Download - Ardmore City Schools
Ardmore City Schools
Inclusive Education
Inclusion District ParticipantsCharles Evans Elementary
Mrs. Denise Brunk, PrincipalMr. Jake Falvey, Assistant Principal
Mrs. Kara Wendell, Assistant PrincipalCharles Evans Elementary Teachers and Students
Jefferson ElementaryMrs. Kristie Jessop, Principal
Jefferson Elementary Teachers and Students
Lincoln ElementaryMrs. Ellen Patty, Principal
Lincoln Elementary Teachers and Students
Mr. Sonny Bates, Mrs. Missy Storm,
Superintendent Assistant Superintendent
What is inclusion?
Inclusion is the welcoming and acceptance of all students to participate in the general education classroom without being separated from their peers.
The Basic Foundation Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Services Accommodations/Modifications 504 or Individual Education Plan (IEP) Differentiation
Free Appropriate Public Education
FAPE is defined as “the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet individual needs of handicapped persons as well as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met and based on adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in the law.” 34 CFR 300.101
Least Restrictive Environment
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
34 C.F.R. §300.114(a)].
Why are we participating in inclusion at Ardmore City
Schools?
Higher expectations for student participation Reduce transition between classes Implementation of Common Core Standards Overuse of Oklahoma Modified Alternative
Assessment Program (OMAAP) in the state of Oklahoma
Phasing out of the OMAAP assessment in math and reading
Rigorous instruction in general education classrooms
What Does Inclusion look like?
Every educator is committed to the goal of helping all students achieve their potential.
There is cohesive cooperation among all teachers.
Special education does not exist as a separate entity.
Differentiation is considered the rule, not the exception.
The term inclusion is rarely needed because it is such an integral part of the school culture.
What instructional strategies are in place for inclusion at Ardmore
City Schools?
Curriculum Mapping Teacher Collaboration Title Programs REAC3H Increase in personnel Technology Advancement Via Individual
Determination (AVID)
Accommodations Accommodations – Changes in materials
or procedures that enable students to meaningfully access instruction and assessment. Assessment accommodations do not change the construct that is being measured.
•Accommodations mediate the effects of a student’s disability and do not reduce
learning expectations.
Modifications Modifications – Changes in materials or
procedures that enable students to access instruction and assessment. Assessment modifications do change the construct that is being measured.
•Modifications create challenges for assessment validity
DifferentiationWhat is it? Consistently using a variety of
instructional approaches to modify content, process, and/or products in response to learning readiness and interest of academically diverse students
Tomlinson, C. (2009). The goals of differentiation. In M. Scheerer, Ed. Supporting the whole child: Reflections on best practices in teaching, learning, and leadership. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, pp3-11.
Why is it important?
Regardless of ability level, the majority of students are spending more and more time within a general education setting. With this trend comes a vast level of student interests, readiness and learning styles and therefore teachers need to accommodate their curriculum to meet the needs of ALL students.
Challenges during our journey…
Scheduling, IEP Content and Paperwork
-Special Education Teachers daily schedules
-Paraprofessionals schedules
-General Education Teachers class schedules
-The service pages of the IEP had to be reviewed and revised.
-There were inconsistencies with the IEP correlating with the class schedules and special education teacher
-Paraprofessional’s schedule
Parent and teacher concerns
Parents who did not agree with inclusion. Difficulty explaining inclusion to parents.
Parents requesting their child continue to be “pulled out” of the general education classroom.
Parents’ complaints with the state department.
How Students with Disabilities are being supported in an inclusive classroom
General education and special education teachers who were not confident in the process of inclusion.
Special education teachers no longer have “their own classroom.”
Services Page of the IEP(Continuum of Placement)
Regular class full time (more than 80% of the day)
Part time classes (40-79% of the day including lab/resource)
Less than 40% of the day in a regular setting
Separate class (full time) Special school/homebound/correctional
facility
Questions of accountability
Who teaches what? What is the role of the paraprofessional? Are the paraprofessionals co-teaching? Transition from the OMAAP to OCCT “They can’t pass that test. Why do they have to take the
regular test.” Teacher referrals for initial Specific Learning Disabilities
(SLD) and Intellectual Disabilities (ID) Increase in the ID classrooms. Put all ID students in the ID classroom iPads, what if the general education students break one of
my iPads?
Who is responsible? Who is really the teacher of record?
Who assigns the grades?
Who will be accountable for their OCCT/OMAAP test scores?
Board Meeting attendance increased from the general public mostly consisting of the general education teachers who were in protest of inclusion.
Staffing, Funding and Transitions
PERSONNEL - STAFFING TRANSITIONSIncrease in funding to support the extrapersonnel. ($$$)
There was a delay in posting thepositions, interviewing and completingthe process with board action. With thedelay there was concern of complianceand the IEP.
