Region 8: Akron Area

1. Region 8: Akron Area Integrated Comprehensive Services April 18, 2012 Dr. Elise Frattura Frattura@uwm.edu

2. Today: Part I • Part I. Core Principles and Location-Developing Our Infrastructure • What we Know. … • Setting the Stage • Shifting From Programs to Services • Leading for Social Justice

3. Three Parts • Part II. High Quality Teaching and Learning • Developing Teacher Capacity • Climate and Behavior • Teaching and Learning for All Students • Schools Involvement with Families • Students With Severe Disabilities • Students Who Are English Language Learners • Part III. Leveraging Compliance, Funding, and Policies • Funding • Policy • Compliance

4. Today: Part I • Part I. Core Principles and Location-Developing Our Infrastructure • What we Know. … • Setting the Stage • Shifting From Programs to Services • Leading for Social Justice

5. Handouts: • Segregated Programs to Services • Asking the Necessary Questions • Functions of Teams • New Teacher Teams • Equity Audit • Co-Teaching Planning Document • Evolving Roles • Students with Severe Disabilities • Notes

6. What We Know • District Reform • Often happens in isolation of special education • Special education becomes a separate – almost a contract service provided to the district • Students with disabilities often experience substandard educational opportunities when special education is not part of the initial reform work for a district

7. What We Know • Vision • Often Districts are reactive to State and Federal mandates • Application of services is frequently based on a deficit model • Special Education is perceived as a place versus a service • Perception that students must be clustered into programs in specific schools to meet the needs of high needs students.

8. What We Know • Culture of marginalization • By race • By disability • By language • By poverty

9. What We Know • Achievement Differences • Students with disabilities are 2.5% more likely to drop out of school than their nondisabled peers • Students who are marginalized show a 30% to 70% differential in achievement • Little to no students with disabilities are enrolled in AP courses • Only 2 percent of students with disabilities have a cognitive disability yet, students with disabilities are tracked in low or functional content courses. • The balance of functional and academics – often gets lost.

10. What We Know • Disconnected Instruction and Assessment from Teaching and Learning : • Often disconnected from the core curriculum • Lack a cohesive approach using the common core to prevent student failure • Enveloped in a reaction to failure • Lack of balance of functional skills • Void of comprehensive transition services

11. Setting the Stage Provides us with a common ground – from which to move forward (Handout 1)

13. Title 1 Programs Guidance Programs Programs for Students under Section 504 • General • Education Limited English Speaking Programs Alcohol and Drug Programs Programs for Homeless Children At- Risk Program for HS Students Early Childhood Programs

14. Title 1 Programs Programs for Teenage Parents Guidance Programs Programs for Students under Section 504 Programs for At-Risk Middle School Students • General • Education Limited English Speaking Programs Gifted and Talented Programs Alcohol and Drug Programs Programs for Students with ADHD Programs for Homeless Children At- Risk Program for HS Students Special Education Programs Programs for Nonreaders at the Third Grade Early Childhood Programs

15. Eight Major Problems with Separate Programs : • track and marginalize student of color and students of lower social classes • are costly • require personnel to expend a tremendous amount of resources in determining eligibility ($3000.00) • some students receiving services an others denied • fragment a student’s day • blame and label students • enable educators and students not to change • prevent transfer of educator and student knowledge back to integrated environments

16. Integrated Comprehensive Services for All Learners

20. The Goal: First Intervention is the Right Intervention, Using Universal Design in Tier 1 Integrating Tier 2 and 3 within Tier 1 Preventing a Failure Driven System

21. Bottom line What we know Varied achievement Within student groupings Positively impacts Student achievement – Or the students who Are isolated the most Often are the furthest behind Hnushek, E.,Klin, J., Markman, M., Rivkin, S. (2003) Does Peer Ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics

22. If We Continue to Use Intensive Intervention in Isolation of All Students (Often Suggested in Tier 2 and Tier 3) We will NEVER develop The Capacity of ALL Teachers  Resulting in More and MORE Segregation As we have not shared our own EXPERTISE

23. Services Are: • Primary goal is prevent student failure • Considers range of learners within every classroom and grade/cross grades • Seamlessly tied to and grounded in core teaching and learning • Students receive services with neighborhood peers or school of choice (they do not have to go some place else in district or in school to get services) • No rooms/schools that are set aside for labeled kids (e.g., LD, ED, special education resource, ESL, at-risk, discipline schools)

24. Supports and builds on culturally relevant, differentiated curriculum and instruction • Based on principle of universal access - curriculum is differentiated for needs of all students versus developed and then adapted after the fact • Students do not have to qualify or be labeled to receive an education that meets their needs • Requires teachers and staff to share knowledge and expertise with each other and with students

25. Clustering By Like Disabilities For Groups of Students

26. Heterogeneous Flexible Learning Groups Based on How Each Student Learns. ….

27. Bottom Line: • Integrated Comprehensive services is not about moving special education back into the confines of general education. .. • It is about moving general education and special education (ELL, at-risk, etc) to create a proactive place around all learners • It is not about keeping self-contained classrooms and resource rooms and allowing students with disabilities to go into a general education. ..

