hannamorrisonsbportfolio.files.wordpress.com file · Web viewRose Hill Elementary (RHE) currently...

Running Head: LEVERAGING COLLABORATION 1

Leveraging Collaboration Between General Educators and Specialists to Meet the Needs of All

Students: An Action Plan for Rose Hill Elementary

EDU 6600 Communication and Collaboration

Hanna Morrison

Seattle Pacific University

LEVERAGING COLLABORATION

Background

Rose Hill Elementary (RHE) currently serves 459 students in grades Kindergarten

through Fifth grade. Nearly half of the student population is White and the largest minority are

Hispanic students (24%). Asian students and African American students make up about 15% and

3.5% of the student population, respectively. In recent years, the demographic has changed

significantly as the greater Seattle area’s tech industry draws more and more families from

diverse cultures. RHE is a Title 1 school and receives federal funds for targeted assistance and

parent involvement, which greatly affects the amount of programs it offers to students, both

during the school year and the summer. 38% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price

meals, and there are several students who are currently homeless or live in transitional housing.

RHE has a robust English Language Learner program that serves over one fourth of the

school, or about 125 students. 16.1% of RHE’s students, higher than state averages, receive

Specially Designed Instruction in one or more academic areas, either with support from the

Special Educator in the student’s general classroom setting, in a resource room setting, or in a

self-contained classroom for students who have a diagnosed Emotional Behavior Disorder.

According to the standardized Smarter Balanced Assessment, in the Spring of 2016, 67.6% and

only 50.7% of this year’s 4th and 5th graders, respectively, met or exceeded standard in reading.

In 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade combined, only 30% of ELL students were proficient, as measured by the

SBA. There is evidence of an achievement gap here.

This context is important in understanding the problem of practice found at RHE. There

are many students who qualify for several different services. For example, a student might

receive ELL services, Safety Net support for reading, attend a social group with the counselor,

and work with the Speech and Language Pathologist, which means the student could be pulled

out of class three or more times in one day. While specialists do their best not to pull students out

2


of class during core instruction, students are inevitably missing important content or practice in

their classrooms. When students who are already below standard or are at risk of performing

below standard are pulled out for completely different instruction, upon returning to class they

are lost and unable to join in the learning quickly because they have missed instruction. Perhaps

“over-serving” students in too many support programs could, in part, explain the achievement

gap we see among our ELL students. Perhaps what these students need most is consistent,

continuous learning in the classroom, with ample opportunities to interact with peers and access

the general education curriculum.

Continuous Improvement Plan

Looking back at RHE’s Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) from the last few years, it

was evident that the building has taken different approaches to try and remedy this problem. Last

year, the Safety Net and EL teachers prioritized students’ needs and chose either Safety Net

services or EL services. This idea did not seem to produce positive results. One strategy cited in

RHE’s CIP to close the achievement gap and increase overall ELA scores is to “collaborate with

Safety Net, EL, and SPED teachers to plan differentiated instruction for students.” According to

the CIP, staff is committed to working with grade level teammates and specialists to provide

whole group and flexible, small group instruction, aligned to Common Core State Standards.

Implementing co-teaching could solve this problem. EL and Safety Net specialists could

reach the breadth of students they work with without causing students to miss out on instruction

by pushing into the classroom and co-teach during literacy block. This is no easy task. In order

for co-teaching to be an effective practice, teachers need time to learn about co-teaching before

implementation, comprehensive professional development, and ongoing, differentiated support.

The staff at RHE has worked hard to create a collaborative school climate. Teachers regularly

3


meet as data teams to review student work, analyze growth data, and make instructional

decisions as grade level teams. Folding Safety Net and EL staff into this process is new, as

typically specialists form a team, themselves. To demonstrate true collaboration between general

education teachers and specialists, teachers have expressed the need for targeted professional

development on improving communication and collaboration among all professionals who work

with select students.

The 2015-2016 Nine Characteristics of Highly Effective Schools staff survey indicated a

few key areas for school improvement. Figure 1 represents a general sense I notice among my

staff. Through conversations with my colleagues, I gather that many teachers feel the

professional development provided does not align with their needs. The professional learning

opportunities offered at the school building do not seem to be designed in response to our needs,

rather they are mandated at a district level. Figures 2 and 3 show teachers need support in

working collaboratively to plan instruction and seek feedback from each other. Co-teaching

practices require co-planning and increased peer feedback is a byproduct of co-teaching.

