FBISD PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW FORM · 2017-02-01 · LGE 1 1 of 1 SOE 3 2 of 3 HRE 1 0 of 1 SE 2 0...

Special Education A comprehensive update on

Co-Teach support services

FORT BEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Board Workshop, January 9, 2017

DRAFT

D R A F T January 9, 2017 of 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................2 FORT BEND ISD CORE BELIEFS AND COMMITMENTS .............................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................4 REVIEW OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES PRESENTATION .................................................................................4

PHASES OF CO-TEACH IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................4 CO-TEACH IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................5

TIMELINE OF EVENTS .....................................................................................................................5 DATA REVIEW.....................................................................................................................................8

CO-TEACH DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................8 CO-TEACH OBSERVATION TOOL ......................................................................................................9 CRITICAL ELEMENTS WALK THROUGH DATA .................................................................................. 11 CHECKPOINT DATA REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 11

STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 13 INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION STAGE ................................................................................................. 13 FULL IMPLEMENTATION STAGE .................................................................................................... 16

SUCCESS STORIES ............................................................................................................................. 16 SECONDARY ................................................................................................................................ 16 ELEMENTARY ............................................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................................... 17 CO-TEACH DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION .................................................................................... 17 CO-TEACH OBSERVATION TOOL .................................................................................................... 19 SAMPLE ELEMENTARY CO-TEACH CRITICAL ELEMENTS CHECKLIST .................................................. 20 SAMPLE SECONDARY CO-TEACH CRITICAL ELEMENTS CHECKLIST .................................................... 22 CHECKPOINT SPECIAL EDUCATION DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 24 COORDINATED SUPPORT PLAN ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EXAMPLES......................................... 25

DRAFT

D R A F T January 9, 2017

of 26

FORT BEND ISD CORE BELIEFS AND COMMITMENTS The Fort Bend Independent School District (Fort Bend ISD) Board of Trustees and Superintendent developed and adopted Core Beliefs and Commitments, a Mission and a Vision for the District. These beliefs, commitments, mission and vision guide all that we do in Fort Bend ISD (FBISD).

DRAFT


INTRODUCTION The Co-Teach model is a research based effective model allowing general and special educators to differentiate and deliver instruction with assurances that all students have full access to the grade-level expectations within the general curriculum. Co-teaching is a learning environment in which two FBISD certified professionals

1. share the responsibility of lesson planning,2. share the delivery of instruction,3. share the progress monitoring for all students assigned to their classroom.

Effective co-teachers have an unwavering belief that a teacher’s primary responsibility is to help every student succeed. It takes time to develop this level of collaboration and partnership. The Special Education Department is committed to supporting, coaching and building capacity in identified collaborative partnerships on every campus.

REVIEW OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES PRESENTATION

In 2015, the Special Education Department provided the Board of Trustees an update on Special Education services in FBISD. This update focused on the nine priority goals in need of improvement. Priority Goal #5 identified the need for individualized inclusive practices that result in access and equity for students receiving special education services. In an effort to increase the continuum of services, and promote individualized inclusive practices at every campus, the Co-Teach Initiative was proposed.

PHASES OF CO-TEACH IMPLEMENTATION

PHASE 1

The Special Education Department began campus visits to determine current collaborative practices. Campus leaders were trained on an overview of collaborative practices including effective use of accommodations/modifications to support students in inclusive settings. In the Fall 2015, each campus conducted individual reviews of all students receiving special education services with In-Class Support and Specialized Support via resource services to determine a recommendation for Co-Teach services. Campuses met with Special Education Coordinators to review the data and assist in making student-centered decisions. This data was used to guide ARD committees in making appropriate recommendations for students.

PHASE 2

In the Spring 2016, the Special Education Department prioritized campuses in need of intensive support to implement the Co-Teach model. Based on the data collected, staff development was developed for late spring and summer on topics to support more inclusive models of instruction. Authentic Collaboration sessions were held in the Summer 2016 and additional sessions were held in the Fall 2016 for newly identified Co-Teach partnerships.

