Co Teaching

Supervising Co-Teaching Teams: Whose Line Is It

Anyway?

Your name hereDate, location, etc.

Session Overview

• Introduction to national assistance centers and The Access Center

• Introduction to co-teaching• Planning for and scheduling co-teaching• Suggestions for administrators• Observing and evaluating co-teaching

teams• Co-Teaching Rating Scale (CTRS)• Case study

The Access Center’s MissionTo provide technical assistance that strengthens state and local capacity to help students with disabilities learn through general education curriculum.

What is “Access”?

• Active learning of the content and skills that define the general education curriculum

• Supports to improve access– Instructional and learning goals– Research-based instructional methods and

practices– Research-based materials and media– Research-based supports and accommodations– Appropriate assessment and documentation

Where to Begin: Building Bridges

Walking across the bridge, leaving the familiar ground of working alone, is the first act of collaboration. All parties are in neutral territory, with the security of knowing they can return to land better, stronger, and changed. And perhaps they will return to the same side of the bridge even though they started from opposite sides.

From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Collaboration Won’t Just Happen

• Deliberate• Structured• Systematic• Ongoing


Why Won’t It Just Happen?• General educators begin with the

curriculum first and use assessment to determine what was learned.

• Special educators begin with assessment first and design instruction to repair gaps in learning.

• No wonder we are talking different languages.


How Can We Work With This?• Provide purpose and structure• Create baseline and a plan for scaffolded

change• Provide a visual map to guide discussion• Keep discussions objective and data driven• Allow many issues to be put on the table

for consideration


What Have We Learned?

• General educators are more receptive to change when they have background knowledge and a chance to participate in the decisions rather than being given a special education mandate to follow.


What Have We Learned? (cont.)

• Parent concerns decrease when special and general education practices are aligned and when data is shared and used to identify how students are progressing in the general education domain first.


Aligning Practices Through Co-Teaching• Co-teaching is becoming one of the

fastest growing inclusive school practices.

• Despite this rapid increase in popularity, co-teaching remains one of the most commonly misunderstood practices in education.


Defining Co-Teaching

• Co-teaching occurs when two or more professionals jointly deliver substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space.

Cook & Friend, 1995

Three Major Models

• Consultant Model• Coaching Model• Collaborative (or Teaming) Model

Friend & Cook, 2003

Most Common Approaches• One Teaching, One Drifting• Parallel Teaching• Station Teaching• Alternative Teaching• Team Teaching

Friend & Cook, 2003

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

– Can also be distracting to students, especially those who may become dependent on the drifting teacher

Friend & Cook, 2003

Parallel Teaching

• Teachers share responsibility for planning and instruction.

• 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, 2003

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, 2003

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.

Friend & Cook, 2003

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, 2003

Sounds Good . . . Now What?

Getting Co-Teaching Started at the Building and Classroom

Levels

Considerations

• Teachers need to volunteer and agree toco-teach.

• Co-teaching should be implemented gradually.

• Attention needs to be given to IEP setting changes that an inclusive classroom may invoke.

• Goals and support services need to reflectthe new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes.

Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Not an All-or-Nothing Approach• Teachers do not have to commit to only

one approach of co-teaching.• 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 co-taught classroom for only part of the day.

Murawski, 2005

Limitations and Potential Drawbacks• Co-teaching is not easy to maintain in

schools.• There may not be enough special

educators for a co-teaching program.• Co-taught classrooms may be

disproportionately filled with students with disabilities.

• Special educators can function more as a teaching assistant than as a co-educator.

Friend & Cook, 2003

Benefits of Collaboration

• Shared responsibility for educatingall students

• Shared understanding and use of common assessment data

• Supporting ownership for programming and interventions

• Creating common understanding• Data-driven problem solving

Friend & Cook, 2003

Action Steps

Administrators should:• Provide information and encourage

proactive preparation from teachers• Assess level of collaboration currently

in place• Pre-plan• Implement slowly . . . baby steps!

Murawski, 2005

Planning and Scheduling Considerations• Co-teaching requires thoughtful planning

time.• Administrative support is essential.• Here is where the alignment of special and

general education occurs, as well as the alignment of assessment and instruction.

• School-level scheduling should be done after student needs have been identified.

Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002

Provide Weekly ScheduledCo-Planning Time• Co-teaching teams should have a

minimum of one scheduling/planning period (45–60 minutes) per week.

