Collab Tech Discussion DUE WED 10th at 11pm

Chapter4.pdf

Home >Reading homework help >Collab Tech Discussion DUE WED 10th at 11pm

8 1

4 Collabor at e on the Deliver y of Instr uction and Inter vention

At Great Lakes Middle School, the 7th grade team was focused on build- ing writing skills. A particular concern was that students with disabilities seemed trapped in a frustrating cycle. When they struggled with a writing assignment, they were sent to the resource room to get help: scaff olds and prompts from a special education teacher in one-on-one sessions. Their completed assignments went back to the general education teacher for a grade. Everyone on the team agreed that the process was eff ective in “saving the students from drowning ” and that it enabled them to receive acceptable grades on their writing assignments. But was it actually help- ing students with disabilities develop as writers and master skills they could transfer to other work? The evidence suggested no. As time passed, writing did not get any easier for these students; they needed the same degree of help on assignment after assignment.

When teams use all of the special education service time to provide assistance with assignments, there is no time left—and often no people left—to teach skills. It’s an approach that leaves special education teach- ers spinning their wheels, working long hours to create modifi cations for

YourMyOurStudents.indd 81YourMyOurStudents.indd 81 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

Jung, L. A., Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Kroener, J. (2019). Your students, my students, our students : Rethinking equitable and inclusive classrooms. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Created from usw-ebooks on 2021-11-08 15:55:37.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

82 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

specifi c assignments that are neither planned nor recorded on perfor- mance measurements and are not accompanied by corresponding inter- ventions or support strategies. As a support, it’s a waste of the expertise special educators bring to the table.

Yes, educators want all students to perform well on tasks, assignments, activities, and assessments. But our real endgame is students developing the skills they need for a lifetime of happiness and success. Unless sup- port or intervention empowers students and helps them advance along their chosen paths toward greater autonomy, it’s creating a dependency. It does not build lifelong habits that matter to students, and it’s an inef- fective use of instructional time. “Help” given on assignments or home- work that supplants time that could be spent on skill development is actually harm.

Early in her career, Nancy had a conversation with Margot, a special education teacher who was about to retire. Margot mentioned in pass- ing the credentials she had earned throughout her career. Nancy was stunned to learn that when Margot completed her initial preparation program in the 1970s, she was able to add endorsements for autism, behavioral disorders, and intellectual disability by completing a single nine-week college course. When Nancy expressed surprise, Margot said, “But we knew so much less back then! I was studying to be a special education teacher right after they passed the law. All the content fi t into one class.”

The special education knowledge base has indeed exploded in the decades since the passing of landmark federal special education legisla- tion in 1975. Yet ineff ective and harmful models of service delivery like the one at Great Lakes Middle School linger in many schools, virtually unchanged. So what is the solution? As with all of the recommendations we make in this book, the answer lies not in special education or with a particular specialist or program or intervention strategy, but in a team working collaboratively in new ways.

YourMyOurStudents.indd 82YourMyOurStudents.indd 82 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 8 3

Frameworks for Collaboration and Service Delivery As we have previously discussed, instead of focusing on disability catego- ries, educators need to focus on student needs and how to diff erentiate instruction and intervention. This naturally leads to a diff erent approach to making placement decisions and meeting students’ needs. Now, we want to delve deeper into how the roles of various educators within the school can complement one another as they work toward building the skills of everyone in the school—students and fellow teachers alike.

Special educators coordinate and deliver interventions to students who need them, working with general educators to monitor how stu- dents respond to the interventions that are provided and adjusting sup- port along the way. Current best practices indicate that special educators should also spend more time purposefully building whole-school capac- ity by empowering the entire team—including peers—to eff ectively use a variety of instructional strategies and interventions.

Response to Intervention Allison, a 16-year-old junior, has a reading-related disability and was

struggling with her English 11 writing assignments. She also showed some diffi culty with reading comprehension. At Allison’s school, a response to intervention (RTI) framework is in place for making inter- vention decisions.

