Delivering Special Ed Services in the General Ed Environment:

Transcription

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 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 4 2

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 (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 (34 CFR (b)(3) 6 3

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. Did the student meet the two-prong test? 8 4

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 Use of augmentative or adaptive technology

6 IDEA and LRE 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). 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. 20 USC 1412(a)(5)

7 LRE and Restrictive Settings Regulations: Part 34 CFR (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 setting

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 Related services to benefit from special education

10 Supplementary Aids and Services Supplementary aids and services means aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular education classes, other educationrelated 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 through 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 See:Steele, Bell, & George, 2005 No wonder we sometimes misunderstand each other!

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, See your handouts for Handout

15 Special Education Service Support to General Education- Major Models Consultant Model Coaching Model Collaborative (or Teaming) Model Friend & Cook, Most Common Approaches 1. One Teaching, One Drifting 2. Parallel Teaching 3. Station Teaching 4. Alternative Teaching 5. Team Teaching Friend & Cook,

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 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. Friend & Cook,

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. Friend & Cook, 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. Friend & Cook,

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. Friend & Cook, See Handout 2-a and 2-b

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 Maintain peer relationships

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 cotaught classroom for only part of the day. Murawski, 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 Paraphrased from: Friend & Cook,

21 Limitations and Potential Drawbacks Co-teaching can highlight teacher skill differences There may not be enough special educators for a coteaching 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) Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land,

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, 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. Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona,

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? Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 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? Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona,

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 Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 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. Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona,

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. Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 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 clinic volume 40, #5 May Co-teaching/Collaboration Requirements for Success Finding: Both teachers have strengths as motivators Ownership of all claimed by both Enthusiastic Teaching Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinic volume 40, #5 May

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

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 Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinic volume 40, #5 May 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! Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinic volume 40, #5 May

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 Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinic volume 40, #5 May 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 Maximizing student Enthusiasm engagement Effective teaching behaviors lead to increased Motivational academic strategies achievement AND a greater degree of effective collaboration between the two co-teachers. Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinic volume 40, #5 May

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

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. Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, et al in Intervention in school and clinic volume 40, #5 May More Resources? See The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students K 8 American Institutes for Research 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, D.C

33 References Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1991). Designing system to facilitate collaboration: Collective wisdom from Colorado. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), Arguelles, M., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1997). The ABCDEs of Co-Teaching. The Council For Exceptional Children: Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2). Available at 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), 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), Pugach, M.C., & Johnson, L.J. (1990). Fostering the continued democratization of consultation through action research. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(3 4), Rea, P.J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), Salend, S.J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teaching teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective coteaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, Wilson, G.L. (2005). This doesn t look familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 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),

34 Contact Diana Browning Wright (626) It s Over!