• Experienced teams should spend10 minutes to plan each lesson.

Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

District-Level Planning IssuesDistrict-level planning:• Helps to reduce duplication of effort• Facilitates communication within

the system and in the larger community

• Fosters better cooperation and collaboration among schools

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

District-Level Planning Task Force• Administrators• Teacher leaders• Related services professionals• Families• Other appropriate representatives

from community agencies


District-Level Planning Task Force (cont.)• District-level planning ensures that

potential consequences are considered before new programs and services are implemented, for example:– How will the implementation of co-teaching

on one seventh-grade team effect other seventh-grade teams?

– How will it impact the elementary and high school programs?


Building-Level Planning Issues• Communicate administrative support and

leadership• Select capable and willing participants• Provide ongoing staff development• Establish balanced classroom rosters• Provide weekly scheduled co-planning

time• Develop appropriate individualized

education plans (IEPs)


Suggestions for Administrators Regarding

Co-Teaching

Perspective Matters

Depending on the orientation of supervisor, the same co-taught lesson could be viewed in diametrically opposing ways.

Wilson, 2005

The two teachers looked at each other in disbelief. One was a tenured secondary English teacher who had taught for 6 years in this large middle-class, suburban high school. The other was a first year special education teacher who recently received her master’s degree. They had been co-teaching a ninth grade English class for 4 months, and although the beginning weeks were a bit overwhelming, they were rather proud of their cooperative and respectful relationship. They had been co-planning, co-grading, and co-teaching, and they were certain the class would go well. The students responded to the co-teachers’ combined efforts, and both social and academic progress were noted for all students in the class.The teachers were looking at their observation reports. The special education and English chairpersons had decided to observe the co-teaching class at the same time. The special education teacher read her report: It was glowing. Her supervisor recognized the adaptations that were made in the materials, saw that she worked with individual students, observed her contribution to the teaching of the mini-lesson, noted the parity she enjoyed with her co-teacher, and acknowledged the acceptance and respect of her students.The general education teacher held back tears as she read her write-up. How could this be? She had never received an unsatisfactory observation and prided herself on her competency in the classroom. Her supervisors had repeatedly recognized her skills as a teacher. She read through the comments—her chairperson thought there hadn’t been enough time spent developing the content of the lesson and that the student group work detracted from more formal delivery of content. The chair also felt that the general education teacher had relinquished too much of her role as content specialist to the special education teacher and noted there was too much interaction between the co-teachers.

Communicate Administrative Support and Leadership• Principal support, understanding, and

involvement serve as pivotal factors in lasting success (Barth, 1990; Pugach & Johnson, 1990).

• Effective principals provide vision, recognition, and encouragement during the implementation process (Adams & Cessna, 1991; Barth, 1990; Chalfant & Pysh, 1989; Fullan, 1993).

Select Capable and Willing Participants• Teachers who are viewed as leaders by their

colleagues• Willing to make the commitment of additional

time and effort• Select capable volunteers for co-teaching

assignments• Both members of the team must be capable

contributors.• Participants should make a good faith

commitmentto work together for a minimum of 2 years.


Provide Ongoing Staff Development• Teachers should have 3–5 days of preparation

before classroom implementation.• Sessions should provide instruction related to:

– Effective co-planning– Co-teaching models– Student scheduling– Instructional considerations– Ongoing performance assessment– Interpersonal communication

• Sessions should also allow time for partners to discuss concerns, solve problems, and formulate initial implementation plans.


Provide Ongoing Staff Development (cont.)• Provide ongoing skill development and support• Encourage participation in college courses,

summer workshops, and professional conferences

• Encourage site visits to model programs• Support monthly problem-solving meetings

with other co-teachers• Encourage building administrators to

participate jointly with co-teaching teams in staff development events


Establish Balanced Classroom Rosters• School teams need to carefully

assess student needs and available resources.

• In a class of 25 students, no more than 6 students should have identified disabilities in the mild to moderate range.


Develop Appropriate IEPs

• Attention needs to be given to setting changes that an inclusive classroom may invoke.

• Goals and support services need to reflect the new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes.


Observing and EvaluatingCo-Teaching Teams

Critical Components for Evaluating a Co-Taught Classroom• What makes a good lesson?• Are there components of a co-

taught lesson that require unique perspectives in order to be evaluated effectively?