Figure 1Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4

Roughly 30% of RHE teachers have 0-3 years of experience, 25% have 4-7 years of

experience, 35% have 8-15 years of experience, and 10% have 16 or more years of experience.

4


This shows a strong need for differentiated professional learning opportunities. Figure 4 shows

that teachers would like more chances to learn from each other. This calls for learning walks and

more opportunities to learn from colleagues who aren’t necessarily in one’s own grade level

team. The two focus goals of the improvement plan, supported by the professional development

activities below, are to provide effective instruction to all students by implementing co-teaching

models and to build and maintain professional relationships between general education teachers

and specialists.

Research on Professional Learning

Current professional development practices at RHE do not demonstrate best practice. The

district mandates the majority of professional learning activities. Teacher input is rarely sought in

planning professional learning activities. Teachers rarely have choice in what topics to study and

professional learning is not differentiated. However, RHE does have some structures in place to

facilitate effective collaboration. Teachers are given regular time to review data and plan

instruction in grade level teams. My professional development plan pushes teachers to extend

collaboration beyond their team to include specialists. As the implementation of co-teaching is a

big change, my plan attempts to anticipate resistances to the change, provide choice for teachers,

and facilitate organic, meaningful learning. Hilty (2011) suggests “a high-quality teacher

learning program should be…attentive to adult learning styles, …clearly connected to improved

student learning, …sustainable, …and supported by research and data” (p. 105). Teachers should

be given choices of how to access the learning and should be given opportunities to practice and

self-assess their progress. Sound familiar? These are best practices we use in the classroom for

our students.

5


“It is important for stakeholders and decision makers to understand that changing existing

programs and patterns of service delivery is a complex and labor-intensive process; successful

change demands years of ongoing support, resources, and monitoring” (Walther-Thomas,

Bryant, & Land, 1996, p. 256). For this reason, the professional learning activities span a two-

year timeframe. Likely, professional development would extend into a third and fourth year as

teachers refine their co-teaching practice. The first two years, as described in the timeline below,

are designed to build the prerequisite collaborative environment for successful co-teaching,

should teachers choose to try it out.

Timeline·

Year 1: August – September

Effective professional development is “ongoing, embedded within context-specific needs

of a particular setting, aligned with reform initiatives, and grounded in a collaborative, inquiry-

based approach to learning” (Zepeda, 2012, p.66). During LEAP week in August and LEAP days

in September, staff will review data from the previous year and reflect on the goals they had set

for student achievement. Seeing the achievement gap data will spark discussion around potential

reasons for the gap and possible solutions.

Administrators will share the thinking behind the decision to learn about co-teaching, as

stated in the rationale above. Before professional development learning focused on co-teaching

begins, teachers will reflect on their own needs and our needs as a building. The self-assessment

(Appendix A) will serve as a baseline for preparedness to co-teach. The self-assessment will be

taken individually. It will inform teachers of where we are headed as a staff and will inform

administrators and teacher leaders of what to focus on. Theories of context-based learning posit

that when knowledge is viewed as held by every person, every teacher, “adult educators and

6


program planners [can] create or enhance contexts for adult learning that allows learners to share

in the design, process, and evaluation of their learning activities” (Hansman, 2001, p. 49).

Teachers will have opportunities to choose topics of study later on in the year based on their self-

assessment.

Year 1: November – January

RHE’s staff will be introduced to co-teaching as a service delivery model. Professional

development presentations will teach staff what co-teaching is and is not, based on current

research. Staff will watch videos demonstrating several co-teaching models, such as those found

at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFjdUUJJB65XR7uc64TxCIDZRkGLpJCRJ, and

will be given opportunities to discuss benefits and challenges of each style. Hirsh and Hord

(2010) discuss the importance of collaboration and communication in schools. They suggest that

teachers need to be working in teams and have “joint responsibility” in order to make positive

changes that benefit students (p. 12). Currently, there are misconceptions about what co-teaching

is. Co-teaching can be a powerful teaching model that benefits students and teachers when

implemented thoughtfully and holistically. At elementary schools, students in classrooms with

more than one adult receive more positive feedback and more differentiated instruction (Sweigart

& Landrum, 2015). Co-teachers experience decreased stress, increased creativity, and increased

trust and support in teaching partnerships (Indrisano, Birmingham, Garnick, & Maresco, 1999).