The data collected from each campus was used to determine staffing needs to move to a Co-Teach Model. Staffing guidelines included no more than:

33% of students receiving special education services should be served with Co-Teach support

10-12% of students receiving special education services with In-Class Support.

The move to Co-Teach assists in limiting the amount of students served in the resource setting.

DRAFT


PHASE 3

Staffing recommendations were made in the late Spring 2016 to Board of Trustees for additional FTEs of teachers and paraprofessionals. Campuses began to hold ARD meetings in August 2016 to initiate the Co-Teach model. Campuses were required to provide Co-Teach in a minimum of one grade level or one subject area based on the student-centered decision making process.

Based on data gathered in the Fall 2016, the Special Education Department will prioritize campuses to receive additional learning walks, coaching, modeling, and support. Classrooms that can serve as models for the district will also be identified. Special Education leaders will analyze data including LRE data, Checkpoint Data, Classroom Observations, Critical Elements Walk-Throughs and STAAR data to determine the effectiveness of the Co-Teach Model. The Special Education Administration team will meet with campuses two times during the Fall semester to develop Coordinated Support plans to assist campuses with the implementation of the Co-Teach service delivery model.

CO-TEACH IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE OF EVENTS

DATE ACTION

February 15, 2016 Board Presentation Discussion Points: Presentation was presented to the Board ofTrustees outlining Phases of Co-Teach

April 1 – May 30, 2016 Elementary Master Schedule Training

Discussion Points:

Stetson & Associates with FBISD SpecialEducation Administrative staff conducted 30 on-site elementary campus trainings Student data was reviewed and possible Co-Teach grade level / content areas identified

Master schedules were developed based uponsuggested Co-Teach needs

DRAFT


DATE ACTION

May 11 & 12, 2016 Secondary Master Schedule Training Discussion Points:

Stetson & Associates with FBISD SpecialEducation Administrative Team conducted a fullday PD on developing a master schedule tosupport Co-Teach

All secondary campuses were represented by acampus designee

June 6 – August 12, 2016 Authentic Collaboration Summer PD

Discussion Points:

Stetson & Associates conducted 8 sessions

Special Education Administrative Teamconducted 4 sessions

354 attendeesAugust 4, 2016 Principals Presentation Discussion Points:

2016-17 Co-Teach expectation of 1 grade level /1 content area was reviewed

Importance of common planning was reinforced

Campus Administrative role in implementationwas reviewed

Special Education Administrative Team role inimplementation was reviewed

August 12 – 14, 2016 Authentic Collaboration NTO & Before School PD

Discussion Points:

Special Education Administrative Teamconducted 6 sessions

Each campus notified of teachers that requiredtraining

Sessions created for Elementary / Secondarywhich provided more targeted discussion

92 AttendeesSeptember 29, 2016 Principals Meeting Discussion Points:

1 hour presentation of Authentic Collaborationdeveloped for Administrators Co-Teach goals reviewed

1. Improved LRE data2. Improved student outcomes

October 6 – March 15 Campus Instructional Coaching Discussion Points Stetson & Associates is leading InstructionalCoaching on 25 campuses

Special Education Administrative Team is leadingInstructional Coaching on 47 campuses

November 3 & March 2 Co-Teach Job Alike Discussion Points:

After School PD for Co-Teach Partnerships

Elementary, Middle and High School sessions formore targeted discussion and learningopportunities

DRAFT


DATE ACTION

December 8, 2016 Master Schedule TOT Discussion Points:

Stetson & Associates provide Special EducationAdministrative Team training on master scheduledevelopment utilizing technology

March 20 – July, 2017 Campus Master Schedule Collaboration

Discussion Points:

Campuses identify Co-Teach partnerships for2017-18

Develop Master Schedule based upon currentinformation

Develop PD plan for identified new partnershipsand existing partnerships

January 15 & May 31 Survey Analysis Discussion Points:

Survey created in collaboration with theDepartment of Innovation and ContinuousImprovement measuring:

1. Special Education Teacher knowledge anduse of curricular resources relevant tocontent teaching

2. Relationship Scale to addresscharacteristics of co-teachers such asattitudes, beliefs, and personalcharacteristics

Preliminary M.O.Y. participation resultsindicate 178 responses out of 350 surveys:67 General Education & 111 SpecialEducation

DRAFT


DATA REVIEW CO-TEACH DEMOGRAPHICS

In July 2016, campus administrators identified the Co-Teach partnerships selected based upon their campus needs. The Special Education Department is maintaining a data system that indicates the identified Co-Teach partnerships: grade level, content areas, instructional time, weekly common planning time, trainings attended, and campus Instructional Coaching participation. The table below summarizes the demographic information including number of sections and common planning by level.

ELEMENTARY CO-TEACH SECTIONS

Campus Total Sections Common Planning Campus Total Sections Common Planning

AE 3 3 of 3 LLE 1 1 of 1

APE 1 0 of 1 LCE 1 1 of 1

BPE 1 0 of 1 VCME 1 0 of 1

BRE 1 0 of 1 ME 2 1 of 2

BBE 2 2 of 2 MBE 3 2 of 3

BGE 1 0 of 1 MGE 2 2 of 2

BE 3 3 of 3 MWE 1 1 of 1

CBE 1 1 of 1 OE 1 1 of 1

CME 1 1 of 1 OCE 3 2 of 3

CWE 1 1 of 1 PE 1 1 of 1

CSE 1 1 of 1 PGE 2 2 of 2

RDE 4 4 of 4 QVE 1 1 of 1

DE 3 3 of 3 RGE 1 1 of 1

AFE 2 0 of 2 RME 4 4 of 4

EGE 2 2 of 2 RPE 1 1 of 1

LGE 1 1 of 1 SOE 3 2 of 3

HRE 1 0 of 1 SE 2 0 of 2

HE 7 4 of7 JSE 2 2 of 2

MHE 1 0 of 1 SWE 2 1 of 2

HGE 2 1 of 2 SCE 8 8 of 8

EAJ 1 1 of 1 ASE 1 1 of 1

BJE 1 1 of 1 TWE 1 0 of 1

LVE 1 1 of 1 WSE 1 1 of 1

Elementary Collaborative Partnerships = 87 Elementary Weekly Common Planning Time = 66 YES / 21 NO

DRAFT


SECONDARY CO-TEACH SECTIONS

Campus Total Sections Common Planning Campus Total Sections Common Planning

BMS 4 2 of 4 AHS 4 0 of 4

JBMS 2 0 of 4 BHS 18 2 of 18

DCMS 7 1 of 7 CHS 3 0 of 3

DMS 1 1 of 1 DHS 3 3 of 3

FCMS 2 2 of 2 EHS 3 2 of 3

FSMS 2 2 of 2 KHS 2 0 of 2

GMS 4 2 of 4 MHS 3 0 of 3

HBMS 7 4 of 7 RPHS 13 8 of 13

LOMS 2 2 of 2 THS 2 0 of 2

CMMS 7 5 of 7 WHS 5 3 of 5

MCMS 14 8 of 14

QVMS 7 4 of 7

SMS 8 4 of 8

SLMS 1 1 of 1

Middle School Collaborative Partnerships = 68 High School Collaborative Partnerships = 87 Weekly Common Planning Time = 38 YES / 30 NO Weekly Common Planning Time = 18 YES / 38 NO

CO-TEACH OBSERVATION TOOL

The Co-Teach observation tool is a simple tool in which Program Specialists can document Co-Teach observations. The tool is a Google survey which uploads into a spreadsheet for easy data analysis. The se observations will assist specialists in identifying current phases of Co-Teach and will serve to encourage partnerships to utilize all Co-Teach approaches in their instructional delivery. At this time, the data is consistent with typical partnerships functioning at the beginning stages where they are currently building and developing relationships.