Wilson, 2005

What Makes a Good Lesson?• Lessons that are student-centered• Recognition of diverse learning styles

of students• Questions that tap high-order thinking• Engagement of students and

evidence that students are not on task

Wilson, 2005

What Makes a Good Lesson (cont.)• Makes use of materials that are

useful and available• Pays attention to motivation• Incorporates awareness of

transitions• Contains aims that are open-ended

Wilson, 2005

What Makes a Good Lesson (cont.)• Summarizes at the middle and end

of the lesson• Provides activities that apply the

information• Makes connections to students’

experiences• Fosters positive student–teacher

relationships Wilson, 2005

What Makes a Good Lesson (cont.)• Makes appropriate use of technology• Adheres to state standards• Reinforces previously learned and

new material• Promotes positive teacher–teacher

relationships

Wilson, 2005

Are There Components of a Co-Taught Lesson That Require Unique Perspectivesin Order to be Evaluated Effectively?• Roles of the teachers

– The supervisor is to look at the roles ofco-teachers, such as parallel teaching; one teaching, one drifting; station teaching; and alternative team teaching.

Arguelles, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997

Are There Components of a Co-Taught Lesson That Require Unique Perspectives in Order to be Evaluated Effectively? (cont.)• Instructional strategies

– How are strategies incorporated into a lesson? Evidence of co-planning needsto be easily seen through the strategies and modification integrated throughoutthe lesson.

Wilson, 2005

Are There Components of a Co-Taught Lesson That Require Unique Perspectives in Order to be Evaluated Effectively? (cont.)• Assessment processes

– Is there a continuous and conscious effort to assess student achievement? Is there evidence of reflective questioning?

Wilson, 2005

Questions to Consider When Observing Co-Teaching Teams• Are co-teachers to be treated as one

and receive a single observation report?• Could the special education supervisor

comment on the general educator’s performance, even if the focus of the observation was on the special educator?

• Should the general and special education supervisors observe the same lesson?

Wilson, 2005

Questions to Consider WhenObserving Co-Teaching Teams (cont.)• Should supervisors write one

observation? Are there different performance criteria for the generaland special educators?

• What criteria should be used to judge teacher performance in a co-taught class or program?

Wilson, 2005

Questions to Consider When Observing Co-Teaching Teams (cont.)• What roles do teachers perform? Are

these roles meaningful? • How often and for how long are

teachers interacting with each other?• Who is initiating and ending these

interactions?• What is the nature of these interactions

(e.g., cooperative, reciprocal, supportive, complementary, individualistic)?

Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002

Questions to Consider When Observing Co-Teaching Teams (cont.)• Which students are the recipients of

these interactions?• What are the outcomes of these

interactions for teachers and their students?

• What factors appear to promote and limit these interactions?

• How are these components incorporated into an effective observation tool?


Characteristics of an Observation Tool• Helps supervisors focus on essential

components of co-teaching • Helps supervisors structure the writing of

their observation reports• Sharing the guide with the co-teachers in

the pre-observation meeting fosters a positive and trusting relationship between supervisors and co-teachers because expectations are clearly defined.

Wilson, 2005

Co-Teaching Rating Scale(CTRS)

Co-Teaching Rating Scale

• Informal instrument for co-teachers and their supervisors

• Examines the effectiveness of co-teaching classrooms

• Helps focus on areas that need improvement and on components that contribute to success

• Results can be used to develop co-teaching model.

• Can be modified for use as part of supervisory tool for examining effectiveness of co-teaching

Gately & Gately, 2001

Co-Teaching Rating Scale

• Three forms:– One for special educator – One for general educator – One for supervisors

• Identifies a profile of strengths and weaknesses • Focuses on components of co-teaching relationship• Determines the effectiveness of classroom practices• Facilitates the formulation of goals for improving

practice• Refines strategies to improve and enhance programs

Gately & Gately, 2001

Additional Tools, Guidelines,and Strategies for Evaluating

Co-Teaching Teams

Interviews and Surveys

• Educators’ responses to surveys can provide insight into strengths and gaps in program.

• Can be: – Likert-type format– Qualitative, open-ended


Likert-Type Format

• 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.


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.


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?


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?


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


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.


