Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Co Teaching


Published on

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

Co Teaching

  1. 1. Supervising Co-Teaching Teams: Whose Line Is It Anyway? Your name here Date, location, etc.
  2. 2. Session Overview <ul><li>Introduction to national assistance centers and The Access Center </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction to co-teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Planning for and scheduling co-teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestions for administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Observing and evaluating co-teaching teams </li></ul><ul><li>Co-Teaching Rating Scale (CTRS) </li></ul><ul><li>Case study </li></ul>
  3. 3. The Access Center’s Mission <ul><li>To provide technical assistance that strengthens state and local capacity to help students with disabilities learn through general education curriculum. </li></ul>
  4. 4. What is “Access”? <ul><li>Active learning of the content and skills that define the general education curriculum </li></ul><ul><li>Supports to improve access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional and learning goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research-based instructional methods and practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research-based materials and media </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research-based supports and accommodations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appropriate assessment and documentation </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Where to Begin: Building Bridges <ul><li>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. </li></ul>From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
  6. 6. Collaboration Won’t Just Happen <ul><li>Deliberate </li></ul><ul><li>Structured </li></ul><ul><li>Systematic </li></ul><ul><li>Ongoing </li></ul>From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
  7. 7. Why Won’t It Just Happen? <ul><li>General educators begin with the curriculum first and use assessment to determine what was learned. </li></ul><ul><li>Special educators begin with assessment first and design instruction to repair gaps in learning. </li></ul><ul><li>No wonder we are talking different languages. </li></ul>From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
  8. 8. How Can We Work With This? <ul><li>Provide purpose and structure </li></ul><ul><li>Create baseline and a plan for scaffolded change </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a visual map to guide discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Keep discussions objective and data driven </li></ul><ul><li>Allow many issues to be put on the table for consideration </li></ul>From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
  9. 9. What Have We Learned? <ul><li>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. </li></ul>From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
  10. 10. What Have We Learned? (cont.) <ul><li>Parent concerns decrease when special and general education practices are aligned and when data is shared and used to identify how students are progressing in the general education domain first. </li></ul>From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
  11. 11. Aligning Practices Through Co-Teaching <ul><li>Co-teaching is becoming one of the fastest growing inclusive school practices. </li></ul><ul><li>Despite this rapid increase in popularity, co-teaching remains one of the most commonly misunderstood practices in education. </li></ul>From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
  12. 12. Defining Co-Teaching <ul><li>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. </li></ul>Cook & Friend, 1995
  13. 14. Three Major Models <ul><li>Consultant Model </li></ul><ul><li>Coaching Model </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative (or Teaming) Model </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  14. 15. Most Common Approaches <ul><li>One Teaching, One Drifting </li></ul><ul><li>Parallel Teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Station Teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative Teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Team Teaching </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  15. 16. <ul><li>One teacher plans and instructs, and one teacher provides adaptations and other support as needed. </li></ul><ul><li>Requires very little joint planning </li></ul><ul><li>Should be used sparingly </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can result in one teacher, most often the general educator, taking the lead role the majority of the time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can also be distracting to students, especially those who may become dependent on the drifting teacher </li></ul></ul>One Teaching, One Drifting Friend & Cook, 2003
  16. 17. Parallel Teaching <ul><li>Teachers share responsibility for planning and instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>Class is split into heterogeneous groups, and each teacher instructs half on the same material. </li></ul><ul><li>Content covered is the same, but methods of delivery may differ. </li></ul><ul><li>Both teachers need to be proficient in the content being taught. </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  17. 18. Station Teaching <ul><li>Teachers divide the responsibility of planning and instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>Students rotate on a predetermined schedule through stations. </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers repeat instruction to each group that comes through; delivery may vary according to student needs. </li></ul><ul><li>Approach can be used even if teachers have very different pedagogical approaches. </li></ul><ul><li>Each teacher instructs every student. </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  18. 