Increase of enrollment district wide ofstudents on an IEP indicating specialeducation teachers being over caseload
Service times scheduled during restroom breaks and transition to elective classes.
General Education teacher concerns about discipline of students with disabilities (SWD)
Lack of confidence in behavioral procedures for SWD. General education teachers are no longer allowed to send the
students with an IEP to the resource room for a time-out. Teachers sense of being unqualified to deal with this population. It takes most of my day to give them extra instruction. Consistency of district policy of discipline for SWD. Who is making the modifications for these students? I’m calling the state department. General frustration about where the training will come from to
help prepare the them for inclusion.
Teacher Apprehensions LIMITATIONS BENEFITS
Distractions to the nondisabled students by having the extra person in the classroom talking at the same time.
Students on an IEP will not ask for help.
Grouping all students with an IEP together in the seating chart.
Access to curriculum Inclusive learning with same
age peers Smaller teacher-student
ratio (due to 2 teachers) therefore access to immediate clarification
Better opportunity to include students who are considered “at risk”
504 Plans vs. the IEP Not all students who have disabilities require
specialized instruction.
For students with disabilities who do require specialized instruction, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) controls the procedural requirements, and an IEP is developed.
The IDEA process is more involved than that of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and requires documentation of measurable growth on the IEP.
Why a 504 Plan? For students with disabilities who do not require specialized
instruction but need the assurance that they will receive equal access to public education and services, a document is created to outline their specific accessibility requirements.
Students with 504 Plans do not require specialized instruction, but, like the IEP, a 504 Plan should be updated annually to ensure that the student is receiving the most effective accommodations for his/her specific circumstances
https://www.washington.edu/doit/Stem/articles?52
SuccessWhat does successful Inclusion
look like?
Including Samuelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Ex0vtklY0
The Framework For Inclusion and Co-Teaching to be
successful, a framework needs to be in place. This includes a vision and mission statement as well as a step by step process, timeline and who is responsible for each specific area of the program.
NWEA Test Scores ComparisonGains and Losses
Charles Evans Jefferson LincolnWI – 2011
WI – 2012
WI -2011 WI -2012
WI – 2011
WI - 2012
1st
Grade11.1 8.3 *7.9
2nd Grade
6.6 *4.5 -2.3 *7.7 8.0 *6.8
3rd Grade
4.5 *8.5 5.5 *29.5 3.3 *-0.9
4th Grade
1.7 *5.4 2.5 *6.8 -0.4 *2.0
5th Grade
3.5 *2.2 -24.0 *19.0 7.3 *-0.3
Mathematics: Comparisons of Winter 2011 to Winter 2012Gains and/or Losses
* Denotes post inclusion results
Math – Gains and/or Losses2011-2012
CE JF LN1st Grade2nd Grade -2.1 9.9 -1.33rd Grade 4.0 24.0 -4.24th Grade 3.7 4.3 2.45th Grade -1.2 43.0 -7.7
Note: Gains at all three sites in 4th grade level.Note: Gains at all grade levels at Jefferson.
Math – Gains and/or Losses
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-2.1
4 3.7
-1.2
9.9
24
4.3
43
-1.3 -4.2
2.4
-7.7
CE JF LN
2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
Reading: Comparison of Winter 2011 to Winter 2012
Gains and/or LossesCharles Evans Jefferson Lincoln
WI – 2011
WI – 2012
WI – 2011
WI – 2012
WI – 2011
WI – 2012
1st Grade
*6.8 *5.7 *5.1
2nd Grade
3.0 *6.3 12.5 *0.3 4.5 *2.5
3rd Grade
4.7 *8.7 -10.5 *7.0 11.3 *7.4
4th Grade
5.2 *1.4 8.9 *5.2 3.8 *6.2
5th Grade
-0.8 *4.7 6.9 *4.7 13.7 *5.0
Reading – Gains and/or Losses2011-2012
CE JF LN1st Grade2nd Grade 3.3 -12.2 -2.03rd Grade 3.9 17.5 -3.94th Grade -3.8 -3.7 2.45th Grade 5.6 -2.2 -8.7
Note: All grade levels from different sites showing a gain.