28. It is about developing flexible learning groups through out each day for each child – based on who they are and how they learn (whether it is 1:1, small group, or large group instruction) • It is not about some students – and not others. .. i.e., students with severe disabilities, high behavior needs, learning disabilities, autism, . … • It is about reallocating staff to better meet the needs proactively of each and every learner. ..

29. It is not about diminishing teacher capacity and expertise. .. • It is about building teacher capacity and expertise so that students may be part of the norm group of diverse learners • Bottom line – it is about educating each and every learner and building the capacity so that each and every school may honor any child who “belongs”. …

30. At Your Table • Three Parts: • Discuss what you do as a school for all students to be successful • All students learn when. …

31. At Your Table • Three Parts: • Discuss what you do as a school for all students to be successful • All students learn when. … • Go Back – look at your list of what you do and determine what are programs and what are services (use list in ppt)

32. First Things First • Schools and Districts in Support of Integrated Comprehensive Services for ALL Students: • Understand the Vision • Develop Non-Negotiables – how you will measure everything • Define and Align for a Proactive Infrastructure building and district level • Develop Instructional Capacity – ALL Teachers for All Students • Align Common Core - Align IEP’s • Implement Universal Design • Set Heterogeneous Flexible Learning Groups • Then – Develop Teaming Relationships Between Teachers • Reallocate Resources and define Policy to support proactive reform

33. Shifting From Programs to Services Over Lunch - Asking the Necessary Questions (Handout 2)

34. Leadership Teams in Support of Integrated Comprehensive Services (Handout 3 and 4) Team D: District Leadership Team (District Service Delivery Team) Team B: School Leadership Team (School Service Delivery) Team A: School Planning Team Team C: Teacher Teams (Grade Level)

35. District Leadership Team • Suggestions: • A representative from each school’s Building Leadership Team should function on the District Leadership Team- e.g., Principal • Confirm non-negotiables in support of the District Mission • Meet monthly to share progress and challenges. • Support and share expertise to develop each school’s capacity to serve all learners

36. Building Leadership Team • Suggestions: • Formation of this team is essential. • The questions – is not a special education question – but How can we be more comprehensive in a proactive manner? • What does the DATA say about our current model of supporting students? The answer to why we are doing this is in OUR DATA! • Confirm non-negotiables. • Set building infrastructure and service delivery

37. Sample Non-Negotiables for Integrated Comprehensive Services We Believe: • Embrace and support an infrastructure of teaching and learning for All – from District Office to the Schools-to the Grade levels • Proactive services means that students receive what they need based on how they learn without having to go someplace else to get such needs met. Such Beliefs: • Require teachers and staff to share knowledge and expertise with each other and with students – it is about developing the capacity of all teachers • Flexible heterogeneous grouping patterns used throughout day for all students – based on specific learning needs of students and content. • Cross-categorical, cross-discipline (at-risk, ell, gifted, etc)

38. Your Data Tells the Story • See Equity Audit (Handout 5) • At your tables review the data questions - by school – Discuss • What data points do you not ask? • What questions should you ask that you don’t? • Any others – specific to your school/district? • Example – percent of students of poverty/disability or ELL in AP classes -

39. Building Leadership Team: The What Draw or tell the story regarding the current manner in which your school supports students who are not successful in general education.

42. School Leadership Team What would your future model look like? How would you arrange your staff design teams? By grade level, academy, units, etc. Compare your current delivery structure to the table that describes programs versus services. If you provide more fragmented programs than services, discuss instructional time, teachers ability to teach to a range of students, etc.

44. Building Leadership Team • Align your proactive support services to the current general education structure within the school • Determine how many students are in each unit (grade, academy, department, etc) that has needs • Delineate how many staff are available to realign to a new structure • Expect the sharing of expertise through capacity building and staff development • Does it align to your non- negotiables – are you stuck in some – but not all language?

46. Teacher Teams: Things to think about: Limit the number of general ed. teachers in order to increase support to teachers and students Balance the clustering of student needs - keep in mind natural proportions Discuss the types of teams and what would work in particular settings throughout the day Co-Teaching is organized after the infrastructure for service delivery is arranged Special education teachers supporting students with significant behavior challenges must think about this before committing to a team teaching situation over a turn taking or consult.

47. Teacher Teams Review Sample Schedule - What needs do teachers have? Such as: • Need for co-planning • Flexible Learning Groups By Interest/then Needs • Teaming across Disciplines • Functional Skills for Students with Significant Needs • Behavior • Developing universal access to curriculum • Assessment • Autism • Other specific needs regarding types of learners • Content matter, etc

49. Principles of Universal Design • There is no ‘one size fits all’; we need to provide alternatives. • Need to consider users’ needs and include these considerations in the design from the beginning • The word "universal" does NOT mean there is a single solution that works for everyone • Universal Design cast a broad net around all learners based on how students learn.

50. Differentiation • Teaching with student variance in mind as the first intervention rather than adopting a standardized approach to teaching which assumes that all learners of a given age/grade are alike. • Proactive planning of varied approaches to what students need to learn, how they will learn it, and/or how they can express their understandings