19. Alternative Teaching <ul><li>Teachers divide responsibilities for planning and instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Approach allows for highly individualized instruction to be offered. </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers should be careful that the same students are not always pulled aside. </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  19. 20. Team Teaching <ul><li>Teachers share responsibilities for planning and instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers work as a team to introduce new content, work on developing skills, clarify information, and facilitate learning and classroom management. </li></ul><ul><li>This requires the most mutual trust and respect between teachers and requires that they be able to mesh their teaching styles. </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  20. 22. Sounds Good . . . Now What? Getting Co-Teaching Started at the Building and Classroom Levels
  21. 23. Considerations <ul><li>Teachers need to volunteer and agree to co-teach. </li></ul><ul><li>Co-teaching should be implemented gradually. </li></ul><ul><li>Attention needs to be given to IEP setting changes that an inclusive classroom may invoke. </li></ul><ul><li>Goals and support services need to reflect the new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes. </li></ul>Murawski & Dieker, 2004
  22. 24. Not an All-or-Nothing Approach <ul><li>Teachers do not have to commit to only one approach of co-teaching. </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers do not have to only co-teach. </li></ul><ul><li>Co-teaching is not the only option for serving students. </li></ul><ul><li>Some students with disabilities may be in a co-taught classroom for only part of the day. </li></ul>Murawski, 2005
  23. 25. Limitations and Potential Drawbacks <ul><li>Co-teaching is not easy to maintain in schools. </li></ul><ul><li>There may not be enough special educators for a co-teaching program. </li></ul><ul><li>Co-taught classrooms may be disproportionately filled with students with disabilities. </li></ul><ul><li>Special educators can function more as a teaching assistant than as a co-educator. </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  24. 26. Benefits of Collaboration <ul><li>Shared responsibility for educating all students </li></ul><ul><li>Shared understanding and use of common assessment data </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting ownership for programming and interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Creating common understanding </li></ul><ul><li>Data-driven problem solving </li></ul>Friend & Cook, 2003
  25. 27. Action Steps <ul><li>Administrators should: </li></ul><ul><li>Provide information and encourage proactive preparation from teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Assess level of collaboration currently in place </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-plan </li></ul><ul><li>Implement slowly . . . baby steps! </li></ul>Murawski, 2005
  26. 29. Planning and Scheduling Considerations <ul><li>Co-teaching requires thoughtful planning time. </li></ul><ul><li>Administrative support is essential. </li></ul><ul><li>Here is where the alignment of special and general education occurs, as well as the alignment of assessment and instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>School-level scheduling should be done after student needs have been identified. </li></ul>Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002
  27. 30. Provide Weekly Scheduled Co-Planning Time <ul><li>Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one scheduling/planning period (45–60 minutes) per week. </li></ul><ul><li>Experienced teams should spend 10 minutes to plan each lesson. </li></ul>Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  28. 31. District-Level Planning Issues <ul><li>District-level planning: </li></ul><ul><li>Helps to reduce duplication of effort </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates communication within the system and in the larger community </li></ul><ul><li>Fosters better cooperation and collaboration among schools </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  29. 32. District-Level Planning Task Force <ul><li>Administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher leaders </li></ul><ul><li>Related services professionals </li></ul><ul><li>Families </li></ul><ul><li>Other appropriate representatives from community agencies </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  30. 33. District-Level Planning Task Force (cont.) <ul><li>District-level planning ensures that potential consequences are considered before new programs and services are implemented, for example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How will the implementation of co-teaching on one seventh-grade team effect other seventh-grade teams? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How will it impact the elementary and high school programs? </li></ul></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  31. 34. Building-Level Planning Issues <ul><li>Communicate administrative support and leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Select capable and willing participants </li></ul><ul><li>Provide ongoing staff development </li></ul><ul><li>Establish balanced classroom rosters </li></ul><ul><li>Provide weekly scheduled co-planning time </li></ul><ul><li>Develop appropriate individualized education plans (IEPs) </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  32. 35. Suggestions for Administrators Regarding Co-Teaching