Reading – Gains and/or Losses2011-2012
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
3.3 3.9
-3.8
5.6
-12.2
17.5
-3.7 -2.2-2-3.9
2.4
-8.7
CEJFLN
2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
ProjectionsMathematics 3-Year Projections based on the Jefferson Model
Reading 3-Year Projections based on the Charles Evans
Model
Charles EvansMathematics 3-Year Projected Gains
Charles Evans
WI – 2011
WI – 2012
WI – 2013
WI – 2014
WI – 2015
1st Grade
11.1 19.7 22.7 23.9
2nd Grade
6.6 4.5 13.1 16.1 17.3
3rd Grade
4.5 8.5 17.1 20.1 21.3
4th Grade
1.7 5.4 14.0 17.0 18.2
5th Grade
3.5 2.2 10.8 13.8 15.0
Charles Evans Mathematics 3-Year Projected Gains
1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade0
5
10
15
20
25
30
W-11W-12W-13W-14W-15
LincolnMathematics 3-Year Projected Gains
W-11 W-12 W-13 W-14 W-151st Grade 7.9 16.5 19.5 20.72nd Grade 8.0 6.8 15.4 18.4 19.63rd Grade 3.3 0.9 7.7 10.7 11.94th Grade 0.4 2.0 10.6 13.6 14.85th Grade 7.3 0.3 8.3 11.3 12.5
Lincoln Mathematics 3-Year Projection
1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 0
5
10
15
20
25
W-11W-12W-13W-14W-15
JeffersonMathematics 3 Year Projected
GainsWI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-15
1st Grade 8.3 16.9 19.9 21.12nd Grade -2.3 7.7 16.3 19.3 20.53rd Grade 5.5 29.5 38.1 41.1 42.34th Grade 2.5 6.8 15.4 18.4 19.65th Grade -24.0 19.0 27.6 30.6 31.8
JeffersonMathematics 3 Year Projected Gains
1st Grade 2nd Grade
3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
WI-11WI-12WI-13WI-14WI-15
Charles EvansReading 3-Year Projected Gains
WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-151st Grade 6.8 9.1 10.9 12.12nd Grade 3.0 6.3 8.6 10.4 11.63rd Grade 4.7 8.7 11.0 12.8 14.04th Grade 5.2 1.4 3.7 5.5 6.75th Grade -0.8 4.7 7.0 8.8 10.0
Charles EvansReading 3-Year Projected Gains
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5-202468
10121416
WI-11WI-12WI-13WI-14WI-15
LincolnReading 3-Year Projected Gains
WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-151st Grade 5.1 7.4 9.3 10.52nd Grade 4.5 2.5 4.8 6.7 7.93rd Grade 11.3 7.4 9.7 11.6 12.84th Grade 3.8 6.2 8.5 10.4 11.65th Grade 13.7 5.0 7.3 9.2 10.4
LincolnReading 3-Year Projected Gains
1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
WI-11WI-12WI-13WI-14WI-15
JeffersonReading 3-Year Projected Gains
WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-151st Grade 5.7 8.0 9.9 11.12nd Grade 12.5 0.3 2.6 4.5 5.73rd Grade -10.5 7.0 9.3 11.2 12.44th Grade 8.9 5.2 7.5 9.4 10.65th Grade 6.9 4.7 7.0 8.9 10.1
JeffersonReading 3-Year Projected Gains
1st Grade 2nd Grade
3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
WI-11WI-12WI-13WI-14WI-15
5th Grade Student Survey Results
I believe having students who learn differently than me in the same classroom as
me has been rewarding for me and for the students who learn differently.
Agree 48% Indifferent 44% Disagree 6%
Agree
Neithe
r
Disagre
e0
10
20
30
40
50
60
I receive the support I need from my teacher to succeed academically.
Agree 91% Indifferent 6% Disagree 1%
Agree
Neithe
r
Disagre
e0
102030405060708090
100
I believe that having the students who learn differently than me in the same classroom as me
takes away from my learning experience.
Agree 9% Indifferent 38% Disagree 51%
Agree
Neithe
r
Disagre
e0
10
20
30
40
50
60
I have developed friendships with students who learn differently than me and students who learn
the same as me.
Agree 74% Indifferent 19% Disagree 5%
Agree
Neithe
r
Disagre
e0
1020304050607080
I have had a good experience learning in the same classroom as students who learn the same as me and students who learn differently as me.
Agree 61% Indifferent 33% Disagree 3%
Agree
Neithe
r
Disagre
e0
10203040506070
Where do we go from here?Areas of
Concentration:
Professional Development
Parent Involvement
Teacher Input
Professional Development and Teacher InputTeachers and Paraprofessionals
Encourage teacher participation in training opportunities for co-teaching, inclusion, DLM, by participating in the webinars and on-site trainings.
Develop trainings for paraprofessionals to expand their knowledge of inclusion, co-teaching and the standards.
Conduct Fall and Spring teacher surveys and compare the results. Invite comments and suggestions.
Parent Involvement
Encourage parental participation at Parent
Power Nights offered by the district.
Include excerpts of successful inclusion in the
principals newsletters
Conduct parent surveys for pre and post survey
results
Carolyn Thomas, SPED Dir. ACS580.221.3001 (ext. 120)
Tracey Lindroth, OSDE-SES405-521-4881
Special Thank You to the following Ardmore employees
Lincoln Elementary Teachers and PrincipalsJefferson Elementary Teachers and PrincipalCharles Evans Elementary Teachers and
PrincipalPhillip Black, CornerstoneScott Foster, TechnologyReagan Carroll, TechnologyTy Carr, TechnologyCourtney Yelton, Technology
