Co Teaching Academy 3 v.1: Co Planning Curriculum Using State Standards Participant Handouts

Transcription

1 Module 5 Co Teaching Academy 3 v.1: Co Planning Curriculum Using State Standards Participant Handouts 2005 National Institute for Urban School Improvement Arizona State University P.O.Box Tempe Arizona Phone Fax

2 Module 5: Co-teaching Academy 3: Co planning Curriculum Using State Standards T his Academy provides the CLT with experience in co planning curricular units. Academy Outcomes As a result of the activities and information shared at this Leadership Academy, participants will: Provide a rationale for co curricular planning in inclusive schools Explore the relationship between planning for state standards based curriculum and IEP goals Tailor a set of planning processes to meet their own building context Identify ways to implement co planning in their own buildings Agenda We constructed this Leadership Academy to occur within a 3 hour timeframe with 15 minutes or so for breaks and other time adjustments. The times listed below are approximate but reflect the time these activities and lecturettes have previously taken. Facilitators should be flexible, read their audience, and work to achieve the overall purpose and outcomes. TIME EVENT 15 min Introductions and Greetings 15 min Activity 1: Segregated Planning 15 min Lecturette 1: Planning Curriculum in an Inclusive School 20 min Activity 2: Co planning a Daily Lesson 10 min Break 15 min Lecturette 2: When Co planning works 25 min Activity 3: Implementing Co planning in Your School 30 min Leave taking and Feedback 2005 NIUSI

3 Module 5: Co-teaching Notes 2005 NIUSI

4 Module 5: Co Teaching Co teaching Daily Lesson Plan What are you going to teach? (Learning objectives) What materials are needed? What are the specific tasks of both teachers? (Methods of presentation) How many lessons? What is required of each lesson to meet the objective(s)? What are students asked to do? How will you evaluate learning? What are the adaptations for students with special needs? (Include criteria for successful achievement) 2005 NIUSI

5 Lecturette 1: Planning Curriculum Lecturette 1: Planning Curriculum in an Inclusive School Individual Education Program (IEP) Based-Planning Linear lesson planning Planning Cycle Special education teacher or individualized planning cycle IEP Individual Student Goals or Objectives Evaluation Student Learning Determine varying learning objectives Student Learning Consider how activities meet learning objectives Generate Activities related to objectives Planning Cycle General education teacher or group-oriented planning cycle Co-planning Cycle Merging the individualized and group-oriented planning cycles Determine theme, topic or goal based on content Student Learning Generate activities related to topic Grouporiented cycle Student Learning Individualized cycle Consider how activities meet learning outcomes Copyright 2004 NIUSI 1

6 Lecturette 1: Planning Curriculum Planning Lessons Specific components for all students Learning objectives Evaluation Student activity Lesson Plan Length & number of sessions materials Method of presentation Copyright 2004 NIUSI 2

7 Lecturette 2: When Co-plannnig Works Lecturette 2: When Co-planning Works Concerns when forming collaborative working relationships Co-teaching Separate Curriculums Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith s classroom Time Setting realistic expectations Others? Curriculum A Mr. Jones SPED Curriculum B Ms. Smith Gen. Ed Co-teaching with Separate Roles Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith s classroom Ms. Smith Gen. Ed Moving to Collaborative Instructional Planning & Delivery Collaborative Stage Plan During Instruction Plan Outside Classroom Share More Planning Compromising Stage Mr. Jones SPED Copyright 2004 NIUSI 1

8 Lecturette 2: When Co-plannnig Works Collaborative Co-teaching Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith s classroom Mr. Jones Ms. Smith SPED Gen. Ed Strategies for Collaboration Two classes team to release one teacher Use other adults to help cover classes Find funds for substitutes Find volunteer substitutes Use instructionally relevant videotapes or other programs to release part of the staff Arrange time during school-based staff development Strategies for Collaboration Experiment with a late arrival or early dismissal day Stay late after school once per month Treat collaboration as the equitant of school committee responsibilities In elementary schools, divide labor for instruction to save time Reduce other work Special educators, reserve time in daily schedule Copyright 2004 NIUSI 2

