Meeting the Needs of All Students in the Classroom


Published on

Meeting the Needs of All Students in the Classroom: Exploring Integrated Delivery Systems
June 27, 9 – 11:30am, Room: Union A
Based on the work of Dr. Elise Frattura from University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, this session will explore how to develop an integrated service delivery system that addresses the needs of all students, including those who have been marginalized, with a focus on students with disabilities. This session will look at some of the major problems caused by providing separate programs and classrooms for disabled students. Examining your current district, building or classroom, you will explore how to align your own delivery of highly effective practices in an integrated setting.
Main Presenter: Candi Hazelwood, Consultant, Education Service Center of Cuyahoga County
Co-Presenter(s): Peg Deibel, Consultant, State Support Team Region 9; Helen Flowers, Consultant, State Support Team Region 15; Becky Rees, Consultant, State Support Team Region 6

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Your Framework is established. Districts have the structures in place to make this work. We now need to rethink and improve how we provide services to all students. The last couple years much time has been spent in trying to get these structures in place. DLT, BLT and TBTS. While this has been very helpful to districts it has not gone deep enough to impact the results of all students.
  • This section will discuss how to best effectively serve ALL students instructionally.
  • Taken from Stan Hefner ’s presentation at the Special Ed leadership Conf. 2011. This is the statewide gap and is reflective of the majority of the districts in the state of Ohio. As you can see, the gap differential between non-SWD students and SWD students is still at 40%! This is no longer acceptable, so we have to start thinking differently about how we are servicing these students in our instructional students.
  • Differential gap continues to be gaping for math, as well.
  • At the state level there is a 40% gap. The state superintendent says that we reduce the gap by raising expectations for all students. What is the gap in your district and building for typical population and specific subgroups. Take 2-3 minutes at your table/triad. From Stan Heffner ’s presentation at the Special Ed Leadership Conference 2011
  • Work with an elbow partner – Make a T chart on a sheet of paper and take 3- 5 minutes to do both parts – responding to student and preventing
  • Debrief these questions at your table. Debrief whole group if setting is right.
  • Programs as seen in above slides do not work. Take out HO 2 – ½ sheet - why a program model does not work. Why program models don ’t work - Problems with programs: Separate programs perpetuate tracking of students of color and lower socioeconomic status and SWD Separate programs are quite costly A lot of time and money spent getting students to qualify for program (i.e a district spends thousands to qualify SWD) Separate programs allows some students to receive service and others not Separate programs fragment a student ’s day Separate programs drain staff energy and give message to students that they do not belong Separate programs serve as an enabling function, the “fix” rather than looking for prevention Special programs lack transfer of student knowledge and skills
  • This work is taken from the work of Elise Frattura and Colleen Capper –She has two books. Meeting the Needs of Students of All Abilities – How Leaders go Beyond Inclusion We either intentionally or unintentionally designed this model. We set up this model to homogenize the New America. We still have the band aid approach We have established a culture of marginalization. Groups of children are marginalized by: By race, disability, language, poverty We are teaching these groups of marginalized students that they do not belong. Public education started in the 1820 ’s. Started for white male upper class If schools did not have success with kids – kids dropped out. Schools did not have to change Education started to build new America. We weren ’t honoring differences – expected homogeneous outcome Compulsory education started in late 1800 ’s. It wasn’t for all students.
  • This picture shows a visual of the bubbles or programs created as a result of the civil suits. This is a program model. General ed never had to change We have been an add on system. General ed stayed the same. Today is about using TBTs to develop a learning organization to strengthen core instruction. We have to make sure that all of the stakeholders are represented in TBTs. There are a number of studies now that show that the more students are segregated from core instruction, the further behind they are.
  • We started this 50 years ago and we just keep adding more bubbles on to a system that is not working. This is a continuation of a Program Model. When we marginalize groups of students we create gaps. We do not understand that we have created the gaps What is happening is the bubbles are getting bigger and the gen ed is getting smaller.
  • We have to be very careful RtI is implemented that it does not just become more “bubbles” – pull out programs. Now that you see all of these. Where are your bubbles?
  • 1 st intervention is core Instruction Core instruction text to slide in on top of slide
  • The role of the DLT and BLT has to address building the infrastructure to serve all kids. HO in packet. Questions below on next slide: Who decides where and how kids receive their core instruction? Are all students receiving core instruction? Who is delivering the instruction? What data are they using to determine the effectiveness of the core instruction for all kids? How are we delivering services and supports for students who are struggling
  • Use the cog chart. Talk at your table. How are these decisions made, reviewed and monitored? Person wearing the brightest color be facilitator
  • Read these to yourself Compare this to your T Chart and what you currently have in place.
