Lima City Schools The Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching Presenters: Dana Garrison,...
-
Upload
kaleigh-bulen -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Lima City Schools The Power of Two: Engaging Students through Co-Teaching Presenters: Dana Garrison,...
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 5th and 6th 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)• 4th/5th grade multi-age (without
a co-teacher)• 4th/5th grade multi-age (with a
co-teacher)• 5th grade general education
with a shared co-teacher• 4th grade general education
with a shared co-teacher• 2nd grade general education
with a shared co-teacher• 5th grade general education
with a shared co-teacher• 6th 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• 5th Grade Inclusion (2 years)
• On a team of 5 General Education Teachers (Departmentalized)
• 6th 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 teachOne Observe:
Station/rotation teaching:
Parallel teaching:
Alternative teaching: Teaming: One teach, one assist:
Marilyn Friend - More Power!
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 Practices30% 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-TeachingLevel 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 #1 Class #2
Blue – 0% Blue – 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.
Decision-Making and Planning
Decision-Making and Planning
Decision-Making and Planning
Student Growth• Scholastic Math Inventory
scores
• 6th 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).
Performance Growth Level
Student Growth (Math SMI)
Contact Information• Shanda Lochard – [email protected]• Dana Garrison – [email protected]• Julie Stewart – [email protected]• Theresa Gantz – [email protected]• Bill Nellis – [email protected]
• Resources used today• http://www.sst6.org/index.php/training-archives/1315-connect-for-success-conference-june-18-2013