9 Module 5: Co Teaching Co Planning Case Studies At all nine schools, leaders created regular opportunities for teachers to work, plan, and learn together around instructional issues. Without time for collaboration on instruction, many improvements would have never been conceived or implemented. Teachers at these nine schools were constantly learning about academic content and academic instruction. Often, they learned as much from each other as they learned from any other source. Their planning efforts were central to the improvements in instruction at the schools. Baldwin: At Baldwin, a primary team (kindergarten through second grade teachers) and an elementary team (third through fifth grade teachers) each met twice a month. At Baldwin, teachers carefully reviewed student work in comparison with academic standards and discussed opportunities for improving instruction. Collaboration times were sometimes used as opportunities for teachers to study and research options for instructional improvement. For instance, at Baldwin teachers researched options for literacy programs before choosing one that felt appropriate for their students. Baskin: At Baskin, a 90 minute block of uninterrupted planning time was created for each grade level twice a week. Although these collaborations generally had an academic focus, they did not always start as such. For instance, at Baskin collaboration was established when teachers started going out to lunch together once a week. At Baskin a special workroom was established that allowed teachers the space to meet, work together, and learn from each other. Hawley: At Hawley, the principal arranged the schedule in a way that used ʺbankedʺ time (additional minutes at the beginning or end of each day) to carve out time for professional development. At Hawley, many of the professional development activities were organized and presented by teachers to their colleagues, based on the school improvement plan. In other cases, collaboration times were sometimes used as opportunities for teachers to study and research options for instructional improvement NIUSI 1

10 Module 5: Co Teaching Peck: At Peck, the principal rearranged the schedule to provide common planning times for the staff to engage in horizontal (same grade level) and vertical (different grade levels) planning. Twice a week the entire staff came together to share experiences and strategies that achieved positive results. Peck Elementary is in the process of developing a space for teachers to plan and work together. The new kind of ʺteacher workroomʺ helped teachers collaborate. Spellman: Often planning times focused on important instructional issues. At Spellman, this time was used to create practice performance assessments, score the assessments, and identify common areas of academic strength and need. Team teaching at Spellman (as part of the Canady model) required teachers to work with one of the school s specialists during a 90 minute block. Burgess: At Burgess, teachers gave reports on what objectives were being taught and how they were getting students to learn the objectives. Time was set aside for classroom visits and sharing. At Burgess, collaborations began with staff dinners, social gatherings, and team building sessions. Building a comfort level was sometimes an important precursor to getting teachers to discuss their teaching practices openly. Centerville and Ward: Mentoring programs provided another vehicle for teachers to work and plan together. Specifically, Centerville and Ward had established mentor programs that were particularly designed to support new teachers. Goodale: At Goodale, shared professional development experiences often became a starting point for collaborations among teachers. Teachers would return from such events and work together toward implementation of strategies learned NIUSI 2

11 Module 5: Co Teaching Harriet A. Baldwin Elementary School: Boston Public Schools: School Year Student Enrollment 283 Attendance Rate 96% Grades Served K 5 Demographics African American 17% Asian American 72% Hispanic 4% Other 0% White 7% Low Income (Free or Reduced Price Lunch) 80% Key Programs: Chinese Bilingual Program, grades K 5; whole school change effort, supported by the Boston Plan for Excellence; focus on schoolwide literacy; in school and after school tutoring provided by Boston College students Academic Improvement Baldwin s academic achievement is noteworthy. From 1996 to 1998, their Stanford 9 mathematics and reading scores have improved substantially. Their scores are currently well above the national median and are substantially higher than the district scores. There is a trend in the Baldwin Stanford 9 data that shows achievement shifting from Levels 1&2 (little or no mastery of basic knowledge and skills and partial mastery) to Levels 3&4 (solid academic performance and superior performance beyond grade level mastery). For example, in 1996, 66 percent of the third grade students scored in math Levels 1&2; in 1998, 100 percent of the students scored at Levels 3&4. In 1997, 75 percent of fourth grade students were at Level 1&2 in reading, and only 25 percent at higher levels of proficiency. In 1998, no fourth grade students were at Level 1 in reading, 44 percent of the students were at Level 2, and 56 percent were at Levels 3&4. Similar improvement has been shown by increases in median percentile scores on the Stanford 9 mathematics and reading tests. With shared leadership, vision, prodding, external encouragement, and increased resources, Baldwin Elementary School has shifted from a place 2005 NIUSI 3