The co-teaching model has not reached its potential in practice. I hypothesize this is in part

because of a lack of understanding of what co-teaching truly is, and in part because

administrators are not supporting effective use of co-teaching through professional development

or co-planning time. This introduction will provide a common understanding and common

language for subsequent activities.

7


Year 1: February – March Based on personal interest and/or need, teachers will select from a suggested list of books

and complete a book study in a small group, or choose their own book or set of articles to

improve their teaching practices. Zepeda (2012) suggests book studies as a form of voluntary

learning “in response to genuine professional interest” and promote collaborative conversations

by allowing “small groups of teachers to meet to have discussions centering on a topic and a

book that gives insight about an area of professional interest” (p. 190). Teachers wanting to learn

more about supporting their EL students may choose Andrea Honigsfeld’s and Maria Dove’s

book, Collaboration and Co-teaching: Strategies for English Learners. Other teachers may be

interested in learning how to create an effective co-teaching partnership might read Purposeful

Co-Teaching: Read Cases and Effective Strategies, by Gregory J. Conderman, Mary V.

Bresnahan, and Theresa Pedersen. This text includes resources for co-planning and case studies

that highlight the realities of co-teaching. Once teachers have decided on a book (or articles) to

study, they will form a book study group, decide how they will read the book, discuss “take-

aways” and questions, and share their learning with staff (Appendix C).

Year 1: AprilIn Spring of the first year, teachers will have the option to sign up to do a learning walk

to see co-teaching in action. Teachers will be able to sign up individually or in a small group to

visit a school within our district. Seeing what co-teaching actually looks like and sounds like will

help teachers visualize themselves co-teaching. After observing co-teaching in action, teachers

will gather and discuss what they saw. What aspects of effective co-teaching were observable?

What elements of effective co-teaching didn’t seem to be in place?

Year 1: May – June

8


In deciding to try co-teaching, teachers must be given voice in creating partnerships. At

this time, teachers will be asked to begin thinking about whether or not they want to try co-

teaching the following year. According to the humanistic philosophy perspective, adult learning

should be self-directed and transformational, by allowing the learner to critically self-reflect

during the learning process (Merriam, 2001). In this setting, general education teachers would

pair with a specialist (EL teacher or Safety Net teacher) to form a co-teaching partnership. Co-

teaching partners will take part in trust building activities and get to know each other by

interviewing each other. Teachers should be aware that they will be co-planning the following

year, so they may choose to begin co-planning now. Co-teachers will be asked to express their

needs to administrators during this time. How much co-planning time will they need? What are

their wishes in aligning schedules? What resources do they need to have access to in order to

prepare further?

When instructing, it is critical that “both educators deliver substantive instruction and are

viewed as integral to the classroom environment” (Brown et al., 2013, p. 88). Completing the

“Co-Teacher Profile” activity (Appendix B) will help ensure both teachers are on the same page

for classroom management and students will more likely perceive both teachers as equals.

According to Embury and Kroeger (2012), when the roles of general educators and specialists in

the classroom do not demonstrate parity, students may perceive the second teacher as other, and

in turn, view their classmates, or themselves, as other. The more closely co-teachers can work

together, the better for students. Beginning this partnership now will help set teachers up for

success in the following year of implementation.

Year 2: August – September

9


In August, administrators will share the schedule draft they have developed using input

from the building leadership team as well as co-teaching teams. The schedule will be presented

as a working document and all staff will have an opportunity to give input or suggest changes. A

final draft that ensures common planning time for co-teaching partners will be presented for

approval by staff. Brown, Howerter, and Morgan (2013) note that, while finding time to plan

together can be a challenge for co-teachers, it is necessary.

As a whole, teachers are highly committed to their work and “have common attributes

and philosophies that inspire them to be ‘catalysts for change’” (Hilty, 2011, p. 122). Also in

August, staff will work as a learning community to create a common vision. Teachers will be

asked to reflect on how their co-teaching work and learning fits into this vision and how their

focus on co-teaching this coming year will contribute to that vision for student learning.

