2013-­‐14  L.I.F.  Focus  

Improving  Learning  For  All  

Crea%ng  Schools  and  Classrooms    Where  All  Students  Belong  

Faye  Brownlie  www.slideshare.ca    

Learning Intentions: •  We  have  reviewed  and  edited  our  school  plan.  •  We  have  grown  our  ways  of  collecCng  and  using  informaCon  on  our  students  to  make  class  learning  plans  from  class  reviews.  

•  We  have  polished  our  mental  models  of  learning  frameworks.  

•  We  have  new  ideas  of  HOW  to  collaborate  in  co-­‐teaching.  

•  We  are  leaving  with  a  revised  school  plan  of  acCon.  

Big Ideas…  As  a  school  community  we  want  to  work  together  to  meet  the  needs  of  all  students.  

Inclusion  is  not  a  special  educaCon  model;  it  is  a  school  model.  

As  professionals  we  want  to  constantly  examine  and  refine  our  pracCce.  

CollaboraCve  problem-­‐solving  and  teaching  results  in  new  ideas,  new  products  and  a  feeling  of  connecCon.    

Our  students  conCnue  to  change  and  learn  and  their  needs,  just  like  the  school’s,  will  change  over  the  course  of  the  year.  

Brownlie  &  Schnellert    It’s  All  About  Thinking

C  

Class  Review  -­‐gathering  

informaCon  

-­‐strengths-­‐based  

-­‐acCon  oriented  

“You  can  see  what  the  teachers,  teams,  and  schools  value  by  what  actually  goes  on  in  the  classrooms.”    (Brownlie,  Fullerton,  Schnellert,  2011,  p25)  

“Pedagogy  trumps  curriculum.”      (Dylan  Wiliam)  

Your  Plan  

•  Examine  your  plan  from  last  year  – What’s  working?  

– What’s  not?  – What’s  next?  

Frameworks

It’s All about Thinking (English, Humanities, Social Studies) – Brownlie & Schnellert, 2009

It’s All about Thinking (Math, Science)– Brownlie, Fullerton, Schnellert, 2011

Universal Design for Learning MulCple  means:  -­‐to  tap  into  background  knowledge,  to  acCvate  prior  knowledge,  to  increase  engagement  and  moCvaCon  

-­‐to  acquire  the  informaCon  and  knowledge  to  process  new  ideas  and  informaCon  

-­‐to  express  what  they  know.  

                     Rose  &  Meyer,  2002  

Backwards Design •  What  important  ideas  and  enduring  understandings  do  you  want  the  students  to  know?  

•  What  thinking  strategies  will  students  need  to  demonstrate  these  understandings?    

                 McTighe  &  Wiggins,  2001  

Approaches •  Assessment  for  learning  •  Open-­‐ended  strategies  •  Gradual  release  of  responsibility  •  CooperaCve  learning  •  Literature  circles  and  informaCon  circles  •  Inquiry  

It’s All about Thinking – Brownlie & Schnellert, 2009; Brownlie, Fullerton, & Schnellert, 2011

“Every  Child,  Every  Day”  –  Richard  Allington  and  Rachael  Gabriel  

In  EducaConal  Leadership,  March  2012  

6  elements  of  instrucCon  for  ALL  students!  

1.  Every  child  reads  something  he  or  she  chooses.  2.  Every  child  reads  accurately.  3.  Every  child  reads  something  he  or  she  

understands.  4.  Every  child  writes  about  something  personally  

meaningful.  5.  Every  child  talks  with  peers  about  reading  and  

wriCng.  6.  Every  child  listens  to  a  fluent  adult  read  aloud.  

Rationale for Collaboration:  

•  By  sharing  our  collec%ve  knowledge  about  the  whole  class  and  developing  a  plan  of  ac%on  based  on  this,  we  can  be?er  meet  the  needs  of  all  students.  

Goal:  

•  to  support  students  to  be  successful  learners  in  the  classroom  environment    

A Key Belief

•  When  interven%on  is  focused  on  classroom  support  it  improves  each  student’s  ability  and  opportunity  to  learn  effec%vely/successfully  in  the  classroom.  

The Vision

A  Remedial  Model  

(Deficit  Model)  ‘Fixing’  the  student  

Outside  the  classroom/  curriculum  

A  Shif  from…..        to  

An  Inclusive  Model  (Strengths  Based)  ‘Fixing’  the  curriculum  

Within  the  classroom/  curriculum  

to  

Transforma%ons  within  the    Inclusive  Model  

Pull-­‐out  Support  /  Physical  Inclusion  •  sCll  a  remedial  model  –  to  make  kids  fit  •  In  the  class,  but  ofen  on  a  different  plan  

Inclusion  •  Classroom  Teacher  as  central  support  •  Resource  Teacher  –  working  together  in  a  

 co-­‐teaching  model  

No plan, No point

Co-Teaching Models (Teaching in Tandem – Effective Co-Teaching in the Inclusive Classroom – Wilson

& Blednick, 2011, ASCD)  

•  1  teach,  1  support  •  Parallel  groups  •  Sta%on  teaching  •  1  large  group;  1  small  group  

•  Teaming  

1  Teach,  1  Support  

•  most  frequently  done,  least  planning  •  advantage:  focus,  1:1  feedback,  if  alternate  roles,  no  one  has  the  advantage  or  looks  like  the  real  teacher,  can  capitalize  one  1’s  strengths  and  build  professional  capacity  

•  possible  piNall:  easiest  to  go  off  the  rails  and  have  one  teacher  feel  as  an  ‘extra  pair  of  hands’,  no  specific  task  (buzzing  radiator)  

1 Teach, 1 Support: Examples •  demonstra%ng  a  new  strategy  so  BOTH  teachers  can  use  it  the  next  day  –  e.g.,  think  aloud,  ques%oning  from  pictures,  listen-­‐sketch-­‐draW  

•  Students  independently  working  on  a  task,  one  teacher  working  with  a  small  group  on  this  task,  other  teacher  suppor%ng  children  working  independently  

Parallel  Groups  

•  both  teachers  take  about  half  the  class  and  teach  the  same  thing.      