  33. 36. Perspective Matters <ul><li>Depending on the orientation of supervisor, the same co-taught lesson could be viewed in diametrically opposing ways. </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  34. 37. <ul><li>The two teachers looked at each other in disbelief. One was a tenured secondary English teacher who had taught for 6 years in this large middle-class, suburban high school. The other was a first year special education teacher who recently received her master’s degree. They had been co-teaching a ninth grade English class for 4 months, and although the beginning weeks were a bit overwhelming, they were rather proud of their cooperative and respectful relationship. They had been co-planning, co-grading, and co-teaching, and they were certain the class would go well. The students responded to the co-teachers’ combined efforts, and both social and academic progress were noted for all students in the class. </li></ul><ul><li>The teachers were looking at their observation reports. The special education and English chairpersons had decided to observe the co-teaching class at the same time. The special education teacher read her report: It was glowing. Her supervisor recognized the adaptations that were made in the materials, saw that she worked with individual students, observed her contribution to the teaching of the mini-lesson, noted the parity she enjoyed with her co-teacher, and acknowledged the acceptance and respect of her students. </li></ul><ul><li>The general education teacher held back tears as she read her write-up. How could this be? She had never received an unsatisfactory observation and prided herself on her competency in the classroom. Her supervisors had repeatedly recognized her skills as a teacher. She read through the comments—her chairperson thought there hadn’t been enough time spent developing the content of the lesson and that the student group work detracted from more formal delivery of content. The chair also felt that the general education teacher had relinquished too much of her role as content specialist to the special education teacher and noted there was too much interaction between the co-teachers. </li></ul>
  35. 38. Communicate Administrative Support and Leadership <ul><li>Principal support, understanding, and involvement serve as pivotal factors in lasting success (Barth, 1990; Pugach & Johnson, 1990). </li></ul><ul><li>Effective principals provide vision, recognition, and encouragement during the implementation process (Adams & Cessna, 1991; Barth, 1990; Chalfant & Pysh, 1989; Fullan, 1993). </li></ul>
  36. 39. Select Capable and Willing Participants <ul><li>Teachers who are viewed as leaders by their colleagues </li></ul><ul><li>Willing to make the commitment of additional time and effort </li></ul><ul><li>Select capable volunteers for co-teaching assignments </li></ul><ul><li>Both members of the team must be capable contributors. </li></ul><ul><li>Participants should make a good faith commitment to work together for a minimum of 2 years. </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  37. 40. Provide Ongoing Staff Development <ul><li>Teachers should have 3–5 days of preparation before classroom implementation. </li></ul><ul><li>Sessions should provide instruction related to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective co-planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-teaching models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student scheduling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional considerations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing performance assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interpersonal communication </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sessions should also allow time for partners to discuss concerns, solve problems, and formulate initial implementation plans. </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  38. 41. Provide Ongoing Staff Development (cont.) <ul><li>Provide ongoing skill development and support </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage participation in college courses, summer workshops, and professional conferences </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage site visits to model programs </li></ul><ul><li>Support monthly problem-solving meetings with other co-teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage building administrators to participate jointly with co-teaching teams in staff development events </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  39. 42. Establish Balanced Classroom Rosters <ul><li>School teams need to carefully assess student needs and available resources. </li></ul><ul><li>In a class of 25 students, no more than 6 students should have identified disabilities in the mild to moderate range. </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  40. 43. Develop Appropriate IEPs <ul><li>Attention needs to be given to setting changes that an inclusive classroom may invoke. </li></ul><ul><li>Goals and support services need to reflect the new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes. </li></ul>Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
  41. 44. Observing and Evaluating Co-Teaching Teams