  • Read these to yourself Compare this to your T Chart and what you currently have in place. Whole group share out
  • By having teachers work alone we diminish their capacity. Teachers have to learn from each other by sharing their expertise. When they are serving students in pull out programs that is not happening.
  • Reinforce the idea that DLT/BLT develop the infrastructure for this and TBTs have to provide the flexible groups in core instruction.
  • Jot down some things that you notice about this video What do you notice about the students. The classroom? What is the attitude and expectation of adults? What are the habits of mind mentioned? Just show chapter 1. About 14 minutes.
  • Take out HO 3: Shift from Traditional Programs to Integrated Comprehensive Services
  • Have participants take out the HO 3 titled, Shift from Traditional programs to Services. Follow directions on slide.
  • We need a continuum of services; we do not need a continuum of programs. Take 2-3 minutes with an elbow partner. What is your reaction to this idea.
  • Think/Pair Share 1 minute for personal reflection. Find someone that you do not know and share 2-3 ideas of what this might look like or how it affects your district/building.
  • Take out HO 4 - Traditional Roles to Integrated comprehensive Services
  • HO 4 for Traditional Roles to Integrated
  • In addition to using this at a personal level, it will be necessary to see how this impacts/ changes the work of the DLT, BLT, TBTs. Take out HO - Principles of Integrated Comprehensive Services and OIP. The “x” shows where the level of responsibility is. Take 15 – 20 minutes to plan next steps.
  • Start with infrastructure, not curriculum or teaching
  • HO 5 Shifting From Programs to Services Asking the Necessary Questions
  • Meeting the Needs of All Students in the Classroom

    1. 1. Meeting the Needs of All Students in the Classroom:Exploring Integrated Delivery Systems Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:00 – 11:30 AM Union A
    2. 2. Presentation By:Peg Deibel – Quad Lead, SST Region 9peg.deibel@email.sparcc.orgHelen Flowers – Quad Lead, SST Region Hazelwood – Quad Lead, SST Region 3candice.hazelwood@esc-cc.orgBecky Rees – Quad Lead, SST Region
    3. 3. How Are WeDoing ServingAll Students?
    4. 4. Gaps in Reading
    5. 5. Gaps in Math
    6. 6. CLOSING THE GAP 40+ Point RaisePerformance Gaps ExpectationsUnacceptable
    7. 7. How and Where Are Your Students Supported?When a student struggles in your school (academically, socially, emotionally)… list all of the programs, practices, interventions that are in place to respond to that student.Then list what is in place to prevent student struggle in the first place. Frattura, 2011 pg21
    8. 8. Now Compare the Two ListsWhich List is Shorter?Why?What is working/not working?
    9. 9. A Program Model Has Not WorkedStudents are helped after they failSeparated from core of teaching and learningOverlooks individual needs – fits student to “program”.Students may be separated from peers either from classroom or attending a different schoolFragments students day by moving locationsRequire students to be labeled to get help Frattura 2011
    10. 10. How Has the History of EducationImpacted Where We Are Today?
    11. 11. Title 1 Programs Programs for Students under Section Guidance 504 Programs GeneralAlcohol and Drug Programs Education At- Risk Program for HS Students Limited English Speaking Programs Early Childhood Programs for Programs Homeless Children
    12. 12. Title 1 Programs for Programs Guidance Teenage Programs Programs for Programs for Parents At-Risk Students Middle under Section School 504 Students Limited Gifted and General English Talented Speaking Programs ProgramsAlcohol and Drug Education Programs for Students with Programs ADHD Programs for At- Risk Homeless Program for Children HS Students Programs for Special Nonreaders Education Early at the Third Programs Childhood Grade Programs
    13. 13. So How Do WeMake Sense of All This?
    14. 14. The Goal:First Intervention is the Right Intervention, Using Universal Design in Tier 1 Core Instruction Preventing a Failure Driven System Integrating Tier 2 and 3 within Tier 1
    15. 15. Integrating Services Organizeprofessional staff by the needs of each learner instead of clustering learners by label. (Capper and Frattura,).
    16. 16. What we know Varied achievement Within student groupings Positively impacts Student achievement – Or the students who Are isolated the most Often are the furthest behindHnushek, E.,Klin, J., Markman, M., Rivkin, S. (2003)Does Peer Ability affect student achievement?Journal of Applied Econometrics
    17. 17. If We Continue to Use Intensive Intervention in Isolation of All Students(Often Suggested in Tier 2 and Tier 3) We will NEVER developThe Capacity of ALL Teachers Resulting in More and MORE Segregation As we have not shared our own EXPERTISE
    18. 18. Building the Infrastructure• How is the decision made for where students receive their core instruction?• Are all students receiving core instruction?• Who is delivering the instruction?• What data are you using to determine the effectiveness of the core instruction for all kids?• How are services and supports delivered for students who are struggling?