Program Specialists serve as instructional coaches to identified partnerships. Through Instructional Coaching, the Special Education Administrative Team will provide teachers the knowledge, tools and motivation to incorporate more effective Co-Teach approaches into their daily instruction.

CO-TEACH APPROACHES OBSERVED

One Teach - One Observe = 1 Alternative Teaching = 11

Parallel Teaching = 13 Station Teaching = 21

Team Teaching = 18 One Teach - One Assist = 100

DRAFT


Stetson and Associates, 2016

DRAFT


CRITICAL ELEMENTS WALK THROUGH DATA

The Co-Teach Critical Elements Walk Through form was created to identify key elements that should be occurring in a Co-Teach classroom. The elements were aligned to T-TESS so teachers and administrators could see how the elements aligned with the T-TESS rubric. This tool is not used in the T-TESS evaluation of individual teachers but is a tool to help build strong collaborative partnerships and individual teacher capacity. The walk through form mirrors the components of effective collaboration identified in the teacher surveys to document the generalization of teacher’s attitudes and beliefs to actual classroom practice. The Critical Elements Walk Through form will be completed by the Special Education Administrative Team and available for campus administrator use this school year. The data gathered from this qualitative evaluation tool will identify the effectiveness of the identified Co-Teach partnerships and assist in identifying specific future training needs.

CHECKPOINT DATA REVIEW

The first round of district Checkpoints was completed at the end of the 1st 9 weeks grading period. The Special Education Department has analyzed the data including overall district information and campus specific data such as: passing rate by campus, special education student participation rate, and comparative information between the campus special education and general education population. The data will be shared with principals during the second round of Coordinated Support Plan meetings; which are used to develop a collaborative plan among the principal and an Assistant Director or Program Manager of Special Education.

District data review guiding questions:

1. How well did students receiving special education services perform?

2. Are our programs producing student learning?

3. Are we on target for meeting our goals (DIP / PBMAS) for “Satisfactory” performance in the content area assessed?

4. Which schools need more assistance?

Campuses / Program data review guiding questions:

1. Any patterns / questions emerge from the campus data? (s/w in content areas, grade levels…)

2. Are your teachers and instructional strategies producing positive results in specialized settings?

3. Is there a need for re-allocation of department resources (time / $) in support of instruction?

4. What do teachers (campus / program based) need to ensure student competence?

5. What specific Professional Development can assist?

DRAFT


3% 0% 1%

33%24%

33%

14%19%

23%13% 15%

75%

73%70%

51% 44%

SPED

Pas

sin

g R

ate

| A

ll St

ud

en

ts P

assi

ng

Rat

e

Grade / Content

High School Special EducationOctober & November Checkpoint Summary

8%

20%

14%

4%

16% 18%

11% 10%

36%

59%

14% 26%

55%

18%

51%49%

SPED

Pas

sin

g R

ate

| A

ll St

ud

en

ts P

assi

ng

Rat

e

Grade / Content

Middle School Special EducationOctober Checkpoint Summary

DRAFT


STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION

INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION STAGE

Full implementation of the Co-Teach model is based upon a longitudinal plan spanning 3 – 5 years. At this time, FBISD is in the Initial Implementation Stage where Co-Teach is being used for the first time. During this stage, teachers and staff are attempting to use newly acquired skills in the context of their daily instruction. According to the National Implementation Research Network, this is the most fragile stage where “the awkwardness associated with trying new things and the difficulties associated with changing old ways of teaching are strong motivations for giving up and going back to comfortable routines (business as usual).”

As was anticipated, the Initial Implementation Stage has proven to be a real challenge. The Special Education Department’s focus is to provide external support to help establish and sustain change to the point of effective integration into daily instruction through the support of instructional coaches. The Special Education Administrative Team members (Directors, Program Managers and Specialists) are committed to developing teacher competencies and assisting administrators with adjusting the campus culture, and organizing roles and functions to align with the Co-Teach philosophy.

