Presentation on theme: "Lima City Schools The Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching Presenters: Dana Garrison, General Education Teacher; Shanda Lochard, Intervention."— Presentation transcript:
Lima City Schools The Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching Presenters: Dana Garrison, General Education Teacher; Shanda Lochard, Intervention Specialist; Julie Stewart, Principal; Teresa Gantz, Special Education Supervisor; Bill Nellis, SST6 Consultant
Our School’s Demographics Second Year as a 5 th and 6 th Grade Building Approx. 450 students 20% Special Education Students Approx. 90% Free and Reduced Lunch Students 45.9% African American 36.9% White 2.8% Hispanic 14.2% Multi-Racial.2% Asian
Co-Teaching Professional Development Opportunities May 2012 - 2 day Co-teaching training Oct 2012 – 1 day Co-Teaching training Oct 2012 – Marilyn Friend webinar Nov 2012 – 1 day Co-Teaching training Dec 2012 – Marilyn Friend webinar Feb 2013 – Marilyn Friend webinar March 2013 – Sonya Kunkle webinar April 2013 – Sonya Kunkle webinar May 2013 – Marilyn Friend webinar
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Professional Development Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Feb 2013 April 2013
Professional Development SST6 provided on-site consultant services Jan 2013 – SST6 consultants met with Principal and Special Education Supervisor March 2013 – SST6 Consultants met with each co-teaching team
Our Teaching Experiences Dana 14 years of classroom instruction (1998-2012) 4 th /5 th grade multi-age (without a co-teacher) 4 th /5 th grade multi-age (with a co-teacher) 5 th grade general education with a shared co-teacher 4 th grade general education with a shared co-teacher 2 nd grade general education with a shared co-teacher 5 th grade general education with a shared co-teacher 6 th grade general education with a shared co-teacher Shanda 10 years of classroom instruction (2003 – 2012) K – 5 self contained ED unit with 2 aides 5 th Grade Inclusion (2 years) On a team of 5 General Education Teachers (Departmentalized) 6 th Grade Inclusion (7 Years) The team that I worked with changed every year in one way or another.
Common Misconceptions Special education services are best delivered in a pull-out setting. Intervention specialists serve as classroom helpers. The accountability for planning, instruction, and assessment falls solely on the general education teacher. The accountability for modifications, accommodations, and IEP goals falls solely on the intervention specialist.
Shanda’s Perspective I was aware of the different models of co-teaching. I knew that what had been happening wasn’t working. I knew that together we could offer the students so much more. I knew that I wanted to be more than a bump on a wall, BUT I couldn’t get the general education teachers on board. Previous Intervention Specialists had slept at their desks during class. Intervention Specialists pulled to cover other classes so we weren’t always available as planned. Not willing to share responsibilities including planning Not willing to try a different strategy or give up some “power”
Clarifications from Training The accountability in my classroom should be SHARED! As co-teachers, WE are both accountable for planning, instruction, assessment, modifications, accommodations, and IEP goals. It is not MY classroom; it is OUR classroom! Co-teachers are not classroom helpers. They are qualified teachers and should be treated as such. By sharing the classroom and the accountability, we can “divide and conquer.” The workload is shared.
Takeaways from the Training Co-teaching Approaches One Teach, One Observe Station Teaching Parallel Teaching Alternative Teaching Teaming One Teach, One Assist New Understanding and Appreciation for Intervention Specialists Open Discussion and Planning for the School Year Support from school leadership and the State Support Team
6 Co-teaching Approaches 11 One teach One Observe: Station/rotation teaching: Parallel teaching: Alternative teaching: Teaming:One teach, one assist: Marilyn Friend - More Power!
Don’t forget: You can copy- paste this slide into other presentations, and move or resize the poll.
