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

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


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)



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


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


was 460Q.

Class #2

• 4 SWD students (14%)• 0/4 students scored at a


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.


• 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

• 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

lima city schools the power of two: engaging students through co-teaching presenters: dana garrison,...

Documents