    19. 19. Services Are:▫ Primary goal is prevent student failure▫ Considers range of learners within every classroom and grade/cross grades▫ Seamlessly tied to and grounded in core teaching and learning▫ Students receive services with neighborhood peers or school of choice (they do not have to go some place else in district or in school to get services)▫ No rooms/schools are set aside for labeled kids (e.g., LD, ED, special education resource, ESL, at-risk, discipline schools)
    20. 20. Services Are: continued▫ Supports and builds on culturally relevant, differentiated curriculum and instruction▫ Based on principle of universal access - curriculum is differentiated for needs of all students versus developed and then adapted after the fact▫ Students do not have to qualify or be labeled to receive an education that meets their needs▫ Requires teachers and staff to share knowledge and expertise with each other and with students
    21. 21. IntegratedComprehensiveServices for All Learners
    22. 22. The Bottom Line…It is about building teacher capacity and expertise so that students may be part of the norm group of diverse learners.It is about educating each and every learner and building the capacity so that each and every school may honor any child who “belongs”.
    23. 23. The Bottom Line…It is about developing flexible learning groups throughout each day for each child – based on who they are and how they learn (whether it is 1:1, small group, or large group instruction).It is about reallocating staff to better meet the needs proactively of each and every learner.
    24. 24. Paula Kluth Video“You’re Going to Love This Kid!”
    25. 25. Shift from Traditional Program to Services Chart2) Review the chart and individually at leastone “ah-ha”3) In triads share out highlighted “ah-ha’s” inround-robin format.3) Whole group share
    26. 26. Consider This……Programs are When Children are Sent to the AdultsServices are When Adults Come to the Children Frattura 2011
    27. 27. LOCATION DEFINES SERVICES• No classes or courses are set-aside for “lower track” or “higher track” students.• Students who need the most structure and consistent learning environment are not asked to leave the classroom to attend a pullout program• All support staff are aligned cross – categorically by grade level or academy
    28. 28. A WAY TO BEGIN TO INTEGRATE SERVICESAlign special education teachers to the current general education structure within the school, including TBTs (i.e., grade levels, cluster grade levels, academies, etc).Determine how many students you have in each unit (grade, academy, department, etc) that has needs.Delineate how many staff you have available to realign to a new structure.Expect the sharing of expertise through capacity building and staff development Frattura, 2011
    29. 29. That Being Said……… Is it Possible toDeconstruct Programs to Reconstruct Services? Frattura 2011
    30. 30. Traditional Roles to Integrated Comprehensive Services Chart2)Individually review the role(s) that mostimpact you.3)Find a partner you do not know and comparethe role of traditional to integrated.4) What are the pros and cons of this shift?
    31. 31. What Can YOU Do?What concrete steps can your TBT/BLT/DLT take to move your district toward a system of fully integrated services?
    32. 32. First Things FirstSchools and Districts in Support of Integrated Comprehensive Services for ALL Students: – Understand the Vision – Develop Non-Negotiables – how they will measure everything – Define and Align for a Proactive Infrastructure building and district level – Develop Instructional Capacity – ALL Teachers for All Students – Align Common Core - Align IEP’s – Implement Universal Design – Set Heterogeneous Flexible Learning Groups – Develop Teaming Relationships Between Teachers – Reallocate Resources and define Policy to support proactive reform
    33. 33. Shifting From Programs to Services sary eces N s t h e ion ki ng est As Q u
    34. 34. References Work of:Dr. Elise M. Frattura is an associate professor and department chairperson in the Department of Exceptional Education and Administrative Leadership in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Dr. Frattura researches and publishes in the area of nondiscrimination law, integrated comprehensive services for all learners, and the theoretical underpinnings of educational marginalization through segregation. Dr. Frattura works with school districts across the nation to assist administrators and teachers in developing comprehensive organizational structures to better meet the individual needs of all learners.Dr. Colleen Capper is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has published extensively on leadership for social justice and equity, including three books: Leading for Social Justice: Transforming Schools for All Learners; Meeting the Needs of Students of All Abilities: Leading Beyond Inclusion (2nd edition) (both with Elise Frattura), and Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society. Dr. Capper’s research focuses on: 1) Schools that raise and sustain the academic achievement of students of color, low income students, students with disabilities, and language diverse students in integrated ways; 2) preparing and developing leaders to lead these schools; and 3) multiple epistemological perspectives of organizations and administration that can inform the development and practice of leading for social justice.