Delivering Special Ed Services in the General Ed Environment:

(1)

Delivering Special Ed Services in

the General Ed Environment:

Co-teaching and Other Practical

Solutions to Compliance Barriers

Presented by: Diana Browning Wright, M.S., L.E.P.

www.dianabrowningwright.com dianawright@earthlink.net

626 487 9455

Session Objectives

• Legal perspective on special education in general education environments: What is the intent vs. our practices?

• Models for specialized instruction in a general ed environment that facilitate progress in the core curriculum and

achievement of individual goals.

• Consider pros and cons to co-teaching and a blended model vs. paraeducator supports

• Review language for IEP development

• Discuss strategies to determine success and the need for changes as models are implemented and reviewed.

(2)

Overcoming Disengagement

3

Overcoming Lack of Achievement for Students

and Legal Problems for Districts

(3)

Eligible Students Get What?

• They get: 'special education,' which means

specially designed instruction, at no cost to

parents, to meet the unique needs of a child

with a disability, including:

–(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and

–(B) instruction in physical education.

• SEC. 603. (20 USC 1402)

5

Specially Designed Instruction

• The term “specially designed instruction”

means adapting, as appropriate to the needs

of an eligible child,

the content, methodology,

or delivery of instruction

–

– To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and

– To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children

(4)

Adapting Content

• Must be due to the unique need the disability

creates for the content adaptation to be a special

education function, e.g.:

• Autism: How to imitate, understand the social world, learn scripts, routines, etc.

• Emotional Disturbance: Interpreting the actions of others, handling stress, other social skills, etc.

• Blind/Deaf: Communication specific to eligibility, etc. • Traumatic Brain Injury: How to manage time, use

memory aids, manage anger, etc.

7

Adapting Content (etc.)

• Is there unique content for learning

disabilities?

• Is there unique content for OHI (AD/HD)?

• Think about overidentification.

(5)

Adapting Methodology

• Conundrum:

• What methodology is unique to a

disability?

• Is there specialized instruction for reading for

a student with a learning disability in reading?

• Is there specialized instruction methodology

for AD/HD?

9

Adapting Delivery of Instruction

• Are these unique for a disability?

• “Self Management” during instruction

• Graphic organizing to pre-teach concepts

• Specific vocabulary practice

(6)

Core Concept: One requirement in providing

a free, appropriate public education

(FAPE) for each child is to place each

child with disabilities in the “least

restrictive environment” (LRE).

IDEA and LRE

11

Least Restrictive Environment

• Unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled;

• In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services that he or she needs; and

• A child with a disability is not removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum.

(7)

LRE and Restrictive Settings

• Regulations: Part 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(ii)

• Special classes, separate schooling, or other

removal of children with disabilities from the

regular educational environment

occurs only if

the nature or severity of the disability is such

that education in regular classes with the use

of supplementary aids and services cannot be

achieved satisfactorily.

13

Free Appropriate Public Education

• The term ‘free appropriate public education’ means special education and related services that —

– (A) have been provided at public expense, under public

supervision and direction, and without charge; [Page 118 STAT. 2654]

– (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;

– (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and

– (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under Section 614(d).

(8)

•See Handout 3 in your packet

15

Full Inclusion Defined

• All students, regardless of handicapping

condition or severity, are educated in the

regular education environment

• All services are taken to the student in that

(9)

IDEA 2004 and Full Inclusion

• IDEA does not require full inclusion

• The law states that students with disabilities

be educated in the “least restrictive

environment” appropriate to meet their

“unique needs”

–The “least restrictive environment” analysis should begin with placement in the regular education classroom

17

Is that all?

• No!

• If there is a handicapping condition, AND the

student needs specialized instruction, FAPE

also includes:

–Supplementary aids and supports to maintain the LRE

(10)

Supplementary Aids and Services

• Supplementary aids and services means aids,

services, and other supports that are provided in

regular education classes, other

education-related settings, and in extracurricular and

nonacademic settings, to enable children with

disabilities to be educated with nondisabled

children to the maximum extent appropriate in

accordance with Sections 300.114 through

300.116. 20 USC 1401(33)

19

Greer v. Rome City School District

(11th Cir. 1992)

• In this case, the court decided in favor of the

parents who objected to the placement of

their daughter in a self-contained special

education classroom.

–“Before the school district may conclude that a handicapped child should be educated outside of the regular classroom it must consider whether supplemental aids and services would permit satisfactory education in the regular classroom.”

(11)

Poolaw v. Parker Unified Sch. Dist.

(9th

Cir. 1995)

• The court ruled in favor of the district’s offer

of a residential placement

contrary

to the

wishes of the family that their child be

educated in a regular education classroom.

–“the child’s previous and current district placements had adequately explored the

effectiveness of regular education placement with supplemental aids and services.”