When Allison’s IEP team met to discuss her evidence of learning in all areas, they determined that her slow reading pace and diffi culty with academic language was holding her back. Because they had noticed that several other students could benefi t from a boost in reading skills, they developed a plan to collaboratively deliver a short-term, small-group reading intervention using a station-teaching format. They decided that,

YourMyOurStudents.indd 83YourMyOurStudents.indd 83 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

84 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

for Allison, it made sense to cut one of the current semester’s writing assignments so she could spend the time receiving additional reading intervention. In doing so, the team acknowledged that having a particular assignment score in the grade book was less important than Allison hav- ing a period of intensive intervention to increase her reading skills. The latter is an investment likely to pay off not only in terms of Allison’s abil- ity to complete future assignments in her classes at school but also in her life beyond school. It’s an example a short-term intervention and support decision focused on long-term success.

Since the inception of RTI, there have been a number of myths and misconceptions surrounding it. Many people misunderstand RTI to mean that students at risk for failure should be removed from the general educa- tion setting and “put into RTI classrooms.” If students don’t make enough progress “in” RTI, they are referred for special education services. In other words, the tiers of RTI are misconceived as Tier 1 = general education class- room, Tier 2 = intervention classes for students who are failing, and Tier 3 = special education. It casts RTI as an intervention model for students who are failing and special education as the ultimate intervention.

However, RTI is and always was intended to be a prevention model, with remediation added only when excellent instruction is unsuccessful (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). With this mindset, teams constantly moni- tor students’ potential for failure and consider students’ response to the instruction as well as any interventions needed to ensure their learning and the learning of others (see Figure 4.1). RTI, then, is a whole-school, general education initiative aimed at systematically improving general education instruction in order to minimize the number of students who need intervention (Fisher & Frey, 2010).

What RTI means for general education is that the Tier 1 instruction all students receive is the focus of continuous improvement. Evidence-based strategies typically reserved for intervention become a proactive part of daily classroom activities, implemented as universal design for learning. If, for example, the data tell us that every year, a small group of students

YourMyOurStudents.indd 84YourMyOurStudents.indd 84 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 8 5

has diffi culty with a concept or skill and benefi ts from supplemental intervention, the next time that concept or skill is taught, we will bring that successful intervention into the general education classroom and make it standard for every student. It’s akin to the curb cuts in the sidewalk outside: necessary for those who use wheelchairs but also helpful to par- ents with strollers, roller skaters, delivery people with hand trucks, and cyclists. Excellent Tier 1 instruction means constantly looking for oppor- tunities to make the curriculum accessible and eff ective for the broadest range of learners.

Tier 1:

Quality core

instruction that

uses a gradual

release of

responsibility

75–85%

Tier 2:

Supplemental

needs-based

instruction

10–15%

Tier 3:

Intensive

individualized

instruction

5–10%

Increased time, intensity, frequency, and expertise

Figure 4.1 RTI TIERS OF INTERVENTION

Source: From Enhancing RTI: How to Ensure Success with Effective Classroom Instruction and Intervention (p. 23), by D. Fisher and

YourMyOurStudents.indd 85YourMyOurStudents.indd 85 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/Enhancing-RTI.aspx

86 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

When 5th grade students had trouble planning and organizing their writing, Nicole, a special education teacher, would routinely pull them from language arts instruction to deliver writing intervention services. She used a graphic organizer and strategy instruction she designed to get them started. After working with these students for a few weeks, almost all of them had “gotten it” and didn’t need her help any longer. Nicole and the 5th grade teacher decided together that instead of waiting to see which students might need the intervention, Nicole would bring it into the classroom (Tier 1) and teach all students how to use the tools that had previously been reserved for students who had failed. Over the next cou- ple of weeks, she delivered large-group instruction on the graphic orga- nizer. After that, both she and the 5th grade teacher used small-group and individual instruction in the general education classroom to support stu- dents’ use of the organizers, monitoring their progress with performance data. Thanks to this proactive approach, only two students in the class- room needed further intervention, compared to seven or eight students in past years. These teachers did not wait to identify students who had failed; they invested in Tier 1 instruction fi rst and saw the return on their investment in fewer students needing Tier 2 intervention.