  42. 45. Critical Components for Evaluating a Co-Taught Classroom <ul><li>What makes a good lesson? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there components of a co-taught lesson that require unique perspectives in order to be evaluated effectively? </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  43. 46. What Makes a Good Lesson? <ul><li>Lessons that are student-centered </li></ul><ul><li>Recognition of diverse learning styles of students </li></ul><ul><li>Questions that tap high-order thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Engagement of students and evidence that students are not on task </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  44. 47. What Makes a Good Lesson (cont.) <ul><li>Makes use of materials that are useful and available </li></ul><ul><li>Pays attention to motivation </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporates awareness of transitions </li></ul><ul><li>Contains aims that are open-ended </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  45. 48. What Makes a Good Lesson (cont.) <ul><li>Summarizes at the middle and end of the lesson </li></ul><ul><li>Provides activities that apply the information </li></ul><ul><li>Makes connections to students’ experiences </li></ul><ul><li>Fosters positive student–teacher relationships </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  46. 49. What Makes a Good Lesson (cont.) <ul><li>Makes appropriate use of technology </li></ul><ul><li>Adheres to state standards </li></ul><ul><li>Reinforces previously learned and new material </li></ul><ul><li>Promotes positive teacher–teacher relationships </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  47. 50. Are There Components of a Co-Taught Lesson That Require Unique Perspectives in Order to be Evaluated Effectively? <ul><li>Roles of the teachers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The supervisor is to look at the roles of co-teachers, such as parallel teaching; one teaching, one drifting; station teaching; and alternative team teaching. </li></ul></ul>Arguelles, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997
  48. 51. Are There Components of a Co-Taught Lesson That Require Unique Perspectives in Order to be Evaluated Effectively? (cont.) <ul><li>Instructional strategies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How are strategies incorporated into a lesson? Evidence of co-planning needs to be easily seen through the strategies and modification integrated throughout the lesson. </li></ul></ul>Wilson, 2005
  49. 52. Are There Components of a Co-Taught Lesson That Require Unique Perspectives in Order to be Evaluated Effectively? (cont.) <ul><li>Assessment processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a continuous and conscious effort to assess student achievement? Is there evidence of reflective questioning? </li></ul></ul>Wilson, 2005
  50. 53. Questions to Consider When Observing Co-Teaching Teams <ul><li>Are co-teachers to be treated as one and receive a single observation report? </li></ul><ul><li>Could the special education supervisor comment on the general educator’s performance, even if the focus of the observation was on the special educator? </li></ul><ul><li>Should the general and special education supervisors observe the same lesson? </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  51. 54. Questions to Consider When Observing Co-Teaching Teams (cont.) <ul><li>Should supervisors write one observation? Are there different performance criteria for the general and special educators? </li></ul><ul><li>What criteria should be used to judge teacher performance in a co-taught class or program? </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  52. 55. Questions to Consider When Observing Co-Teaching Teams (cont.) <ul><li>What roles do teachers perform? Are these roles meaningful? </li></ul><ul><li>How often and for how long are teachers interacting with each other? </li></ul><ul><li>Who is initiating and ending these interactions? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the nature of these interactions (e.g., cooperative, reciprocal, supportive, complementary, individualistic)? </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  53. 56. Questions to Consider When Observing Co-Teaching Teams (cont.) <ul><li>Which students are the recipients of these interactions? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the outcomes of these interactions for teachers and their students? </li></ul><ul><li>What factors appear to promote and limit these interactions? </li></ul><ul><li>How are these components incorporated into an effective observation tool? </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  54. 58. Characteristics of an Observation Tool <ul><li>Helps supervisors focus on essential components of co-teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Helps supervisors structure the writing of their observation reports </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing the guide with the co-teachers in the pre-observation meeting fosters a positive and trusting relationship between supervisors and co-teachers because expectations are clearly defined. </li></ul>Wilson, 2005
  55. 59. Co-Teaching Rating Scale (CTRS)
  56. 61. Co-Teaching Rating Scale <ul><li>Informal instrument for co-teachers and their supervisors </li></ul><ul><li>Examines the effectiveness of co-teaching classrooms </li></ul><ul><li>Helps focus on areas that need improvement and on components that contribute to success </li></ul><ul><li>Results can be used to develop co-teaching model. </li></ul><ul><li>Can be modified for use as part of supervisory tool for examining effectiveness of co-teaching </li></ul>Gately & Gately, 2001
  57. 62. Co-Teaching Rating Scale <ul><li>Three forms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One for special educator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One for general educator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One for supervisors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identifies a profile of strengths and weaknesses </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focuses on components of co-teaching relationship </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Determines the effectiveness of classroom practices </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitates the formulation of goals for improving practice </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Refines strategies to improve and enhance programs </li></ul></ul></ul>Gately & Gately, 2001
  58. 63. Additional Tools, Guidelines, and Strategies for Evaluating Co-Teaching Teams