21

Take Home Messages from Case Law

• Courts will carefully examine the facts in individual cases to determine whether school districts have considered, with meaningful parent participation, the full continuum of placements, including general education with supports and that one offer of FAPE was given (placement offer and goals and services)

• Courts will examine IEP team processes and content to ensure that placements are based on the

individual needs of each student (i.e., for every identified need, a goal is provided), parents had meaningful participation, and FAPE was developed and implemented with fidelity

(12)

For General & Special Collaboration

• Belief:

All students belong to us all, and we work

together to meet all students learning needs

• Knowledge:

How to work together in meeting

needs

• Skills:

Effective teaching skills for both of us

• Procedures:

LRE enforcement

• Fair is not everyone getting the same thing! Fair

is everyone getting what they need!

23

Why is Collaboration Hard?

• General educators:

use to start with

curriculum and then assess what was learned

— student/instructional match was not

common

• Special educators:

start with student

assessment first, then develop instruction to

fill the gaps between skills and content

(13)

Co-Teaching?

• Growing in popularity

• Often misunderstood

• Pros: Helps maintain LRE

• Cons: Staffing

• Other?

• Schools are not for the convenience of the

staff; schools are for implementing effective

teaching for each student

25

“I think it’s called co-teaching or

teaming”

(14)

Four Elements to Co-Teaching

• Co-teaching occurs when

• 1. Two or more professionals …

• 2. Jointly deliver substantive instruction …

• 3. To a diverse, or blended group

of students …

• 4. In a single physical space.

Cook & Friend, 1995

27

(15)

Special Education Service Support to General

Education- Major Models

• Consultant Model

• Coaching Model

• Collaborative (or Teaming) Model

Friend & Cook, 2003

29

Most Common Approaches

• 1. One Teaching, One Drifting

• 2. Parallel Teaching

• 3. Station Teaching

• 4. Alternative Teaching

• 5. Team Teaching

(16)

1. 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 (message to students: “That’s the REAL teacher”).

• Can also be distracting to students, and can result in students becoming overly dependent on the drifting teacher.

31

2. Parallel Teaching

• Teachers share responsibility for planning and instruction. (content, methodology, instructional strategies for all students).

• 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.

(17)

3. 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.

33

4. 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, and which teacher teaches which group should vary.

(18)

5. 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.

35

(19)

So What’s best?

• Flexible depending on topic, communicating

to students that:

–Both are teachers (not one is the “real” teacher)

–Roles are interchangeable

–One teacher is NOT for students with IEPs and one is NOT for general ed

37

See Handouts — Blended Model

• Advantages

• Flexibility

• Maximized collaboration opportunities • Effective supports to maintain LRE • Parental support enhanced

(20)

Be Flexible!

• Teachers do not have to commit to only one approach of co-teaching — vary it.

• 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

39

Benefits of Collaboration

• Sharing the wealth!

• Responsibility for educating all students

• Understanding and use of common assessment data

• Supporting ownership for programming and interventions

• Creating common understanding • Data-driven problem-solving

(21)

Limitations and Potential Drawbacks

• Co-teaching can highlight teacher skill differences • There may not be enough special educators for a

co-teaching program as the only option

• Co-taught classrooms may be disproportionately filled with students with disabilities (without enough special educators to “co-teach”)

• Special educators can function more as a teaching assistant than as a co-educator (without adequate planning)

41

What Does Administration Do?

• Support Data Collection • Support Collaboration • Give Reinforcement!

• Attend planning sessions periodically • Attend all “Roundups” and IEP meetings

(22)

Provide Ongoing Staff Collaboration

• It is through the Establishment of Procedures

that Belief Systems can change. Even after

Knowledge has been given and Skills practiced,

Beliefs and Procedures must be addressed

•

Allow time and establish a procedure for

partners to discuss concerns, solve problems,

and formulate initial implementation plans.

• Effective co-planning • Co-teaching models • Student scheduling

•Instructional considerations

•Ongoing performance assessment

•Interpersonal communication

43

Provide Weekly Scheduled

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.

• Aim for no more than 25% students with IEPs in one class (5/20; 6/24; 7/28; 8/32)

(23)

Likert-Type Format

Periodic Assessment

• I prefer to work in a cooperative teaching team. • I believe that students improve educationally and

socially when they are taught by a cooperative teaching team.

• I feel that our cooperative teaching team shares responsibility for all activities.

• I feel uncomfortable having another adult in the classroom.

Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002

45

Likert-Type Format (cont.)

• I find it easy to communicate with my cooperative teaching partner.

• I perform a subordinate role in our cooperative teaching team.

• I feel that I have more work as a result of working in a cooperative teaching team.

(24)

Open-Ended Format

• How do you feel about working in a cooperative teaching team?

• What factors contribute to the success of your cooperative teaching team?

• What problems has your cooperative teaching team encountered?

• What support, resources, and training have been most helpful? Least helpful?

47

Open-Ended Format (cont.)

• How has your cooperative teaching team affected your students?

• How do our students’ families and other

professionals feel about your cooperative teaching team?

• Has working in a cooperative team changed your roles? If so, in what ways?

• What school- and districtwide policies have aided or hindered your cooperative teaching team?