Level 1 Co-Teaching (whole group) A process by which one teacher assumes the main teaching responsibility of the classroom and one teacher assumes a support role (Sonya Kunkel, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success)
Level One Practices 30% of the time Speak and Add Speak and Write One Teach, One Facilitate (Assess, Take Data, Handle Materials) Two Facilitate the whole group Turn Taking – teachers in front of the room together Cooperative Learning Groups with 1 or 2 teacher facilitation CAUTION: The biggest problem is one of enabling student dependence on a co-teacher who is facilitating the room
Level 2 Co-Teaching (flexible grouping) “good teaching does not happen in rows” An approach that adds value to instruction by specifically increasing the instruction intensity and the opportunities for students to respond Both teachers teach at the same time to smaller groups of students Focus is on data based interventions using flexible, small group instruction Teach specific skills or address needs identified by data Specific IEP instruction Use 70% of the time
Meshing Friend’ Models with Level 2 Strategies Alternative Teaching Skills Group Enrichment Groups Pre-teaching Groups Re-teaching Groups Assessment/Progress Monitoring Groups Pages 50 – 64, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success
Meshing Friend’ Models with Level 2 Strategies Parallel Teaching Parallel or Mirror Lessons (same style) Parallel or Mirror Lessons (differentiated by product, process, or content) Parallel or Mirror Lessons (differentiate by learning style – V,A,K,T) Pages 50 – 64, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success
Meshing Friend’ Models with Level 2 Strategies Station Teaching Two station flip/flop Two station flip/flop switch Three stations tiered Three station rotation Four station rotation Four stations with flip/flop Four Stations with tiers Six stations with interrupters Pages 50 – 64, Advancing Co-Teaching Practices: Strategies for Success
2 Levels of Co-Teaching Level 1 Co-teaching- 30% One teacher assumes main teaching responsibility, one teacher assumes a support role. (Kunkel) One Teach, One Observe One Teach, One Assist Teaming Level 2 Co-teaching - 70% Each teacher as specific teaching responsibilities Teaches to planned objectives Conducts a smaller group of students, simultaneously Alternative Teaching Station Teaching Parallel Teaching 24 Heineman Kunkel, Sonya. Advancing Co-Teaching Practices. Cromwell: Kunkel Consulting Services, 2012. Print.
Meet Our Classes Class #1 24 students 2/24 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. Median score on SMI was 520Q. Class #2 28 students 2/28 students scored a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. Median score on SMI was 605Q.
Our SWD Subgroup Class #1 7 SWD students (29%) 2/7 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. Median score on SMI was 460Q. Class #2 4 SWD students (14%) 0/4 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the beginning of the year. Median score on SMI was 512Q.
Decision-Making and Planning Our greatest successes were primarily in the Station Teaching approach. We primarily used data from formative assessments and Ohio’s 5-Step TBT process to drive the planning for each station. We used the Station Teaching approach in these ways – To remediate concepts/skills with which students did not demonstrate mastery To practice multiple skills within one lesson (e.g., perimeter and area) To provide challenge to students who had already demonstrated mastery of concepts/skills being covered To provide alternative teaching strategies for varied learning styles
Decision-Making and Planning Prime and Composite Numbers, Prime Factorization Pre-Assessment Class #1Class #2Blue – 0% Green – 5%Green – 4% Yellow – 18%Yellow – 4% Red – 77%Red – 92% Analyze student work and looks for trends Are there students who already know how to do this? Set A SMART Goal 38 out of 52 students will score an 80% or higher on the post- assessment by October 26, 2012.
Decision-Making and Planning Plan Instruction Ms. Lochard works with students who don’t understand the difference between prime and composite numbers. Miss Garrison works with students who need support with prime factorization. Students who have already demonstrated mastery are provided with a challenge activity to complete independently Formative Assessment Are students making progress? Have some moved on to mastery? Plan Intervention Ms. Lochard continues to work with students who have not yet mastered the skills in a small group.
Decision-Making and Planning Summative Post-Assessment Class #1 Class #2 SWD Blue 39% 48% 20% Green 43% 26% 30% Yellow 0% 11% 10% Red 17% 15% 40% Throughout the process, the decision-making and planning is data-driven, and it is shared.
Student Growth Scholastic Math Inventory scores 6 th grade growth in our building Fall – 13% proficient Spring – 48% proficient Growth – 35% Our Class #1 Fall – 8% Proficient Spring – 56% Proficient Growth – 48% Our Class #2 Fall – 7% Proficient Spring – 63% Proficient Growth – 56%
Student Growth Class #1 25 students 6 SWD students (24%) 14/25 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the end of the year. Median SMI score was 875Q (gain of 355Q). Class #2 27 students 4 SWD students (15%) 17/27 students scored at a proficient level on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) at the end of the year. Median SMI score was 900Q (gain of 295Q).
Growth in SWD Subgroup Class #1 Median SWD score on SMI in the fall was 460Q. Median SWD score on SMI in the spring was 682Q (gain of 222Q). Class #2 Median SWD score on SMI in the fall was 512Q. Median SWD score on SMI in the spring was 705Q (gain of 193Q).
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.