  59. 64. Interviews and Surveys <ul><li>Educators’ responses to surveys can provide insight into strengths and gaps in program. </li></ul><ul><li>Can be: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Likert-type format </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, open-ended </li></ul></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  60. 65. Likert-Type Format <ul><li>I prefer to work in a cooperative teaching team. </li></ul><ul><li>I believe that students improve educationally and socially when they are taught by a cooperative teaching team. </li></ul><ul><li>I feel that our cooperative teaching team shares responsibility for all activities. </li></ul><ul><li>I feel uncomfortable having another adult in the classroom. </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  61. 66. Likert-Type Format (cont.) <ul><li>I find it easy to communicate with my cooperative teaching partner. </li></ul><ul><li>I perform a subordinate role in our cooperative teaching team. </li></ul><ul><li>I feel that I have more work as a result of working in a cooperative teaching team. </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  62. 67. Open-Ended Format <ul><li>How do you feel about working in a cooperative teaching team? </li></ul><ul><li>What factors contribute to the success of your cooperative teaching team? </li></ul><ul><li>What problems has your cooperative teaching team encountered? </li></ul><ul><li>What support, resources, and training have been most helpful? Least helpful? </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  63. 68. Open-Ended Format (cont.) <ul><li>How has your cooperative teaching team affected your students? </li></ul><ul><li>How do our students’ families and other professionals feel about your cooperative teaching team? </li></ul><ul><li>Has working in a cooperative team changed your roles? If so, in what ways? </li></ul><ul><li>What school- and districtwide policies have aided or hindered your cooperative teaching team? </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  64. 69. Best Practices Checklist <ul><li>Allows for self-evaluation on various dimensions of collaborative efforts </li></ul><ul><li>Measures overall program quality </li></ul><ul><li>Can be completed individually or as a co-teaching team </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  65. 70. Best Practices Checklist: Examples <ul><li>We blend each other’s abilities, values, preferences, teaching styles, educational philosophies, and cultural perspectives. </li></ul><ul><li>We discuss and agree on our program’s objectives, curricula; assessment, teaching, and classroom management techniques; classroom schedules; and grading criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  66. 71. Best Practices Checklist: Examples (cont.) <ul><li>We vary our roles and share the workload so that all team members perform meaningful activities that are recognized by others. </li></ul><ul><li>We have sufficient time to communicate, assess the effectiveness of our program, and revise the program. </li></ul><ul><li>We receive the planning time and administrative support to work successfully. </li></ul><ul><li>We address all of our differences immediately and directly. </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  67. 72. <ul><li>These data can be analyzed to identify program strengths, educators’ concerns about their cooperative teaching teams, and possible solutions to these concerns surrounding: </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  68. 73. Use Evaluation Data to Consider These Factors <ul><li>Attitudes about working in cooperative teaching teams </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction with their roles working in cooperative teaching teams </li></ul><ul><li>Success at working in cooperative teaching teams </li></ul><ul><li>Observations about the factors that contribute to the success of their cooperative teaching teams </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  69. 74. Use Evaluation Data to Consider These Factors (cont.) <ul><li>Concerns about working in cooperative teaching teams </li></ul><ul><li>Beliefs about the effect of their collaborative team on their students’ families and themselves </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction with and needs in terms of resources, planning time, support from others, and training </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction with school- and districtwide cooperative teaching policies and practices </li></ul>Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
  70. 75. Evaluating the Co-Teaching Model
  71. 76. Evaluation <ul><li>Teachers and administrators should evaluate co-teaching situations at least once per year. </li></ul><ul><li>The rule that assessment informs instruction should also apply to co-teaching: As co-teachers continue to assess their situation, they must ensure that they are improving their instruction to best meet students’ needs in an inclusive classroom. </li></ul>Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2003
  72. 77. Geneseo Central School District <ul><li>Rural </li></ul><ul><li>Western New York state </li></ul>Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
  73. 78. School Characteristics <ul><li>Elementary school: Special and general educators in a heterogeneous classroom </li></ul><ul><li>Middle school: Special educator at each grade level and also a teacher’s assistant for sixth grade </li></ul>Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
  74. 79. Elementary School <ul><li>One third of students have IEPs; special educator provides resources as a preventive measure for those students who are not classified. </li></ul><ul><li>Student–teacher ratio is lowered. </li></ul><ul><li>Students often have services provided in classroom rather than being pulled out. </li></ul>Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
