley-Chamberlain, D. (2011). Is co-teaching effective? Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID

• Gately, S., & Gately, F. (2001) Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47.

• Hang, Q., & Raben, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special

Education, 30, 250-268.

• Hentz, S. M., & Jones, P. M. (2011). Collaborate Smart: Practical strategies and tools for educators. Arlington, VA: Council for

Exceptional Children.

• Huberman, M., Navo, M., & Parrish, T. (2012). Effective practices in high performing districts serving students in special

education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 25(2), 59-71.

• Murawski, W. & Dieker, L. (2008). 50 ways to keep your co-teacher: Strategies for before, during, and after co-teaching.

TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(4), 40-48.

• McDuffie, K., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2009). Promoting success in content area classes: Is value added through co-

teaching? Exceptional Children, 75, 493-510.


http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID

References Continued

• Muller, E., Friend, M., & Hurley-Chamberlain, D. (2009, May). State level approaches to co-teaching. In Forum Brief Policy

Analysis. Retrieved from http://projectforum.org/docs/state-levelapproachestoco-teaching.pdf

• Murawski, W. (2008). Five keys to co-teaching in inclusive classrooms. School Administrator, 65(8), 29.

• Murawski, W. W., & Spencer, S. (2011). Collaborate, Communicate, & Differentiate!: How to Increase Student learning in today’s

diverse schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

• Ploessl, D., Rock, M., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. (2010). On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching

interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 158-168.

• Salisbury, C., & McGregor, G. (2002). The administrative climate and context of inclusive elementary schools. Exceptional

Children, 68, 259-270.

• Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative

research. Exceptional Children, 75, 392-416.

• Villa, R., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin.

• Walsh, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement. Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-36.

• WEAC (n.d.) Special Education Inclusion. Retrieved from

http://www.weac.org/Issues_Advocacy/Resource_Pages_On_Issues_one/Special_Education/special_education_inclusion.aspx

• Weichel, W. A. (2001). An analysis of student outcomes on co-taught settings in comparison to other special education service

delivery options for students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(7).

• Zigmond, N., Magiera, K., & Matta, K. (2003). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Is the instructional experience enhanced for

students with disabilities? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Seattle, WA


http://projectforum.org/docs/state-levelapproachestoco-teaching.pdf

http://www.weac.org/Issues_Advocacy/Resource_Pages_On_Issues_one/Special_Education/special_education_inclusion.aspx

Documents

Effective Co-Planning and Co-Teaching: An Introductionalex.state.al.us/ccrs/sites/alex.state.al.us.ccrs/files/CCRS Web... · Effective Co-Planning and Co-Teaching: An Introduction