•  must  be  co-­‐planned,  requires  trust  in  each  other,    

•  must  each  know  the  content  and  the  strategies.  

•  advantage:    half  class  size  -­‐  more  personal  contact,  more  individual  a?en%on  

Parallel Groups: Examples •  word  work.    At  Woodward  Elem,  the  primary  worked  together  3  

X/week,  with  each  teacher,  the  principal  and  the  RT  each  taking  a  group  for  word  work.    Some  schools  have  used  this  with  math  ac%vi%es.  

•  Focus  teaching  from  class  assessment.  Westwood  Elementary:  Came  about  as  a  result  of  an  ac%on  research  ques%on:  How  do  we  be?er  meet  the  needs  of  our  students?:    –  primary  team  used  Standard  Reading  Assessment,  highlight  on  short  

form  of  Performance  Standards,  Resource,  ESL,  principal  involved,  cross-­‐graded  groups  2X  a  week,  for  6  to  8  weeks  driven  by  informa%on  from  the  performance  standards  (Text  features,  Oral  Comprehension,  Risk  taking,  Cri%cal  thinking  with  words,  Gecng  the  big  picture,…  ,  repeat  process  

–  NOT  paper  and  pencil  prac%ce  groups…teaching/thinking  groups    

Sta%on  Teaching  

•  mostly  small  groups,  more  individual  a?en%on,    

•  can  be  heterogeneous  sta%ons  or  more  homogeneous  reading  groups.      

•  each  teacher  has  2  groups,  1  working  independently  at  a  sta%on  or  wri%ng,  1  working  directly  with  the  teacher.      

•  Requires  student  self  regula%on  (which  needs  to  be  taught)  and  planning  for  meaningful  engagement.  

Station Teaching: Examples •  Guided  reading:  4  groups;  RT  has  two  and  CT  has  two  

•  math  groups  –  Michelle’s  pa?erning  (1  direct  teaching,  2  guided  prac%ce,  1  guided  prac%ce  with  observa%on)  

•  science  sta%ons:  CT  and  RT  each  created  two  sta%ons;  co-­‐planning  what  they  would  look  like  to  ensure  differen%a%on,  teachers  moved  back  and  forth  between  groups  suppor%ng  self-­‐monitoring,  independence  on  task  

1  Large  Group,  1  Small  Group  

•  advantage:      either  teacher  can  work  with  either  group,  can  provide  tutorial,  intensive,  individual  

•  possible  piNall:    don’t  want  same  kids  always  in  the  ‘get  help’  group    

Station Teaching: Examples •  Guided  reading:  4  groups;  RT  has  two  and  CT  has  two  

•  math  groups  –  Michelle’s  pa?erning  (1  direct  teaching,  2  guided  prac%ce,  1  guided  prac%ce  with  observa%on)  

•  science  sta%ons:  CT  and  RT  each  created  two  sta%ons;  co-­‐planning  what  they  would  look  like  to  ensure  differen%a%on,  teachers  moved  back  and  forth  between  groups  suppor%ng  self-­‐monitoring,  independence  on  task  

Teaming  

•  most  seamless.      •  co-­‐planned    •  teachers  take  alternate  roles  and  lead-­‐taking  as  the  lesson  proceeds.  

•  advantages:  capitalizes  on  both  teachers’  strengths,  models  collabora%on  teaching/learning  to  students,  can  adjust  instruc%on  readily  based  on  student  need,  flexible  

•  possible  piNalls:    trust  and  skill  •  Most  oWen  in  whole  class  instruc%on  and  could  be  followed  up  with  any  of  the  other  four  co-­‐teaching  models    

Teaming: Examples

•  Brainstorm-­‐categorize  lesson  –  1  teacher  begins,  other  teacher  no%ces  aspects  the  first  teacher  has  missed  or  sees  confusion  in  children,  adds  in  and  assumes  lead  role.  

•  Modeling  reading  strategies:  two  teachers  model  and  talk  about  the  strategies  they  use  to  read,  no%ng  things  they  do  differently.  

•  Graphic  organizer:  Teachers  model  how  to  use  a  seman%c  map  as  a  post  reading  vocabulary  building  ac%vity,  teacher  most  knowledgeable  about  seman%c  mapping  creates  it  as  other  teacher  debriefs  with  students;  both  flow  back  and  forth  

K/Grade  1  WriCng  Commons  &  Jakovac  

Samples  from  June  7th,  2012  

•  Trust  your  professional  experCse  •  Collaborate:    2  heads  are  bemer  than  1  

•  Follow  the  lead  of  your  children  –their  interests,  their  needs  

•  NO  program  exists  that  can  replace  YOU!!!