MTSS: Casting a Wider Net Eff ective practices for supporting every student continue to evolve. In

this century, educators using RTI recognized that quality core instruction is crucial and precious intervention resources should not be needlessly expended as Band-Aids for poor Tier 1 practices (Fisher & Frey, 2010). In this decade, RTI practices have grown into increasingly comprehensive approaches to address students’ behavioral needs and their social and emotional learning. These multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) do not discriminate between those with and without IEPs. MTSS is a schoolwide process that provides specialized academic, behavioral, and emotional supports for any child who needs them. It can include access to counseling,

YourMyOurStudents.indd 86YourMyOurStudents.indd 86 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 8 7

instruction in self-regulation, supports for families, and instructional coaching to help more teachers provide better support for all students.

MTSS is a dynamic process built on the understanding that students must be able to fl ow in and out of intervention supports as needed. There- fore, assessment and progress monitoring—two hallmarks of RTI—are used to gauge progress and ensure that the process is responsive to stu- dent needs. If a student is stuck in a “Tier 2 intervention class” all semester or year because of scheduling, this isn’t MTSS; this is inaccurate labeling of an older service delivery model (i.e., remedial education). However, school schedules are necessary, and it can be diffi cult to fi nd the appro- priate time to support students who need temporary intervention. Some schools have gone down the path of removing students from physical edu- cation, art, music, or other electives. But these classes are often ones that students enjoy the most or ones in which they have experienced some success. For students who have more signifi cant needs, these classes may be where they feel truly included and enjoy a sense of belonging. Students who are already having a diffi cult time in school should never be put in a situation where they grow to dislike school even more.

American School Foundation in Monterrey, Mexico, arrived at a scheduling solution that has worked for many schools: instituting a “fl ex block” during the middle of the school day. During this block of time, any student can seek support from any teacher or counselor; they can also work independently. Within the online scheduling system, teachers can assign students to see a specifi c person during this time. In this model, for example, a student who is having trouble with a language arts assignment might spend time working on it alone, work on it with a peer, or visit the language arts teacher for strategic support.

Notably, with MTSS, students do not see an interventionist or special education teacher for help with assignments, because assignment help is not an intervention. A student struggling with a language arts assignment would go to the language arts teacher for help. Only students who seem to

YourMyOurStudents.indd 87YourMyOurStudents.indd 87 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

88 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

be having persistent diffi culty with specifi c skills would work with a spe- cial educator, who would deliver a temporary, evidence-based intervention to help them build those skills. The duration of any intervention depends on the trajectory of the individual student’s growth. Once a skill is gained, the skill-focused intervention concludes. If small-group intervention a few times a week is not enough to help a student gain the skill quickly, the school provides daily, more intensive intervention (i.e., Tier 3 intervention).

The eff ect of MTSS on school culture is that all students belong to all teachers. Tier 1 is the quality core instruction all students get. Inter- vention or intensive intervention is provided to any student who needs it, when they need it, and not for a day longer than they need it. Disabil- ity status is irrelevant in deciding if intervention is needed in an MTSS model. The goal of MTSS is ensuring that all students have access to high- quality instruction that is eff ective for them.

Sentencing students with disabilities to a segregated setting for part or all of the school day in eff ect presumes incompetence. MTSS, when delivered as intended, presumes competence: intervention is delivered immediately to any student who is at risk for failure. In this model, the general curriculum is not replaced with a lower-level curriculum; instead, students who are struggling get the general education instruction (Tier 1) and supplemental instruction or intervention to fi ll in gaps (Tier 2 or 3). Students are not placed in a generic catchall special education class- room; instead, they are selected for intervention purposefully to address a specifi c skill.

Co-Teaching: Capitalizing on Educator Knowledge Even when it makes logical sense for the specialist to deliver the inter-

vention, this does not necessarily mean that the student should be removed from general curriculum routines or activities. Through co-teaching, ser- vices are brought into the general education classroom using our “zone defense” structure: teachers help any student who needs support. General and special educators share responsibility for all students in the classroom;

YourMyOurStudents.indd 88YourMyOurStudents.indd 88 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 8 9

teaching, re-teaching, paperwork, and progress monitoring are not solely the responsibility of one or the other, and neither are the students.

Instances of co-teaching exist in a rapidly growing number of schools, with the stated purpose of the arrangement being to serve students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment and expand the reach of intervention to other learners who need support. Co-teaching is key to getting students with disabilities out of segregated, separate settings. It off ers the extra hands in the room to make this feasible as well as addi- tional brainpower to solve problems and generate ideas.