Year 2: October – March

Throughout year two, teachers will engage in job embedded learning. Job embedded

learning is often a preferred type of professional development because it is “relevant to the

individual teacher, feedback is built into the process, and it facilitates the transfer of new skills

into practice” (Zepeda, 2012, p. 125). Teachers will have opportunities to try different co-

teaching models and record their thoughts on effectiveness and challenges (Appendix D).

Teachers will also have a chance to share out what worked and didn’t work with whole staff.

Though specialists will be learning alongside general educators, they will be encouraged to lead

some professional development sessions on strategies for pre-teaching, re-teaching, strategies for

engaging EL students, designing quick in-class interventions based on formative assessment, and

any other relevant topic of choice. Specialists daily use effective strategies that general educators

could benefit from learning how to implement in their classrooms. At least once a month, co-

10


teaching partners will have LEAP time on early release Wednesdays to analyze instructional

practices and collaboratively plan for instruction based on student work and assessment results.

The administrator will continually observe and provide feedback to support co-teaching

teams. Teachers may request feedback at any time and can also request to observe another co-

teaching team within the building. Teachers will receive regular feedback from administrators

and peers.

According to Zepeda (2012), “adult learners are more motivated to take risks if they feel

support from their administrators and colleagues” (p. 62). Co-teachers may almost become each

other’s coaches. Co-teachers who have felt success can share with the rest of the staff and coach

other co-teaching partners. Zepeda (2012) says that “effective coaches know when and how to

stretch, when and how to challenge, and when and how to guide those whom they are coaching.

The prerequisite coaching skills are collaboration and trust” (p. 144).

Over time, teachers will share skills and abilities that they hadn’t before co-teaching.

According to Smylie, Conley, and Marks (2011), “school improvement and the improvement of

teaching and student learning depend fundamentally on the development of teachers’ knowledge,

abilities, and commitments—their ‘will and skill’” (p.268). Co-teaching will promote distributive

leadership because teachers will be giving each other feedback and professional development.

When teachers share out with the whole staff about their experiences with co-teaching, they are

taking on a leadership role. Smylie et al. supports distributive leadership in saying, “school

leadership overall is ultimately enhanced by the different knowledge and skills brought by a

variety of people and by the commitments that are developed among those who perform

leadership tasks together” (p. 275).

Year 2: February – April

11


Some CIP funds will be allotted to release time for the purpose of observation. During

Spring of Year Two, teachers will work as peer-experts in conjunction with administrators to

provide feedback to co-teaching teams. Observations will be one way to evaluate the impact on

student learning by recording rates of engagement, successful practices, and areas to consider.

Hilty (2011) found teachers prefer active support from administrators, including “having the

administrator in their classrooms frequently and for extended lengths of time; receiving

meaningful feedback related to their practice, with knowledgeable suggestions for improvement;

and recognition or praise for worthy endeavors” (p. 111). Administrators and teacher leaders will

be looking to see how teachers are leveraging their positions to support students with scaffolds,

questioning strategies, small group instruction, and management. During the year of

implementation, observations will occur during literacy to see co-teaching in action and “view

operations of a program as they are actually occurring” (Zepeda, 2012, p. 39). This will allow for

regular feedback and help guide next steps in professional development by clueing leaders into

what challenges are coming up as teachers explore co-teaching. Also during this time, teachers

who did not decide to co-teach this year can elect to observe their colleagues co-teaching in

action. This may spark interest and support a second cohort of teachers, trained by teacher

leaders who are now effectively co-teaching.

Teachers will take time to review student data, targeting students who were co-taught and

how co-teaching practices affected student achievement.

Conclusion

The achievement gap is an unfortunate reality that we, as teachers and leaders, must

assume some responsibility and take action to close. Many schools have struggled to find a

reform that cures this seemingly incessant problem. This comprehensive plan to leverage

12


collaboration between general educators and specialists, namely Safety Net, Special Education,

and EL teachers, is designed to do just that. While the ultimate goal of implementing co-teaching

practices is to positively impact student achievement and narrow the achievement gap at Rose

Hill Elementary, improved collaborative culture among staff and empowerment of greater

internal leadership among teachers are likely, significant byproducts of implementing the plan.

References

Brown, N. B., Howerter, C. S., & Morgan, J. J. (2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching work.

Intervention In School And Clinic, 49(2), 84-91.

Embury, D. C., & Kroeger, S. D. (2012). Let's ask the kids: Consumer constructions of co-teaching.

International Journal Of Special Education, 27(2), 102-112.