  75. 80. Middle School <ul><li>Staff follows students with greater academic needs through general education classes </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher’s assistant follows other students. </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers participate in advisory groups, grade-level team meetings, and study groups to facilitate communications with peers. </li></ul>Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
  76. 81. Evaluation of the Co-Teaching Program <ul><li>Goals and objectives to be evaluated </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation questions and methods addressing the objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Parent Survey Protocol </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul>Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
  77. 83. Evaluation Aided in: <ul><li>Assisting administrators in achieving equilibrium with the reform </li></ul><ul><li>Providing a vehicle for monitoring program success </li></ul><ul><li>Establishing structure for teachers to explore alternative approaches to teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Allowing students new access to their peers in the general education curriculum </li></ul>Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
  78. 84. Essential Ingredients for Successful Collaboration: From the Eyes of the Practitioner to the Ears of the Administrator
  79. 85. Involve the Administrator From the Beginning <ul><li>Share long- and short-term implementation strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Share the research base that supports co-teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Share anticipated need for resources </li></ul>Rea, 2005
  80. 86. Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (cont.) <ul><li>Develop an “information sharing community” or “community of practice” </li></ul><ul><li>Determine the most effective methods of communication between teams and administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasize the importance of pre-observation conferences </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate the co-teaching initiative into the team’s annual professional growth plan </li></ul>Rea, 2005
  81. 87. Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (cont.) <ul><li>Set specific times for observation </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage students to talk with the administrator about the benefits from learning in collaborative classrooms </li></ul><ul><li>Involve parents </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage advice and feedback on your performance from the administrators, accept it graciously, and use it </li></ul>Rea, 2005
  82. 88. Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (cont.) <ul><li>Inform administrators of any problems or controversies related to co-teaching efforts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul></ul>Rea, 2005
  83. 89. Suggestions for Success <ul><li>Accept responsibility if a mistake results from your actions </li></ul><ul><li>Videotape the class and share particularly interesting segments with the administrator </li></ul><ul><li>Highlight student progress through data </li></ul>Rea, 2005
  84. 90. Suggestions for Success (cont.) <ul><li>Volunteer the administrator (with prior permission) to speak or serve as a guest panelist in graduate classes </li></ul><ul><li>Co-author articles for publication </li></ul><ul><li>Attend professional conferences together </li></ul>Rea, 2005
  85. 91. Suggestions for Success (cont.) <ul><li>Immediately deal with any sense of waning support </li></ul><ul><li>Let the school be on the circuit of site visits for teams learning about co-teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Spread the word about the successes </li></ul>Rea, 2005
  86. 92. <ul><li>“ It could be argued with a good deal of persuasiveness that when one looks over the history of man the most distinguishing characteristic of his development is the degree to which man has underestimated the potentialities of men” (Blatt & Kaplan, 1974, p. 107). </li></ul>
  87. 93. References <ul><li>Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1991). Designing system to facilitate collaboration: Collective wisdom from Colorado. Preventing School Failure, 35 (4), 37–42. </li></ul><ul><li>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/ </li></ul><ul><li>Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. </li></ul><ul><li>Blatt, B., & Kaplan, F. (1974). Christmas in purgatory: A photographic essay on mental retardation. Syracuse, NY: H uman Policy Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Chafant, J., & Psyh, M. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies. Remedial and Special Education, 10 (6), 49–58. </li></ul><ul><li>Friend, M., & Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. </li></ul><ul><li>Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer. </li></ul>
  88. 94. References <ul><li>Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J., Jr. (2001). Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 40–47. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40 (5), 312–316. </li></ul><ul><li>Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teaching teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37 (4), 195–200. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Wilson, G. L. (2005). This doesn’t look familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic, 40 (5), 271–275. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
  89. 95. Visit our Web site for more information or to contact us:
  90. 96. The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students K–8 American Institutes for Research 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007