12 Module 5: Co Teaching where individual teachers worked in their classrooms with their students to a school with a common curricular focus, organized faculty teams, and pathways for communication. This process is not complete, nor has it always been easy up to this point. Many of the successes to date are evident. Most strikingly, the school is a safe and welcoming place and the students are achieving academically. Structures are in place for professional development and teacher collaboration. However, even with these structures, a quiet struggle continues. There is, for example, some tension between the bilingual and regular programs within the school. Both programs are grappling with different pressures that can obstruct perception of their common needs and goals. The teachers are still conscious of the schoolʹs history. They sometimes retreat into familiar ways. But there is progress: where before teachers did not talk together, they are now talking, and building relationships and building trust. The reality, hope, and optimism are wrapped into one teacherʹs comment; ʺI can see where we are going as a school. Are we there yet? No. Are we moving in the right direction? Yes.ʺ Centerville Elementary School: Cahokia School District #187: School Year Student Enrollment 514 Attendance Rate 95% Grades Served K 6 Demographics African American 89% Asian American 0% Hispanic 0% Other 0% White 11% Limited English Proficiency 0% Mobility 56% Low Income (Free or Reduced Price Lunch) 86% 2005 NIUSI 4

13 Module 5: Co Teaching Key Programs: Accelerated Schools Academic Improvement At the end of Principal Butler s first year at Centerville, the staff voted to adopt the Accelerated Schools Program. The program engaged the staff in a learning process that transformed the way teachers had previously thought about teaching. This learning process was a shared experience involving the principal, teachers, staff, and parents. The school used ʺtest coachesʺ to arm teachers with innovative teaching strategies. The training provided by the test coaches revamped the way teachers thought about teaching and resulted in dramatically improved test scores. The school staff analyzed all available data and spent several months reviewing test scores. Time was spent identifying weaknesses and strengths and making determinations about where improvements were needed. They discussed the strengths of the staff and made note of where additional professional development was needed. In addition, they studied the curriculum and assessment instruments, and they reported their findings to the group. They were comprehensive in their analysis of their programs. Staff members were convinced that this shared learning experience made a difference in both the performances of the students and their teachers. One teacher reflected on the experience: The whole staff gets together and learns together. We all get packets and we look at each grade level. We ve spent several months looking over the IGAP [Illinois Goal Assessment Program] scores and the school data. We saw specifically what the problems were and what needed to be improved. Then we divided into our grade levels and we looked at the test scores and we realized where our students were functioning at low levels. We asked ourselves how we could improve in those areas. We spent time in our groups writing out suggestions and making recommendations. Acquiring and Managing Resources The Centerville staff was skilled at acquiring and managing resources. Butler was complimentary of the support she received from the central office staff, beginning with the superintendent. She recalled being told by Bresnahan that she and her staff ʺwere working hard to make a difference with the students, parents, and community and that we [superintendent and district staff] have made the commitment to support your efforts in any way possible.ʺ Butler added that such flexibility and unconditional support were crucial to her ability to reinforce her teachers and staff. According to the staff, the allocation of Title I funds, which had previously been confined to a few schools, has had a great impact on the school. As a result of Centerville becoming a Title I schoolwide program, the staff feels that they now have the resources and the flexibility to make decisions about working with all children with less emphasis on eligibility requirements and far less paperwork. Paraprofessionals are now fully integrated into the classroom versus working 2005 NIUSI 5

14 Module 5: Co Teaching with a few students in a ʺpull outʺ program. The site based decision making committee has identified teacher training and classroom materials as school priorities and the Title I funds have provided the means to address those needs. The library was upgraded. Computer equipment and other technology were purchased and installed to enable students to move into the next century. Centerville has effectively used competent grant writers to acquire additional resources. Staff reiterated that knowing where to find available money and how to apply for those grants that respond to specific school needs were the important skills of their grant writer. Project Success, for example, is a grant awarded to Centerville by the governorʹs office. The grant is designed to initiate the organization of a governing board composed of school staff, parents, community members, and city agencies to support the improvement of the neighborhood community. At Centerville, teachers communicate constantly and share ideas, materials, and resources. The sharing of resources among teachers has been helpful in managing limited resources effectively. Teachers do not seem to hoard or withhold resources or expertise from their colleagues. The spirit of sharing has helped the school gain maximum value from their resources. A considerable amount of resources have gone directly into major efforts to improve mathematics and reading instruction. Centerville has invested human and material resources into math and reading enrichment and the training necessary to implement programs that produce positive results. Centerville has adopted a new math program, a new reading series (adopted last year), and recently added an accelerated reading program NIUSI 6

15 Module 5: Co Teaching Self Assessment This is a non graded, anonymous self assessment. You have 10 minutes to complete the following questions taken from the content of this academy. After that time the group will have the opportunity to share answers. Note that occasionally we collect these selfassessments to measure the effectiveness of the academy. 1. What are two strategies you can use to ensure your students are meeting state standards and IEP goals? 2. Describe several tactics you can use to find additional time to co plan NIUSI

16 Academy Evaluation Academy 5.3 Co-planning Curriculum Using State Standards I am a General Ed Teacher Administrator Special Ed Teacher Parent Please let us know how useful you found the topics and activities: Activity 1: Segregated Planning Poor Great Activity 2: Co-Planning a Daily Lesson Poor Great Activity 3: Implementing Co-planning in Your School Poor Great Paraprofessional Other I am affiliated with a(n): Elementary School Middle School Secondary School If I were on the next academy planning team, I would... Self Evaluation Poor Great Three things I learned that made me go AH HA! As a result of my participation in this academy, I am going to...