(25)

Best Practices Checklist

• Allows for self-evaluation on various dimensions of collaborative efforts

• Measures overall program quality • Can be completed individually or as a

co-teaching team

49

Best Practices Checklist: Examples

• We blend each other’s abilities, values, preferences,

teaching styles, educational philosophies and cultural perspectives.

• We discuss and agree on our program’s objectives, curricula; assessment, teaching, and classroom management techniques; classroom schedules; and grading criteria.

• We employ a range of cooperative teaching instructional arrangements that are based on the lesson’s goals, the type of the material to be taught, and the needs of students.

(26)

Best Practices Checklist: Examples

(cont.)

• We vary our roles and share the workload so that all team members perform meaningful activities that are recognized by others.

• We have sufficient time to communicate, assess the effectiveness of our program, and revise the

program.

• We receive the planning time and administrative support to work successfully.

• We address all of our differences immediately and directly.

51

What Does and Does Not Lead to Success in

Co-Teaching?

(27)

Co-teaching/Collaboration

When it Works

Finding: Outstanding working relationships

• Upbeat

• Enjoy each other’s company

• Respect

• Ease

• Trust

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinicvolume 40, #5 May 2005

53

Co-teaching/Collaboration

Requirements for Success

Finding: Both teachers have strengths as

motivators

• Ownership of all claimed by both • Enthusiastic Teaching

(28)

Co-teaching/Collaboration

When it Works

Finding: Time Allocated for Co-Planning

• Before or after school

•At lunch

• Formal prep period

“The lack of scheduled co-planning time did not appear to be a barrier to effective instruction.”

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinic

volume 40, #5 May 2005

55

Co-Teaching/Collaboration

When it Works

Finding

: Appropriate Curriculum selected

Hands-on & Activity-based learning tasks results in

•Content becoming more concrete for all students

•Language and literacy demands of tasks thus reduced

(29)

Co-teaching/Collaboration

When it Works

Finding: Effective Instructional Skills

•Lesson framework within lessons

Daily review

Presentation of new information

Guided and independent practice activities Formative review

Finding: Effective Behavior Support in place

•Reinforcement for individual good behavior as well as class performance

57

Co-teaching/Collaboration

When it Works

Finding: For students with disabilities — specific

teaching adaptations are used.

 e.g., Multimedia supplementary reviews

–(Provides both oral and pictorial aids for retention)  e.g., Reduced written language in test questions

Finding: Continued collaboration to plan success

for students with disabilities in upcoming lessons!

(30)

Co-teaching/Collaboration

When it Works

Finding: Expertise in the Content Area

•General ed = content expert

•Special ed = adaptation expert

•Teachers deferred to each other during instruction

•Teachers exchanged roles as presenters of content

•Students think of both teachers as interchangeable

59

Co-Teaching/Collaboration

When it Works - The AHAA!

Finding: “Co-teaching appeared to be most successful where both co-teachers practiced effective teaching behaviors,” e.g.:

•Structure

•Clarity

•Enthusiasm

“Effective teaching behaviors lead to increased academic achievement AND a greater degree of effective collaboration between the two co-teachers.”

•Maximizing student engagement

(31)

When Co-Teaching Doesn’t Work

61

Co-Teaching/Collaboration

When it DOESN’T Work

•

Finding: Weak collaboration

• Finding: Weak working relationships

• Finding: Teaching styles at opposite ends of a

continuum, e.g., structured vs. loose; students

adapted, but contributed to deterioration of a

working relationship

(32)

Co-teaching/Collaboration

When it

DOESN’T

Work

•Finding: Belief system differences: disagreements on how to interact with students, deal with behavior

• Finding: Overemphasis on high stakes testing to the detriment of effective pedagogy

i.e., moving on without effective pacing, extra practice, review, hands-on practice, etc.

63

More Resources?

See “The Access Center: Improving

Outcomes for All Students K–8”

http://www.K8accesscenter.org

American Institutes for Research 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW

(33)

References

• Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1991). Designing system to facilitate collaboration: Collective wisdom from Colorado. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 37–42. • Arguelles, M., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1997). The ABCDEs of Co-Teaching. The

Council For Exceptional Children: Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2). Available at http://www/idonline.com

• Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Blatt, B., & Kaplan, F. (1974). Christmas in purgatory: A photographic essay on mental retardation.Syracuse, N.Y.: Human Policy Press.

• Chafant, J., & Psyh, M. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49–58.

• Friend, M., & Cook, L.H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

• Fullan, M.G. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer.

65

References

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

• Pugach, M.C., & Johnson, L.J. (1990). Fostering the continued democratization of consultation through action research. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(3–4), 240–245.

• Rea, P.J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312–316.

• Salend, S.J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teaching teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 195–200.

• 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.

• Wilson, G.L. (2005). This doesn’t look familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 271–275.

• Wischnowski, M.W., Salmon, S.J., & Eaton, K. (2004). Evaluating co-teaching as a means for successful inclusion of students with disabilities in a rural district. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(3), 3–14.

(34)

•Contact Diana Browning Wright •www.dianabrowningwright.com •dianawright@earthlink.net •(626) 487-9455 67