In an effort to operationalize the Co-Teach model; goals, objectives and effectiveness measures have been drafted for the Initial Implementation stage. Each year, clear goals and objectives will be evaluated, created, and adjusted as needed to ensure the overall success of the Co-Teach service delivery model remains a priority.

16%12%

24% 26%

16%

25%20%

47%

42%

54%

63%

60%

61%

47%

SPED

Pas

sin

g R

ate

| A

ll St

ud

en

ts P

assi

ng

Rat

e

Grade / Content

ELEMENTARY SPECIAL EDUCATIONOCTOBER CHECKPOINT SUMMARY

DRAFT


Co-Teach IEP for Initial Implementation Current Information Goal Measurable Objective Effectiveness Measures

There is limited knowledge of Co-Teach philosophy and establishing an inclusive culture on the campus amongst staff in both general and special education.

Inclusion: All teachers and administrators will clearly understand the philosophy of effective Co-Teach practices.

Partnerships will utilize aweekly collaboration time

Partnerships will utilizemultiple Co-Teachapproaches in their dailyinstruction

Administrators will identify effective existingpartnerships and newpartnerships based uponinterest and compatibility forthe 17-18 school year by May2017.

Teacher Schedules

Co-Teach ObservationData

17-18 Master Schedule

Students receiving special education services are not meeting "Satisfactory" standards on state assessments for all content areas assessed.

Student Outcomes: All students receiving special education services will demonstrate an increase on Index 2 of STAAR in all content areas assessed.

Students will receive rigorouscontent instruction tomaximize learning.

2017 STAAR Index 2

PBMAS and System Safeguards data indicates students are receiving special education services in more restrictive instructional settings.

LRE: PBMAS and System Safeguards data will reflect students receiving special education services are in less restrictive settings.

Campus data will reflect morestudents receiving directcontent instruction in thegeneral education setting.

PBMAS Indicators 6 & 7as reflected on Campus& District QuarterlySpecial EducationReport Card

Special Education Administrative Team was primarily observing and supporting campuses based upon need (e.g., responding to behavior concerns, high profile case monitoring…).

Coaching: Special Education Administrative Team will provide coaching and support for all identified stakeholders (e.g., general education teachers, special education teachers, administration).

Provide PD for new partnerships

Provide instructional coaching to partnerships to build their capacity in using effective Co-Teach approaches as part of their instructional delivery

Provide PD for existingpartnerships to increase rigorand build capacity

Assist with identifying potential problem areas

Develop action plans tointervene / remediateproblem areas

Authentic CollaborationPD

Campus InstructionalCoaching rosters

Summer 2017 PD

Co-Teach ObservationData

Critical Elements Walk-Throughs and CampusCoordinated SupportPlans

DRAFT


As we look at Year 1, campuses were asked to start small by identifying one partnership. The function of this request was to establish much success in this first year of implementation to motivate others to be a part of this service delivery model change. The Special Education Administrative Team will provide the level of coaching and support needed to move partnerships to the next phase. Building the collaborative relationship between the general education and special education teacher takes time. New teams need to spend time focusing on developing their relationships so a mutual sense of collaboration can be established. As reflected below in the Phases of Co-Teaching identified by Stetson & Associates, current identified partnerships for the 2016-17 school year that reach Phase 2 of their relationships will indicate success. The development of a Phase 3 relationship will occur in Year 2 for highly effective / exemplar partnerships.