17 Module 5: Co-teaching Resources Caron, E. A. & McLaughlin, M. J. (2002). Indicators of beacons of excellence schools: what do they tell us about collaborative practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), Researchers examined 4 elementary and 2 middle schools that were achieving exemplary results for all students in an effort to identify and describe critical indicators of overall school success. Embedded case studies revealed key capacity building elements related to collaboration between general and special education teachers. These elements included a culture of shared responsibility, high expectations for all students and a sense of a professional community within the schools. The purpose of the project was to identify critical indicators of school success that could be translated into capacity building activities that support positive outcomes for all students. Although all of these schools had strong collaborative communities and high expectations for all students, considerable variability was evident in other areas, including shared leadership and support for collaborative practices. This article addresses some of the factors that fostered or impeded the collaborative nature of these schools. Forbes, J. (2003). Grappling with collaboration: would opening up the research base help? British Journal of Special Education, 30(3), Richard Rose, writing in this journal in his role as Research Section Editor (BJSE, Volume 29, Number 1), argued that teachers should learn to do research in collaboration with other professionals, as part of a drive to make teaching a research based profession. In this article, Joan Forbes, Senior Lecturer in Educational Studies in the Faculty of Education at the University of Aberdeen, explores this idea in greater depth from her perspective as course leader for an MEd module on inter agency collaboration. She proposes that recommendations for collaboration to support children with language and communication disorders do not attend to the difficulties involved between professionals from different backgrounds who use different discourses and draw upon different research evidence as a basis for practice. Her paper draws on postmodern research approaches and Michael Foucaultʹs views of discourse to examine a variety of theoretical perspectives previously applied to collaboration. It argues for the value of further theoretical diversity and methodological plurality and introduces discourse analysis as a tool for helping to understand the notion of collaboration. At the end of her challenging and intriguing paper, Joan Forbes offers some suggestions concerning the value of new questioning kinds of analysis NIUSI

18 Module 5: Co-teaching Horton, M. L. (2003). Collaboration: A key component for successful inclusion in general physical education. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 14(3), Focuses on the importance of the relationship between parents, special education teachers and therapists to the physical education of students with disabilities. Strategies for working together; Definition of collaboration; Barriers that can hinder the process of collaboration. The National Institute for Urban School Improvement Hughes, C. E. & Murawski, W. A. (2001). Lessons from another field: applying co teaching strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 195. Because research has found that differentiation of instruction for gifted students does not typically occur within the general classroom, collaboration between gifted and general education teachers is critical in order to ensure appropriate services to students with high abilities. Gifted education teachers are now being called upon to provide services to their students in the regular education environment. This fundamental change in setting mirrors mandated changes in special education, wherein students with disabilities are increasingly served in the general education classroom. This article provides a new definition of collaboration within the context of gifted education and expands on the utilization of coteaching as a collaborative strategy. Five models of coteaching originally developed for meeting the needs of students with disabilities were adapted, and examples of their use with gifted students in the general education classroom are provided. Koppang, A. (2004). Curriculum mapping: Building collaboration and communication. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(3), This article explores the application and use of curriculum mapping as a tool to assist teachers in communicating the content, skills, and assessments used in their classrooms. The process of curriculum mapping is explained, and the adaptation of the process for special education teachers is detailed. Finally, examples are given of how curriculum mapping can assist both special and general education teachers in meeting the needs of students in the classroom. Although this article will apply the use of curriculum mapping data at the middle school level, the process of mapping is equally effective at the elementary and high school levels. Mason, C., Thormann, M. S., O Connell, M. & Behrmann, J. (2004). Priority issues reflected in general and special education association journals. Exceptional Children, 70(2), NIUSI