We recognize that co-teaching has a limited impact on learning; according to Hattie (2012), it has an eff ect size of .19, well below the aver- age eff ect of .40. However, based on a review of the studies included in Hattie’s meta-analyses, we believe this is because most implementations of co-teaching are fl awed. When we ask teachers what they think of when they hear “co-teaching,” a common response is that the specialist is in the general education classroom, the general education teacher is deliv- ering a lesson, and the specialist is helping as needed with a student or group of students. That is not co-teaching. It’s simple applying the name co-teaching to a co-support model. The fact that there is more than one educator working in the same classroom does not mean these educators are co-teaching. We hypothesize that high-quality co-teaching models, such as those we will discuss in the paragraphs that follow, have a much higher impact on student learning. Furthermore, there are impacts on adult learning that would not be possible without co-teaching.

In true co-teaching there is co-planning, co-instruction, co- assessment, and co-refl ection. The general and special educator trade lead and sup- porting roles as needed. This dynamic and fl uid practice requires that both teachers possess strong communication skills and have opportunities to problem solve. Scruggs and Mastropieri (2017) point out, “It is what the two teachers do and how they do it that can make co-teaching eff ective for students with disabilities” (p. 285). This is what makes clear role and responsibility agreements, like those detailed in Chapter 3, so crucial.

YourMyOurStudents.indd 89YourMyOurStudents.indd 89 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

90 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

Although the discussion of co-teaching has often centered around the concept of improving outcomes of students with learning diff erences in general education classrooms, the benefi ts of co-teaching can have other far-reaching eff ects. Special and general educators learn from one another; special educators gain skills in the general curriculum, and gen- eral educators gain research-based interventions they can implement on a regular basis within the general education classroom. Because of the transactional eff ect of teaming, co-teaching not only helps the targeted students (through the planned learning experience) but also results in long-term, permanent improvement in the quality of core instruction. Purposeful design of these capacity-building experiences is necessary to maximize their potential.

The implications of role release—using consultative service delivery to provide adult support—are signifi cant and also require careful planning. Before releasing a role, create systematic supports so that the person tak- ing it on is more likely to succeed. In Chapter 2, we talked about how decid- ing on the right frequency and intensity of services is largely a matter of fi guring out how much support other adults need to implement an inter- vention. The benefi ts of co-teaching can be maximized, then, by asking for each lesson, “What is the purpose of each educator in the room, both in terms of supporting students and in supporting each other’s learning?”

There is not just a single method of co-teaching; in fact, Friend and Cook (2007) have identifi ed seven models with a range of diff erent ben- efi ts. In a team-based approach to co-teaching, both teachers have a role in determining the best model to use based on the purpose of instruction, the composition of the classroom, and the skills and strengths of each of the teachers.

These seven models are not static, and teaching partners do not need to adhere to only one. In fact, we counsel teams to expand their instruc- tional repertoire over time to encompass all seven. However, the shared vocabulary of distinct models allows teams to communicate clearly about

YourMyOurStudents.indd 90YourMyOurStudents.indd 90 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 9 1

which approach(es) they will be using during a lesson or unit, and for what purpose. As we have stated many times, eff ective communication is key.

Let’s look at the models one by one.

One Teach, One Assist In this model of co-teaching, one teacher has the primary responsibil-

ity for carrying out the teaching for the lesson. The second teacher assists in a purposeful and planned way.

One teach, one assist contrasts from the traditional assistance model in two important ways. First, in this and all models of co-teaching, both teachers are involved in planning, delivery of instruction, and assess- ment of learning. There is no hierarchy in this approach, where one teacher is more important than the other. Second, the “assistance” does not mean a teacher is assigned to a particular student to help in whatever way needed. Instead, assistance is carefully planned and may be directed to a particular student, delivered to a certain area of the classroom, or—if it relates to a particular skill—delivered to all students needing that assistance.

For example, Monica Taylor is engaged in a shared reading with her 4th grade students. She reads the text aloud, sharing her thinking. Tiff any Gaspar, a special education teacher, visits with specifi c students as the class listens to Ms. Taylor read. Sometimes Ms. Gaspar redirects students, and other times she adds clarifying information. During this 20-minute part of the literacy block, Ms. Gaspar is assisting in the class. At other times, she takes a leading role.

