EFFICACY OF THE CO-TAUGHT MODEL

OF INCLUSION AT THE TUCKER SCHOOL

MAY 1ST,
2008

Tucker a117 Team:

Drew Echelson, Principal & Section Leader
Stefanie Pushies, Teacher
Liz Shaw Spitz, Teacher
Barbara Tanner, HGSE student
Beverly Halpern, Intern
Rebecca Vyduna, Intern

1
TODAY’S PRESENTATION

• Overview of the
School
• Description of
the Co-taught
Model
• Our Research
• Our Findings
• Acknowledgeme
nts
2
OVERVIEW OF THE TUCKER

OVERVIEW OF THE TUCKER

187 Blue Hills Parkway, Milton, MA

3
 Background
Background
The Tucker is the
smallest school in
the district, yet has
the highest
enrolment of free
and reduced lunch.
The Tucker is also
more diverse than
any other school in
the district.
The Tucker has
made AYP in all
areas in 2007.

4
Demographics

5
Achievement Profile
•The Tucker has made significant improvement over the past year.
•In all grade levels, the Tucker has made AYP
•In all subgroups, the Tucker has made AYP
•Similar trends exist in grades 3 as compared to the graphs below.
Grade 5 has shown less improvement in 2006-2007

6
District Context
Model was first implemented
 in the district in SY 2005-2006 at the Glover
School.
 at the Tucker in SY 2007-2008
Currently, district has 6 Co-taught classrooms
between Glover and Tucker
There are a variety of substantially separate
classrooms throughout the district.
 LEAP, REACH, H.S. ACHIEVE – Students with
significant and multiple disabilities
 Language Based – speech and language
 STEP – Structured Therapeutic Educational
Program
7 ABA – Children on autism spectrum
Basic Elements (1st Grade)
Co-Taught General
Classroo Education

Same
curriculu
m and
pace
Title I, ELL,
OT, PT, and
Speech pull-
out/push-
in

8
FOCUS QUESTION : WHAT IS THE
EFFICACY OF THE CO-TAUGHT MODEL OF
INCLUSION AT TUCKER SCHOOL?
GUIDING QUESTIONS:

•What does achievement data tell us?

•How has the model affected the school
culture?
•What are the model’s strengths and
weaknesses?

9
Gathering Data
INTERVIEWS OBSERVATIONS
12 Parents Variety of lessons
Of co-taught students with
IEPs being taught in co-
Of co-taught students taught Kindergarten
without IEPs
PTO members
and First grade
4 co-taught teachers classrooms.
3 administrators Designed protocol
Co-authored interview for observers to
questions aimed at insure consistency
consistency in
questioning all
constituents.

10
Gathering Data (continued)
SURVEYS QUANTATIVE DATA

Distributed brief Looked at district-

staff survey aimed wide and school-
at understanding wide special
inclusive culture education data
Analyzed various
achievement test
data
Gathered enrollment
and assignment data
11
OUR After
FINDINGS
multiple interviews, observations, and
conversations, there are many findings we would like
to share. For this presentation, we have highlighted
four of the most relevant: two strengths and two
areas for improvement.

OUR FINDINGS
Followed by the evidence gathered and further
recommendations

12
Finding 1:
The co-taught model of
A STEP IN
inclusion is a marked
THE RIGHT
improvement for students
DIRECTION
with special needs
Under this new model, the
Tucker is maximizing their
opportunity to participate
while minimizing the
negative impacts of their
disabilities.
13
Finding 1 Evidence
Interviews
All parents happy
Social competence
Understanding human difference
Easier early intervention
Preferred by teachers
Observations
 High expectations
 Acceptance and respect
Survey
 Positive attitude 

14
Grade 1 Achievement Data

15
Finding 2:
The Tucker community has
SOLID embraced the co-taught
ROOTS model of inclusion.

16
Finding 2 Evidence
Interviews
Parents see positives

Observations
 Differences indistinguishable
 Culture of value

Surveys
Individualized instruction 
Collaboration: greatest benefit & challenge

17
Finding 3: There is a need for
additional support and
FOCUS ON targeted professional
TEACHERS
development for all staff
on the specific skills and
strategies necessary for
full-time collaboration.

18
Finding 3 Evidence
Interviews
Teachers need delineated roles
Tremendous coordination
No specific PD or protocol
Still teacher preferred

Observations
Students pulled out

19
Finding 3 Recommendations
Develop protocol

Provide ongoing support and PD

Clearly define roles and relationships

Develop PD for all adults in the

building
Staff observations of co-taught classes

20
 While the co-taught model is
Finding 4: an invaluable improvement,
the next level of work can be
EXPANDING deepened further.
INCLUSION
Students with special needs
in co-taught classrooms tend
to have disabilities and
needs on the lower end of
the spectrum.
Not all academic programs
have the resources to
include students with
21 disabilities.
Finding 4 Evidence
Interviews
Parents concerned with “models”
District policy

Observations
French immersion not an option
1st grade under capacity

22
Finding 4 Recommendations
Include greater range

Avoid ableist terms

Celebrate success

Collect more data

UDL

23
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you so much to the following people:

Drew Echelson, Tucker Principal

Mary Tipping, Tucker Special Education Team
Chair
Jeff Rubin, Director of Pupil Services
All Tucker Teachers
Tucker Parents
PTO

24
Ask the Audience
Please take out your
cell phones and get
ready to send a text
message to the
number

4141
1
25
26