19 Module 5: Co-teaching This study examined the number of articles published in 29 journals from on priority topics related to curriculum access as identified in a recent survey of senior staff from 16 general and special education associations. These results were compared to articles published in these journals on a nonpriority topic related to curriculum access school technology. The number of articles on school technology far exceeded any of the identified priorities for either general or special education associations. The authors discuss the implications for the research to practice agenda as well as implications for general special education collaboration. McLaughlin, M. J. (2002). Examining special and general education collaborative practices in exemplary schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), Collaboration between special and general education teachers has received increased attention over the past decade as part of the effort to create inclusive classrooms and to blur the boundaries between programs and students. Yet collaboration can have multiple meanings. This special issue presents data related to collaborative practices derived from three projects funded under a U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs research priority, Beacons of Excellence. Research projects funded under this priority were to identify schools achieving exemplary results with students with disabilities, as well as with their peers. Researchers from the separate projects whose results are presented in this issue studied schools in very different contexts using different methodologies. Researchers identified characteristics of their schools and then came together to identify features common across all schools that appeared to be dominant forces in creating the exemplary schools. Collaborative practices were among a handful of such features that emerged across projects. Collaboration in these exemplary schools included both specific teaching practices as well as a climate and culture that supported a community of professionals working together to improve teaching and achievement for all students. Findings from these projects provide important insights into how schools are defining and implementing collaboration. Morocco, C. C. & Aguilar, C. M. (2002). Co teaching for content understanding: A schoolwide model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), This article describes a promising form of professional collaboration: coteaching between a content area teacher and a special education teacher. In an investigation of a schoolwide coteaching model in an urban middle school that places students with disabilities in heterogeneous classrooms, researchers interviewed key school leaders and made detailed observations of coteaching. The study found that although content teachers conduct more of the instruction and special education teachers provide more individualized assistance, both use a full range of instructional roles. Essential to the success of coteaching partnerships were 2005 NIUSI

20 Module 5: Co-teaching collaborative school structures, equal status rules for teachers, a commitment to all studentsʹ learning, and strong content knowledge. Murray, C. (2004). Clarifying collaborative roles in urban high schools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), Presents a strategy that may help teachers initiate and maintain effective collaborative relationships in high poverty urban environments. Process used to assist general education teachers at the secondary level in understanding, planning for, and initiating collaborative relationships with special education teachers. Special Education Report (2003). Survey finds states involve special ed in accountability. Special Education Report, 29(6), 1 2. Reports on the findings of a survey regarding the involvement of special education personnel in the development of educational accountability systems in the United States. Objectives for schools to make incremental gains in student test scores including special education students; Benefits of the collaboration between general and special education staff; Focal evolution of alternate education assessments. Taylor, R. L., Smiley, L. R., & Ramasamy, R. (2003). Effects of educational background and experience on teacher views of inclusion. Educational Research Quarterly, 26(3), In this study, perceptions of inclusion for students with both mild and severe disabilities were explored Collaboration issues related to inclusion were also examined Specifically, 180 general education and special education preservice and inservice teachers were given a questionnaire on inclusion. In addition, they were given another questionnaire two weeks later after viewing a videotape of a boy who half the teachers were told had a mild disability and half that he had a severe disability. There were no significant differences for educational type or experience for the items that focused on the intensity level of including with mild or severe disabilities. There were significant students differences for the items addressing collaboration issues. After the videotape was introduced, there were significant differences for both educational type and experience for items on intensity of inclusion. Implications of these results were discussed with emphasis on the teachersʹ apparent preference for a continuum of services. Wallace, T., Anderson, A. R. & Bartholomay, T. (2002). Collaboration: An element associated with the success of four inclusive high schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), Collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers is often mentioned in the literature as a means of accomplishing the inclusion of students with 2005 NIUSI

21 Module 5: Co-teaching disabilities in general education. The purpose of this study was to describe, using both qualitative and quantitative data, the communication and collaboration practices in four high schools with demonstrated success at including students with disabilities in general education and achieving exemplary outcomes for all students. School wide approaches and classroomlevel factors associated with collaboration characterize the themes that emerged as important to the success of these high schools. A discussion of these results and implications for practice are presented NIUSI

22 Module 5: Co-teaching Glossary CO TEACHING Collaborative teaching between general and special education teachers. FACILITATOR A Collaborative Leadership Team process role. The Facilitator guides the meeting process and remains objective. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR URBAN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT The National Institute for Urban School Improvement (NIUSI) is funded by the Office of Special Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education. The mission of NIUSI is to support the building of capacity in urban schools and school districts so that students with disabilities are engaged in high quality curriculum and learning experiences that improve their ability to succeed in school and in post school opportunities NIUSI