Station Teaching Although station teaching is more often used in early childhood class-

rooms, it is appropriate for use at any grade. In this model, there are two or more areas of the classroom where students spend time. Students are divided into small groups, and these groups of students rotate among the

YourMyOurStudents.indd 91YourMyOurStudents.indd 91 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

92 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

stations. Stations can be facilitated by a teacher or designed for indepen- dent navigation (e.g., a classroom might have two stations where students work on a particular concept with instructors and a third station where students practice a skill independently).

Station teaching is an eff ective way to provide small-group instruction on more diffi cult concepts. It also off ers an opportunity to diff erentiate by selecting and assigning particular stations for students. Students who have mastered a concept, for example, may be sent to an independent sta- tion, while those who need additional instruction could be assigned to a facilitated one. The class in our example, off ering three stations during the class period, might assign students to visit two of the three.

Following their whole-class lesson each day, the students in Arturo Garcia’s algebra class move to their learning stations. One station focuses on online practice; students do this work independently. Another station is led by Mr. Garcia, who guides students through the conceptual thinking behind the problems they solve together. Another station is led by Marisol Ruiz, a special educator, who has students think aloud as they solve prob- lems so that she can identify errors in their processes. Over the course of the period, all students visit each station.

Parallel Teaching The parallel teaching model involves two teachers in the same class-

room, each instructing half of the students. There is no diff erence in what is being taught or the teaching methods used.

The primary advantage of parallel teaching is the resulting smaller instructional groups. Smaller groups allow for more dialogue and aff ord teachers a clearer understanding of where individual students are in their learning. This model can also be useful if there are signifi cant behavior challenges, or if the content is new or diffi cult. In fact, any time teachers feel a lower student-to-teacher ratio would be benefi cial, parallel teach- ing is a reasonable consideration.

YourMyOurStudents.indd 92YourMyOurStudents.indd 92 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 9 3

In a co-taught middle school English class, students are divided into two groups for close reading lessons. The text selected is very complex, and the two teachers in this class know that they can support students’ thinking better by reducing the student-teacher ratio for this task. Both groups have the same text and work to answer the same questions in a think-pair-share arrangement. All students still talk with their partners about the questions asked, but each teacher has fewer students to observe and thus more time to devote to listening and follow-up.

One Teach, One Observe In the one teach, one observe model of co-teaching, one teacher takes

the lead in delivering instruction, and the other teacher spends time in purposeful observation. The observing teacher may be observing the instruction, student learning, or behavior. Take, for example, a general and special education co-teaching pair in which the special educator has an instructional strategy she would like to try in the classroom. The gen- eral educator serves in the observer role in order to see the new strategy in action and learn how to use it. The roles could then switch, with the general educator implementing the new strategy and the special educator observing to check for fi delity of the new strategy and provide formative feedback to the general educator.

This model is an ideal choice for teachers to share and learn from one another to build capacity. We should choose this option often! Obser- vation can also be used to collect data on student learning or behavior. Through this co-teaching model, the fi rst teacher can devote attention to the instruction, knowing that the second teacher is collecting the data needed to make future instructional decisions.

Mary Wexford watches her kindergarten students think each day when the special education teacher, Heidi Shaw, leads the learning. Ms. Wexford explained, “When you’re leading the learning, it’s hard to observe the learn- ing and fi gure out where students are getting stuck. Having Ms. Shaw teach

YourMyOurStudents.indd 93YourMyOurStudents.indd 93 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

94 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

and me observe allows us to decide what we need to do in the small-group instruction that will come later.” Ms. Shaw also gets a chance to observe as Ms. Wexford teaches, but her focus is typically on the students with identifi ed disabilities. Ms. Shaw said, “I like to get a sense of how well our supports are working. I watch to see how students are responding to the instruction and to their peers. This helps me fi gure out how I can continu- ally adjust the supports to get better learning outcomes for our students.”

Supplemental Teaching The supplemental teaching model has one teacher in the co-teaching

pair focusing on students who are struggling with a concept or skill and need additional instruction or intervention. Although supplemental teaching diff ers from other co-teaching models in that the two teachers may not be in the same room during delivery, it is still a necessary part of the continuum and it is still co-teaching: both teachers take part in the planning, delivery, and assessment.