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, 2002

These data can be analyzed to identify program strengths, educators’ concerns about their cooperative teaching teams, and possible solutions to these concerns surrounding:


Use Evaluation Data to Consider These Factors• Attitudes about working in cooperative

teaching teams• Satisfaction with their roles working in

cooperative teaching teams• Success at working in cooperative

teaching teams• Observations about the factors that

contribute to the success of their cooperative teaching teams


Use Evaluation Data to Consider These Factors (cont.)• Concerns about working in cooperative

teaching teams• Beliefs about the effect of their

collaborative team on their students’ families and themselves

• Satisfaction with and needs in terms of resources, planning time, support from others, and training

• Satisfaction with school- and districtwide cooperative teaching policies and practices


Evaluating the Co-Teaching Model

Evaluation

• Teachers and administrators should evaluate co-teaching situations at least once per year.

• The rule that assessment informs instruction should also apply to co-teaching: Asco-teachers continue to assess their situation, they must ensure that they are improving their instruction to best meet students’ needs in an inclusive classroom.

Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2003

Geneseo Central School District • Rural• Western New York state

Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004

School Characteristics

• Elementary school: Special and general educators in a heterogeneous classroom

• Middle school: Special educator at each grade level and also a teacher’s assistant for sixth grade


Elementary School

• One third of students have IEPs; special educator provides resources as a preventive measure for those students who are not classified.

• Student–teacher ratio is lowered.• Students often have services

provided in classroom rather than being pulled out.


Middle School

• Staff follows students with greater academic needs through general education classes

• Teacher’s assistant follows other students.

• Teachers participate in advisory groups, grade-level team meetings, and study groups to facilitate communications with peers.


Evaluation of theCo-Teaching Program• Goals and objectives to be

evaluated • Evaluation questions and methods

addressing the objectives • Parent Survey Protocol • Results


Evaluation Aided in:

• Assisting administrators in achieving equilibrium with the reform

• Providing a vehicle for monitoringprogram success

• Establishing structure for teachers to explore alternative approaches to teaching

• Allowing students new access to their peers in the general education curriculum


Essential Ingredients for Successful Collaboration:

From the Eyes of the Practitioner to the Ears of

the Administrator

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning• Share long- and short-term

implementation strategies• Share the research base that

supports co-teaching• Share anticipated need for

resources

Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (cont.)• Develop an “information sharing

community” or “community of practice” • Determine the most effective methods

of communication between teams and administrators

• Emphasize the importance of pre-observation conferences

• Incorporate the co-teaching initiative into the team’s annual professional growth plan

Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (cont.)• Set specific times for observation• Encourage students to talk with the

administrator about the benefits from learning in collaborative classrooms

• Involve parents• Encourage advice and feedback on

your performance from the administrators, accept it graciously, and use it

Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (cont.)• Inform administrators of any

problems or controversies related to co-teaching efforts– Teachers– Support staff– Parents– Students

Rea, 2005

Suggestions for Success

• Accept responsibility if a mistake results from your actions

• Videotape the class and share particularly interesting segments with the administrator

• Highlight student progress through data

Rea, 2005

Suggestions for Success (cont.)• Volunteer the administrator (with

prior permission) to speak or serve as a guest panelist in graduate classes

• Co-author articles for publication• Attend professional conferences

together

Rea, 2005

Suggestions for Success (cont.)• Immediately deal with any sense of

waning support• Let the school be on the circuit of

site visits for teams learning aboutco-teaching

• Spread the word about the successes

Rea, 2005

“It could be argued with a good deal of persuasiveness that when one looks overthe history of man the most distinguishing characteristic of his development is the degree to which man has underestimatedthe potentialities of men” (Blatt & Kaplan, 1974, p. 107).

References• Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1991). Designing system to facilitate

collaboration: Collective wisdom from Colorado. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 37–42.

• Arguelles, M., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1997). The ABCDEs of Co-Teaching. The Council For Exceptional Children: Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2). Available at http://www/idonline.com

• 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, NY: Human Policy Press.

• Chafant, J., & Psyh, M. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49–58.

• 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.

References• Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J., Jr. (2001). Understanding co-teaching

components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40–47.• Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1990). Fostering the continued

democratization of consultation through action research. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(3–4), 240–245.

• Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312–316.

• Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teaching teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 195–200.

• Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–265.

• Wilson, G. L. (2005). This doesn’t look familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 271–275.

• 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), 3–14.

Visit our Web site for more information or to contact us:

http://www.K8accesscenter.org

The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students K–8

American Institutes for Research1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW

Washington, DC 20007

Co Teaching

Business

Transcript of Co Teaching