Ardmore City Schools

1
Ardmore City Schools
Inclusive Education
2
Inclusion District Participants

• Charles Evans Elementary
• Mrs. Denise Brunk, Principal
• Mr. Jake Falvey, Assistant Principal
• Mrs. Kara Wendell, Assistant Principal
• Charles Evans Elementary Teachers and Students
• Jefferson Elementary
• Mrs. Kristie Jessop, Principal
• Jefferson Elementary Teachers and Students
• Lincoln Elementary
• Mrs. Ellen Patty, Principal
• Lincoln Elementary Teachers and Students
• Mr. Sonny Bates,
  Mrs.
  Missy Storm,
• Superintendent
  Assistant
  Superintendent

3
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.

4
The Basic Foundation

• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
• Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
• Services
• Accommodations/Modifications
• 504 or Individual Education Plan (IEP)
• Differentiation

5
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

6
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).

7
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

8

• What Does Inclusion look like?

9

• 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.

10
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)

11
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
  students disability and do not reduce
  learning expectations.

12
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

13
Differentiation

• What 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.

14
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.

15
Did he show differentiation?
16
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
• -Paraprofessionals schedule

17
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.

18
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

19
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 cant 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?

20
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.

21
Staffing, Funding and Transitions

• Personnel - Staffing

• Transitions

• Increase in funding to support the extra
• personnel. ()
• There was a delay in posting the
• positions, interviewing and completing
• the process with board action. With the
• delay there was concern of compliance
• and the IEP.
• Increase of enrollment district wide of
• students on an IEP indicating special
• education teachers being over caseload

• Service times scheduled during restroom breaks
  and transition to elective classes.

22
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?
• Im calling the state department.
• General frustration about where the training will
  come from to help prepare the them for inclusion.

23
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

24
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.

25
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

26
Success

• What does successful Inclusion look like?

27
Including Samuelhttp//www.youtube.com/watch?vr-
Ex0vtklY0
28
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.

29
NWEA Test Scores ComparisonGains and Losses
30
Mathematics Comparisons of Winter 2011 to
Winter 2012Gains and/or Losses Denotes post
inclusion results
Charles Evans Charles Evans Jefferson Jefferson Lincoln Lincoln
WI 2011 WI 2012 WI -2011 WI -2012 WI 2011 WI - 2012
1st Grade 11.1 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
31
Math Gains and/or Losses2011-2012
CE JF LN
1st Grade
2nd Grade -2.1 9.9 -1.3
3rd Grade 4.0 24.0 -4.2
4th Grade 3.7 4.3 2.4
5th 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.
32
Math Gains and/or Losses
33
Reading Comparison of Winter 2011 to Winter
2012Gains and/or Losses
Charles Evans Charles Evans Jefferson Jefferson Lincoln 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
34
Reading Gains and/or Losses2011-2012
CE JF LN
1st Grade
2nd Grade 3.3 -12.2 -2.0
3rd Grade 3.9 17.5 -3.9
4th Grade -3.8 -3.7 2.4
5th Grade 5.6 -2.2 -8.7
Note All grade levels from different sites
showing a gain.
35
Reading Gains and/or Losses2011-2012
36
Projections

• Mathematics 3-Year Projections based on the
  Jefferson Model
• Reading 3-Year Projections based on the Charles
  Evans Model

37
Charles EvansMathematics 3-Year Projected Gains
Charles Evans 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
38
Charles Evans Mathematics 3-Year Projected Gains
39
LincolnMathematics 3-Year Projected Gains
W-11 W-12 W-13 W-14 W-15
1st Grade 7.9 16.5 19.5 20.7
2nd Grade 8.0 6.8 15.4 18.4 19.6
3rd Grade 3.3 0.9 7.7 10.7 11.9
4th Grade 0.4 2.0 10.6 13.6 14.8
5th Grade 7.3 0.3 8.3 11.3 12.5
40
Lincoln Mathematics 3-Year Projection
41
JeffersonMathematics 3 Year Projected Gains
WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-15
1st Grade 8.3 16.9 19.9 21.1
2nd Grade -2.3 7.7 16.3 19.3 20.5
3rd Grade 5.5 29.5 38.1 41.1 42.3
4th Grade 2.5 6.8 15.4 18.4 19.6
5th Grade -24.0 19.0 27.6 30.6 31.8
42
JeffersonMathematics 3 Year Projected Gains
43
Charles EvansReading 3-Year Projected Gains
WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-15
1st Grade 6.8 9.1 10.9 12.1
2nd Grade 3.0 6.3 8.6 10.4 11.6
3rd Grade 4.7 8.7 11.0 12.8 14.0
4th Grade 5.2 1.4 3.7 5.5 6.7
5th Grade -0.8 4.7 7.0 8.8 10.0
44
Charles EvansReading 3-Year Projected Gains
45
LincolnReading 3-Year Projected Gains
WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-15
1st Grade 5.1 7.4 9.3 10.5
2nd Grade 4.5 2.5 4.8 6.7 7.9
3rd Grade 11.3 7.4 9.7 11.6 12.8
4th Grade 3.8 6.2 8.5 10.4 11.6
5th Grade 13.7 5.0 7.3 9.2 10.4
46
LincolnReading 3-Year Projected Gains
47
JeffersonReading 3-Year Projected Gains
WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-15
1st Grade 5.7 8.0 9.9 11.1
2nd Grade 12.5 0.3 2.6 4.5 5.7
3rd Grade -10.5 7.0 9.3 11.2 12.4
4th Grade 8.9 5.2 7.5 9.4 10.6
5th Grade 6.9 4.7 7.0 8.9 10.1
48
JeffersonReading 3-Year Projected Gains
49
5th Grade Student Survey Results
50
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

51
I receive the support I need from my teacher to
succeed academically.

• Agree 91
• Indifferent 6
• Disagree 1

52
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

53
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

54
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

55
Where do we go from here?

• Areas of Concentration
• Professional Development
• Parent Involvement
• Teacher Input

56
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.

57
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

58
Carolyn Thomas, SPED Dir. ACS580.221.3001 (ext.
120)cthomas_at_ardmore.k12.ok.usTracey Lindroth,
OSDE-SES405-521-4881Tracey.Lindroth_at_sde.ok.gov
59
Special Thank You to the following Ardmore
employees

• Lincoln Elementary Teachers and Principals
• Jefferson Elementary Teachers and Principal
• Charles Evans Elementary Teachers and Principal
• Phillip Black, Cornerstone
• Scott Foster, Technology
• Reagan Carroll, Technology
• Ty Carr, Technology
• Courtney Yelton, Technology