A key feature of supplemental instruction is that it never replaces the general curriculum instruction. If a student needs support in writing, that student is not pulled from writing instruction to receive intervention; the student receives the writing instruction from the fi rst teacher as a part of the general curriculum and receives intervention from the second teacher.

One of the decisions teams need to make to deliver this type of co-teaching is when the supplemental instruction will be delivered. Teams should select times when students are engaged in independent work or learning centers. Another consideration for supplemental instruction is how long to continue providing it. Students should receive the supple- mental instruction only as long as it is needed. This model of co-teaching is eff ective for teaching specifi c skills to students who need those skills. Once the student has gained the skill, supplemental instruction on that skill should cease.

There are several students in Maxine Baker’s 1st grade class who have unfi nished learning when it comes to sound-symbol correspondence. The

YourMyOurStudents.indd 94YourMyOurStudents.indd 94 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 9 5

majority of the class is reading decodable texts as part of their small-group learning. While they work independently or in centers, the students who need to learn the sounds for individual letters and blends meet with the special educator, Thom Harper. Students who need assistance with onset and rime patterns meet with Ms. Baker. Through supplemental teach- ing, Ms. Baker and Mr. Harper provide targeted skill development to help every student develop his or her literacy skills.

Alternative Teaching Alternative teaching involves two teachers delivering the same con-

tent but using diff erent methods. The class is divided into two groups, and each group receives the instruction from both teachers—fi rst one, then the other.

Like parallel teaching, this approach carries the advantage of students learning in smaller instructional groups. But unlike parallel teaching, teachers use diff erent instructional methods or strategies, in eff ect giv- ing students double exposure to the content. This model is based on the theory that the teaching methods that are eff ective for one student may not be the most eff ective methods for another student. The calculation is that by using both methods for the full group, fewer students will need supplemental instruction.

The co-teachers of U.S. History II at Panhandle High School like to test instructional methods to see which is more eff ective for their students. For example, during a unit on the political, social, economic, techno- logical, and cultural developments of the 1920s, they identifi ed diff erent strategies they wanted to try for teaching the same set of academic vocab- ulary words. Kayla Thibodeau, the special educator, used a vocabulary self-collection tool with one half of the class, while Tabitha Hanson used word cards with the other. These teachers knew that both approaches had strong evidence of eff ectiveness, but they decided to present the vocabu- lary acquisition as a competition, each telling their respective groups that their strategy was better and that the students would be able to prove it.

YourMyOurStudents.indd 95YourMyOurStudents.indd 95 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

96 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

Team Teaching Team teaching was described by Friend and Cook (2007) as the most

advanced form of co-teaching. Although they presented it as a distinct model, it can also be thought of as the ideal execution of a number of mod- els used in combination. In other words, team teaching is what is deliv- ered by pairs of teachers who have worked together for years and have a deep understanding of each other’s instructional strengths and styles of teaching. To an observer, it is not apparent who is the general educa- tor and who is the special educator. Students, if asked, may not be able to identify the “main” teacher, because both teachers have equal roles and multiple means of delivering co-taught lessons.

Regardless of the model used for collaboration and co-teaching, the adults in the classroom must have a common language of instruction from which to plan learning. They draw on a shared understanding of what constitutes high-quality instruction as they plan and implement learning experiences that build student competence and confi dence. Without this shared framework, co-teachers can be at odds with each other, and students will suff er. Our experience and research suggests that the gradual release of responsibility framework is structured enough to support shared understanding of instructional moves but fl exible enough to allow teachers room to innovate.

The GRR Framework: Providing Common Ground for Eff ective Instruction

You’ve heard it countless times: good teaching is good teaching. For nearly two decades, Doug and Nancy have studied the characteristics and eff ectiveness of a gradual release of responsibility (GRR) instructional framework (see Fisher & Frey, 2014a). This model has its roots in read- ing comprehension and was fi rst described in 1983 by Pearson and Gal- lagher, who articulated a theory of textual understanding that includes

YourMyOurStudents.indd 96YourMyOurStudents.indd 96 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 9 7

read-alouds, shared reading, guided reading, and independent reading. Their theory was then widely applied as a path for reading instruction.