Hansman, C. (2001). Context-based adult learning. In The new update on adult learning theory

(41-49). Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. In

The new update on adult learning theory (1-11).

Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching. Remedial and

Special Education, 17(4), 255-264.

Zepeda, S. (2012). Professional development: What works. New York, NY: Routledge.

13


Appendix A – Needs Assessment Survey

Needs Assessment Survey

Name__________________ Teaching Position______________________

Directions: The following are prerequisites to implementation of effective co-teaching models. Please read each item carefully. Then rate the need for preparation in each area using the scale listed below. Thank you for taking the time to complete this reflection so that we can plan learning opportunities that meet your professional development needs.

1 = Strongly Disagree / High Need

2 = Disagree/Above Average Need

3 = Neutral / Average Need

4 = Agree / Below Average Need

5 = Strongly Agree / None

Item 1 2 3 4 5

I am clear on the basic goals of co-teaching.

I am clear on my role and responsibilities for co-teaching implementation.

The school environment promotes collaboration between general educators and specialists.

My attitude toward co-teaching is generally favorable.

I think co-teaching will benefit all students in my classroom, but especially students who are below standard or who have special needs.

I feel I have a voice in how I implement co-teaching models.

I feel that the expectations for co-teaching are realistic.

Administrators have participated in professional development for co-teaching.

Teachers have participated in professional development for co-teaching.

Specialists are familiar with the general education curriculum.

Teachers are confident in their ability to meet the needs of all students through co-teaching service delivery.

Teaching schedules provide the flexibility to implement effective co-teaching models.

Mutual planning time has been scheduled for co-teaching.

14


An appropriate amount of time has been allowed between awareness and implementation of co-teaching

There is a plan for monitoring student progress in co-taught classrooms.

There is a plan for regular evaluation of co-teaching arrangements and implementation.

15


Appendix B – Co-Teacher Profile

Co-Teacher Profile

Name_________________________ Co-teaching Partner_______________________

Now that you have decided to embark on a co-teaching journey, get to know your co-teacher. Use these questions to “interview” your co-teaching partner and record information that you’ll want to remember to create an effective co-teaching relationship.

1. What made you become a teacher? What is your philosophy about the purpose of education?

2. What are your personal strengths as a teacher? What are your areas of growth you are working on this year?

3. What is your preferred whole group behavior management system?

4. When a student is not following directions or class expectations, what do you typically do? What if the behavior persists?

5. What are your hopes for co-teaching? What are your fears around co-teaching?

6. What else would you like me to know about you as your co-teaching partner?

16


Appendix C – Book Study Notes

Book Study Note-Taking Guide

Book Title___________________________________ Section/Chapters___________________

Participants________________ ________________ ________________ _______________

_________________________ ________________ ________________ _______________

Meeting Dates_____________ ________________ ________________ _______________

Favorite Quote(s): Questions?

Biggest Take-Aways:

Next Steps:

17


Appendix D – Reflection on Co-Teaching Models

Self-Reflection: What’s Working?

With your co-teaching partner, or on your own, take some time to reflect on what’s working well in your classroom.

1. What co-teaching models have you tried? (You do not need to fill in every box)Embury & Kroeger, 2012Co-teaching Model

Definition Benefits Challenges

One teach/One assist

One teacher primarily teaches while the other circulates the room, providing assistance unobtrusively to students as needed.

One teach/One observe

One teacher instructs while the other records data. Teachers collectively decide what data to collect and analyze it together.

Station teaching

Teachers host a learning station for small group instruction. Students rotate between each teacher and an independent station.

Alternative teaching

One teacher teaches the larger group while the specialist modifies the lesson for students who need support. These students receive the modified lesson in place of the core, whole group lesson.

Parallel teaching

Both teachers teach the same content, but divide students into two groups. Teachers teach simultaneously in different locations.

Team teaching

Both teachers teach the whole class, speaking and moving freely among all students.

2. What impact has co-teaching had on student learning? Discuss impact and collect student work samples, assessment data, etc. to share.

3. What further support do you need from your building leaders?

18

hannamorrisonsbportfolio.files.wordpress.com file · Web viewRose Hill Elementary (RHE) currently...

Documents

Transcript of hannamorrisonsbportfolio.files.wordpress.com file · Web viewRose Hill Elementary (RHE) currently...