Stetson and Associates, 2016

DRAFT


FULL IMPLEMENTATION STAGE

Full Implementation will be reached when 50% or more of the collaborative partnerships are functioning in Phase 3 with fidelity and positive outcomes. This will be measured by the Co-Teach Observation tool, retention of partnerships from year to year, and locally created affective measures. In the Full Implementation Stage, utilizing Co-Teach as an additional inclusive service delivery model will be the standard way for partnerships to routinely provide high quality instruction as campuses strive to educate all students to reach their potential. The Special Education Administrative Team will remain an essential contributor to the ongoing success of utilizing Co-Teach as an instructional delivery method. The work of the Special Education Administrative Team will be to ensure that the gains of effective collaborative partnerships are maintained and improved over time and through future transitions of both leaders and campus staff.

SUCCESS STORIES

SECONDARY

Bowie MS – This partnership has been together for 2 years and this year they are a formal Co-Teach class. Both teachers have had ownership of the instruction in the class from day 1. Baines MS – This is the partnership’s second year together. The general education teacher takes more of the lead instructionally, however the special education teacher is seen as an equal and gives input on the modifications and accommodations needed to support student learning. This partnership has attempted all models of Co-Teach with much success and were highlighted in the Special Education Newsletter October issue. Missouri City MS – Principal Kammerman is very thoughtful on what partnerships were chosen. She has been reflective and already thinking about planning for next year. After the principal attended the Authentic Collaboration training, she said she walked away knowing what things the campus is doing well and what things need to change for next year. She is very realistic about the implementation on Co-Teach at Missouri City Middle School and looking forward to watching it develop through the years. Austin HS – There is a science partnership that worked together providing In-Class Support last year. The special education teacher has previous experience in Co-Teach. This partnership works very well together, as the special education and general education teachers both have a science background and both take ownership of the instruction for the class.

ELEMENTARY

Mission Bend Elementary-This campus has an excited Co-Teach team that have worked to integrate all of the models of teaching. They have common planning time and a shared investment in the students. Though the partnerships are new, they are working to build strong relationships and Co-Teach teams for the success of all of their students. Rita Drabek Elementary-Principal Wendy Nunez has lead the excitement for Co-Teach on this campus. The teams are working successfully and Special Education teachers are included in campus curriculum and instruction planning as well as part of the PLCs. These Co-Teach teams volunteered to be the first to participate in the second round of training with Stetson which includes planning and peer observations. Sienna Crossing Elementary-This campus is excelling with Co-Teach. Principal Jeanne Sniffin has a strong belief and commitment to this type of collaboration. Her campus has been working on this for several years and their efforts are seen on day one. In the first few weeks of school the teachers were already at a strong phase 2. The teachers share common planning and observations show that they are using parallel teaching and station teaching successfully. The 4th grade Co-Teach class is also part of the blended learning (Proof of Concept) pilot class. Palmer Elementary-This campus has worked thoughtfully through the transition and implementation of Co-Teach. Principal Kellie Clay attended the Authentic Collaboration training to be abreast of what was expected. She has said, “If I knew then what I know now I would have been better prepared.” The campus has restructured their Co-Teach teams to meet the needs of students and build strong partnerships. She is willing to do what it takes.

DRAFT


APPENDIX A

C0-TEACH DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

HIGH SCHOOL EXAMPLE

MIDDLE SCHOOL EXAMPLE DRAFT


ELEMENTARY EXAMPLE

DRAFT


CO-TEACH OBSERVATION TOOL

DRAFT


CO-TEACH CRITICAL ELEMENTS CHECKLIST – ELEMENTARY EXAMPLE

DRAFT


It was a pleasure to visit your class and see effective collaborative teaching. The CHAMPS expectations were reviewed for the lesson with the whole group. The teachers had an equal role in the classroom.

What is the General Education Teacher doing / saying? The general education teacher is working with half of the class on nouns and proper nouns. She utilized a power point that thoughtfully paced the learning. She created it to be interactive and varied. Students first had to identify nouns from a set of words, then from a multiple choice and finally in a sentence. The learning built and progressed effectively. The teacher was asking questions, probing students for deeper responses. “Which of these words are

nouns? “How do you know?” “What is a noun?” “What makes it a proper noun?”