However, some students failed to make progress despite teachers’ good-faith eff orts. Examination of the model led Doug and Nancy to the realization that the missing component was collaborative learning. They expanded the instructional framework across the curriculum, from elementary through high school (see Figure 4.2). They examined the responsiveness of English learners, students identifi ed as high-achieving, students at risk of school failure, and students with IEPs. In all scenarios, classroom instruction improved, and student learning increased (Fisher & Frey, 2003; Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2011).

Here is a condensed look at the four phases of the gradual release of responsibility model.

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY

STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

Focused Instruction

Guided Instruction

Collaborative

Learning

Independent

Learning

“I do it”

“We do it”

“You do it together”

“You do it alone”

Figure 4.2 THE GRADUAL RELEASE OF RESPONSIBILITY INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Source: From Better Learning Through Structured Teaching: A Framework for the Gradual Release of Responsibility, 2nd ed. (p. 3),

YourMyOurStudents.indd 97YourMyOurStudents.indd 97 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/Better-Learning-Through-Structured-Teaching-A-Framework-for-the-Gradual-Release-of-Responsibility-2nd-Edition.aspx

98 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

Focused Instruction: “I Do It.” In this phase of instruction, the teacher assumes the majority of the

cognitive and metacognitive demand. Focused instruction on the part of the teacher should include communicating the lesson’s purpose for learn- ing (sometimes called the learning intention or learning target). Students deserve to know the relevance of what they are learning; telling them, “Because there’s a test next Friday” is not building relevance. Nor does the “purpose” have to be something that leads to world peace. However, when children hear that learning syllables makes it easier to spell, or that being able to calculate slope in mathematics is similar to what skateboarders mentally do when they take a ramp, they have more interest and more reason to learn.

During focused instruction, the teacher may use modeling and think- ing aloud to share expert thinking with students. Modeling demonstrates for students how they might engage with content, and it illustrates how an expert applies concepts and skills. Thinking aloud brings students inside this decision-making process.

Guided Instruction: “We Do It.” In this phase, the teacher releases some of the cognitive responsi-

bility through the use of questions, prompts, and cues. These scaff olds allow students to immerse themselves in new concepts and skills. Guided instruction requires that the teacher listen carefully for and redirect misconceptions but not jump in with a correction. Instead, the teacher might ask a question that directs students to consider their background knowledge (“Let’s think about that carefully. What do you already know is always true of a parallelogram? Does your answer still work?”). If that is not suffi cient, the teacher might provide a cue to overtly shift their atten- tion (“Take a look at the chart on page 32. How are the characteristics of a parallelogram diff erent from a rectangle?”).

YourMyOurStudents.indd 98YourMyOurStudents.indd 98 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 9 9

Collaborative Learning: “You Do It Together.” In this phase, students work together to consolidate their understand-

ing, and in doing so, they use the academic language and the disciplinary thinking and reasoning associated with the subject. Working through a collaborative task exposes students to their own partial understandings, too. How often have you thought you understood something only to dis- cover, when you tried to do it, that there were gaps in your knowledge? The collaborative phase of learning ensures that students aren’t set adrift, trying to fi gure things out on their own.

There are a number of ways to facilitate collaborative learning, such as jigsaws, reciprocal teaching, and think-pair-share. Consider, for exam- ple, when the students in Maria Gonzalez’s class are creating a poster to show what they know about fossils, with each student using an assigned- color marker to make his or her contribution. They are talking with one another, sharing ideas, and then adding to the poster in writing—and cre- ating a record of their individual input to group output.

Independent Learning: “You Do It Alone.” In the independent learning phase, students apply what they have

learned and ask themselves new questions about the topic, undertaking authentic tasks and producing products. This is a time when students are deliberatively practicing what they have been learning.

There are three purposes for independent learning, and the task should be driven by the intent:

• Fluency building to develop automaticity and promote retrieval of information

• Application in diff erent contexts to promote transfer of learning • Spiral review to revisit skills or concepts acquired earlier in the

year to address challenges associated with new content

YourMyOurStudents.indd 99YourMyOurStudents.indd 99 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

100 Your Students, My Students, Our Students

GRR Misconceptions and the Repercussions There are several misconceptions about GRR that are important to

address. First, it is not a framework that is scripted and rigid and that must be followed in a lockstep manner. A lesson might easily begin with independent learning ( bell work posted on the board), followed by guided instruction (debriefi ng the bell work, as the teacher listens for miscon- ceptions and scaff olds thinking). The lesson might then shift to focused learning (sharing the purpose for the lesson and providing direct instruc- tion and modeling) with additional guided instruction, before moving on to collaborative learning as students apply skills in small groups. During the group work, the teacher might be circulating to provide on-the-spot guided instruction to groups that have stalled, before wrapping up the les- son with independent learning in the form of a written or drawn exit slip.

