Arkansas Co-Teaching Project
August 2006
I. History
A. Support for the Inclusion Philosophy
1. Schools Are For All Kids (SAFAK) Training
2. Basic Information Activities
a) Marilyn Friend & Lynne Cook
b) Dean’s Symposium Link with higher education
c) University staff co-presenting 1 day Basic Co-Teaching
Training
B. Increased placement of students with disabilities in their LRE – a goal of
the Arkansas Performance Plan & SIG Involvement Research cites benefit of
increased job satisfaction of teachers link to teacher retention
1. Rationale for redesigning staff development design: availability of
staff development research – low application rate of basic training
design & lack of integrity in implementation impacts actualization of
benefits
2. ADE Created New Design – Co-Teaching Package 3 Phases with
implementation evaluation plan
II. Current Co-Teaching Project Design Spring 2005 & 2005-06 school year
A. Contracted with additional trainers and partnership with University of
Central Florida (UCF) staff
1. Dr. Lisa Dieker & Dr. Cynthia Pearl at UCF
2. Dr. Wendy Murawski, CA State U at Northridge as an additional
trainer
B. UCF Building leadership team training
1. Team Composition
a) Building Administrator
b) General education & special education partners
c) Critical support person for planning
2. Needs Assessment Michael Fulton’s Change Theory
Arkansas Co-Teaching Project
August 2006
a) Common vision
b) Incentive
c) Knowledge & skills
d) Resources
e) Action Plan
C. Dr. Dieker’s Co-teaching partnership training & follow-up celebration
1. Initial training - addressed attitudes, roles & responsibilities, &
classroom strategies
2. Follow-up celebration - opportunities to share strategies, 5 year
projection
D. Follow-up provided with web meeting, telephone/email consultation, and
final partnership follow-up training
1. Separate meetings for building leadership team and co-teaching
partnerships
2. Two additional meetings for co-teaching partnerships focused on
improving comprehension and increasing student engagement and
increasing active involvement of both partners in classroom
instruction using AR Next Step strategies
3. Additional resource 2006-07 e-learning community with web
based discussion group with threaded conversation capability
E. Process to evaluate implementation (Guskey’s research)
1. Rationale
a) Provided process for evaluating implementation planning
(integrity of model)
b) Districts evaluate their plans & revise as needed
c) ADE evaluate staff development design & content & revise
as needed
Arkansas Co-Teaching Project
August 2006
2. Evaluation Process
a) Participation Reactions – initial satisfaction: OSCAR
Software evaluation
b) Participants’ Learning – participant’s learning: OSCAR
Software follow-up surveys
c) Organization support & change:
(1) Pre/post Needs Assessment – UCF Dr. Pearl’s
instrument
(2) LRE – AR data system reported numbers by district
only – rely on self-reporting changes
d) Participants Use of New Knowledge & Skills:
(1) Teams –Pre/Post Action Planning Checklist
(2) Partnerships – Pre/post CO-ACT Colorado
Assessment of Co-Teaching
(3) Partnership volunteers – monthly lesson plan sample
e) Student Learning
(1) Problems with using state standardized tests
(2) Grades
Arkansas Co-Teaching Project
August 2006
The following data although representative of some teams that attended Arkansas’ 2005-06
three-phase co-teaching training is incomplete. A more through compilation of data will
be available in the fall of 2006. The data collection process will be refined for next year to
provide more accurate results. The issues below were identified for the purpose of assisting
the Arkansas Department of Education with revising its professional development design
and training content.
Participating building teams’ reported the following occurred as a result of their co-teaching
activities (preliminary results compiled by University Central Florida staff under the direction of
Dr. Lisa Dieker and Dr. Cynthia Pearl in spring 2006):

Doubled students with disabilities served in co-taught classes

Doubled number of special education and general education teachers involved in
co-taught instruction

75% of teams’ partnerships co-teach on daily basis

Percentage of teams reporting co-teaching occurring in the following subjects: 75%
English/language arts, 66% math, 25% social studies, 33% science

Students of all disability types except deaf/blind being served in at least one
participating building – student with learning disabilities most commonly served
Issues identified from Action Planning Checklist and portions of the Colorado Assessment of
Co-Teaching (CO-ACT) data for use in refining the Arkansas Department of Education’s (ADE)
training design (percentages are rough approximations and were compiled by ADE staff)

Not all building leadership teams continued to function beyond initial phase 1:
building leadership team training (based on names listed on data collection
instruments and technical assistance contacts)

Approximately 50% of teams have developed a building level common definition for
co-teaching

Less than 5% of parents & students involved with planning for implementation

Approximately 55% of teams were able to provide mutual planning time for their
co-teaching partnerships

Approximately 60% of teams have a plan for follow-up professional development
beyond what was provided by ADE (phase 2: co-teaching partnership training was
limited to 2-4 partnerships per building)

Despite participating in the ADE co-teaching evaluation process, approximately
50% of teams indicate they do not have a plan for evaluating their co-teaching
Arkansas Co-Teaching Project
August 2006
arrangements and implementation efforts although 65% of teams indicate coteaching has been included in their Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement
Plan (ACSIP); indicates lack of understanding about purpose of evaluation plan
and its potential benefits to teams

Scores on a selected portion of the Colorado Assessment of Co-Teaching (Co-ACT)
indicates that co-teachers do not perceive that instruction in co-taught classroom
differs from instruction taught by one general education teacher

Although 75% of teams indicate they have a plan for monitoring student progress,
the number of students with disabilities with failing grades warrants further
investigation to determine if co-teachers are using annual review conferences for
student failure situations

Approximately 90% teams have involvement of a building administrator and
general education and special education co-teachers in implementation planning;
75% also have district administrator involvement

Approximately 90% of teams have made necessary changes to support co-teaching
implementation including changes in school scheduling and identifying students,
staff, and subject areas for co-teaching

Approximately 90% of the teams indicate that students in co-taught classrooms are
representative of school population
Rose Merry Kirkpatrick
Susie Branon
501-682-4222