What is the Special Education Teacher doing / saying? The special education teacher is working with the other half of the class. She is guiding the students in a discussion about nouns and proper nouns. The teacher had prepared word cards that students used to identify nouns then

additional cards used to classify the nouns into categories. The teacher asked questions, had students explain their choices and had peers agree/disagree. “What does your card say?” “What kind of noun is that?” “Do you all agree with her?” “Is cave a place?” the tasks provided practice, understanding and extended the learning. The teacher monitored student participation and behavior.

What are the students doing / saying? The students divided into 2 groups quickly and were aware of the expectations. The students in each group were engaged (participating, volunteering answers, initiating responses) and enthusiastic. The variation of the tasks, in each group, allowed the students multiple ways of learning, practicing and showing their understanding. Students

were excited to use seasonal and personal words as it was relevant. “I got bat!” “I got vampire!” “I got Scanlan Oaks!” “I’m a proper noun because I am Sean!”

The teachers switched groups and the students were able to participate in both learning activities. The parallel grouping provided for smaller groups and greater teacher attention. The students had various ways to learn and

practice and their behavior was appropriate and well managed.

DRAFT


CO-TEACH CRITICAL ELEMENTS CHECKLIST – SECONDARY EXAMPLE

DRAFT


What is the General Education Teacher doing / saying?

Ms. Meyer led a review from previous learning. She frontloaded students on the station teaching that was about to occur. Ms. Meyer led the station using concrete objects. She asked probing questions and higher order questions. She allowed partnering of students. She monitored the independent station as she facilitated her concrete station. Movement of the students in between stations went well with her directions.

What is the Special Education Teacher doing / saying?

Ms. Damon handed out needed materials as Ms. Meyer reviewed previous learning. Ms. Damon led a higher order thinking group. Her explanation to students was clear as it appeared all students were engaged and answering questions out loud and on their papers. Ms. Damon continuously monitored the independent station as well.

What are the students doing / saying?

Students were engaged, answering questions. Students were helping each other when in the stations. It was obvious there was a relationship between students and both teachers. Students were asking for clarification from both teachers.

DRAFT


CHECKPOINT DATA ANALY SIS – SPECIAL EDUCATION

Elementary Data: https://fortbend-my.sharepoint.com/personal/stephanie_burns_fortbendisd_com/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?guestaccesstoken=oBSqqBmcOSx2p7HUe7J2%2bVGUWoT9xYcLxdCKg%2fHsQ6Q%3d&docid=2_1b8cd3e456e564479b48fd7d72948af84&rev=1

Secondary Data: https://fortbend-my.sharepoint.com/personal/stephanie_burns_fortbendisd_com/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?guestaccesstoken=G3IRPPxpFLVijPBX0KrSOIzornMwPVqx5CRWfscIkIo%3d&docid=2_1d360cde540c74420910e7ed9943a8349&rev=1

DRAFT

https://fortbend-my.sharepoint.com/personal/stephanie_burns_fortbendisd_com/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?guestaccesstoken=oBSqqBmcOSx2p7HUe7J2%2bVGUWoT9xYcLxdCKg%2fHsQ6Q%3d&docid=2_1b8cd3e456e564479b48fd7d72948af84&rev=1




https://fortbend-my.sharepoint.com/personal/stephanie_burns_fortbendisd_com/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?guestaccesstoken=G3IRPPxpFLVijPBX0KrSOIzornMwPVqx5CRWfscIkIo%3d&docid=2_1d360cde540c74420910e7ed9943a8349&rev=1




COORDINATED SUPPORT PLAN - Elementary & Secondary Examples

DRAFT


DRAFT

FBISD PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW FORM · 2017-02-01 · LGE 1 1 of 1 SOE 3 2 of 3 HRE 1 0 of 1 SE 2 0...

Documents

Transcript of FBISD PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW FORM · 2017-02-01 · LGE 1 1 of 1 SOE 3 2 of 3 HRE 1 0 of 1 SE 2 0...