Another misconception is that all four types of learning are not nec- essary components in every lesson—that is to say, it’s fi ne if today’s les- son doesn’t include any independent learning if tomorrow’s will. With the exception of a testing situation in which no teaching is occurring, all four phases of the GRR framework need to be present in every lesson. Ask yourself these questions:

• Is there ever a lesson in which students don’t deserve to know what they are learning?

• Can you conceive of a worthwhile lesson in which you wouldn’t need to scaff old students’ understanding?

• Should students ever be denied the chance to learn with peers because you didn’t get around to preparing discussion prompts or planning collaborative tasks?

• Would there ever be a case in which learners wouldn’t benefi t from practicing a newly taught skill?

When any GRR phase is omitted because it’s viewed as optional, it’s the vulnerable students in the class who pay the steepest price. All four

YourMyOurStudents.indd 100YourMyOurStudents.indd 100 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Collaborate on the Delivery of Instruction and Intervention 1 0 1

instructional moves are crucial for all learners, but especially so for those who are not yet making expected progress. The way to accelerate learning is to create the conditions that allow learning to occur.

Conclusion It’s hard to be part of a team when you behave as if you are a solo act. Arndt and Liles (2010) call this the “separate spheres framework” (p. 15); it’s the “You do your job, and I’ll do mine” mindset. Collaboration is key to the success of inclusive classrooms. Co-teaching models allow more students to experience more success because they have access to more expertise. Students without disabilities enjoy a number of incidental benefi ts when they are prompted, cued, and questioned by a knowledgeable special edu- cator. And students with disabilities benefi t by accessing content exper- tise with appropriate support.

In addition, RTI/MTSS and the GRR framework provide general and special education teachers with a structure for working productively with one another. As we discussed in Chapter 3, instituting truly inclusive practices requires redefi ning the roles and responsibilities of educators. We have stressed in this chapter that educators need to collaborate and that there are systems that allow this new team dynamic to fl ourish. These systems allow an instructional team to focus on each student’s needs, pro- viding quality instruction and interventions as needed. Importantly, it is the means to the ends we really seek, which is for all students to develop skills and habits that they can use beyond the classroom rather than sim- ply earning passing scores on the tasks they are assigned.

YourMyOurStudents.indd 101YourMyOurStudents.indd 101 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Changing the Team Dynamic

The Challenges The SOLUTIONS

Students with disabilities receive

instruction within a general educa-

tion setting but through a restrictive

service delivery model.

The school relies on one-on-one

paraprofessional support to help

students participate.

Special education teachers in

“inclusive” classrooms are

relegated to an assistant

role, with general

education teachers

responsible for most

instruction, communication

with families, and student

assessment and grading.

Interventions and supports focus

on task completion.

Have classroom teachers use service

delivery models that include group

support along with individual support

to realize benefits for all students, with

and without disabilities.

Have paraprofessionals

promote the natural support

of classmates to provide

opportunities for students to

grow academically.

Use a “zone defense” frame-

work to ensure support is

provided to any student who

needs it. Employ a variety

of co-teaching models to

build capacity in all teach-

ers and limit interventions

that remove students from

general education classroom.

Focus interventions and supports

on the skills students need to

develop.

Instruction is fragmented and piece-

meal. The gradual release of respon-

sibility model is not implemented

regularly.

Design learning for all students using

the gradual release of responsibility

model. Vary the order of the phases

to ensure that learning expectations

are met.

Download this graphic at www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/jung2019.pdf

YourMyOurStudents.indd 102YourMyOurStudents.indd 102 8/19/19 5:06 PM8/19/19 5:06 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 9 . A

ss o ci

a tio

n f o r

S u

p e rv

is io

n &

C u rr

ic u lu

m D

e ve

lo p m

e n t. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/jung2019.pdf