Supervising Co-Teaching

Teams: Whose Line Is It

Anyway?

Your name here

Date, location, etc.
Session Overview
• Introduction to national assistance
centers and The Access Center
• Introduction to co-teaching
• Planning for and scheduling co-teaching
• Suggestions for administrators
• Observing and evaluating co-teaching
teams
• Co-Teaching Rating Scale (CTRS)
• Case study
The Access Center’s
Mission
To provide technical assistance that
strengthens state and local capacity
to help students with disabilities
learn through general education
curriculum.
What is “Access”?
• Active learning of the content and skills
that define the general education
curriculum
• Supports to improve access
– Instructional and learning goals
– Research-based instructional methods and
practices
– Research-based materials and media
– Research-based supports and
accommodations
– Appropriate assessment and documentation
Where to Begin: Building
Bridges
Walking across the bridge, leaving the
familiar ground of working alone, is the
first act of collaboration. All parties are in
neutral territory, with the security of
knowing they can return to land better,
stronger, and changed. And perhaps they
will return to the same side of the bridge
even though they started from opposite
sides.
From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
Collaboration Won’t Just
Happen
• Deliberate
• Structured
• Systematic
• Ongoing

From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Why Won’t It Just
Happen?
• General educators begin with the
curriculum first and use
assessment to determine what was
learned.
• Special educators begin with
assessment first and design
instruction to repair gaps in
learning.
• No wonder we are talking different
From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
languages.
How Can We Work With
This?
• Provide purpose and structure
• Create baseline and a plan for
scaffolded change
• Provide a visual map to guide discussion
• Keep discussions objective and data
driven
• Allow many issues to be put on the
table for consideration
From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
What Have We Learned?
• General educators are more
receptive to change when they
have background knowledge and a
chance to participate in the
decisions rather than being given a
special education mandate to
follow.

From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

What Have We Learned?
(cont.)
• Parent concerns decrease when
special and general education
practices are aligned and when
data is shared and used to identify
how students are progressing in
the general education domain first.

From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Aligning Practices
Through Co-Teaching
• Co-teaching is becoming one of the
fastest growing inclusive school
practices.
• Despite this rapid increase in
popularity, co-teaching remains
one of the most commonly
misunderstood practices in
education.
From Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
Defining Co-Teaching
• Co-teaching occurs when two or
more professionals jointly deliver
substantive instruction to a
diverse, or blended, group of
students in a single physical space.

Cook & Friend, 1995

Three Major Models
• Consultant Model
• Coaching Model
• Collaborative (or Teaming) Model

Friend & Cook, 2003

Most Common
Approaches
• One Teaching, One Drifting
• Parallel Teaching
• Station Teaching
• Alternative Teaching
• Team Teaching

Friend & Cook, 2003

One Teaching, One Drifting
• One teacher plans and instructs, and
one teacher provides adaptations and
other support as needed.
• Requires very little joint planning
• Should be used sparingly
– Can result in one teacher, most often the
general educator, taking the lead role the
majority of the time
– Can also be distracting to students,
especially those who may become
dependent on the drifting teacher
Friend & Cook, 2003
Parallel Teaching
• Teachers share responsibility for
planning and instruction.
• Class is split into heterogeneous groups,
and each teacher instructs half on the
same material.
• Content covered is the same, but
methods of delivery may differ.
• Both teachers need to be proficient in
the content being taught.
Friend & Cook, 2003
Station Teaching
• Teachers divide the responsibility of
planning and instruction.
• Students rotate on a predetermined
schedule through stations.
• Teachers repeat instruction to each
group that comes through; delivery may
vary according to student needs.
• Approach can be used even if teachers
have very different pedagogical
approaches.
• Each teacher instructs every student.
Friend & Cook, 2003
Alternative Teaching
• Teachers divide responsibilities for
planning and instruction.
• The majority of students remain in a
large group setting, but some students
work in a small group for preteaching,
enrichment, reteaching, or other
individualized instruction.
• Approach allows for highly
individualized instruction to be offered.
• Teachers should be careful that the
same students are not always pulled
aside. Friend & Cook, 2003
Team Teaching
• Teachers share responsibilities for
planning and instruction.
• Teachers work as a team to introduce
new content, work on developing skills,
clarify information, and facilitate
learning and classroom management.
• This requires the most mutual trust and
respect between teachers and requires
that they be able to mesh their teaching
styles.
Friend & Cook, 2003
Sounds Good . . . Now What?

Getting Co-Teaching Started at

the Building and Classroom
Levels
Considerations
• Teachers need to volunteer and agree
to
co-teach.
• Co-teaching should be implemented
gradually.
• Attention needs to be given to IEP
setting changes that an inclusive
classroom may invoke.
• Goals and support services need to
reflect
the new learning experiences that
students will receive in general
Murawski & Dieker, 2004
education classes.
Not an All-or-Nothing
Approach
• Teachers do not have to commit to only
one approach of co-teaching.
• Teachers do not have to only co-teach.
• Co-teaching is not the only option for
serving students.
• Some students with disabilities may be
in a co-taught classroom for only part of
the day.
Murawski, 2005
Limitations and Potential
Drawbacks
• Co-teaching is not easy to maintain in
schools.
• There may not be enough special
educators for a co-teaching program.
• Co-taught classrooms may be
disproportionately filled with students
with disabilities.
• Special educators can function more as
a teaching assistant than as a co-
educator.
Friend & Cook, 2003
Benefits of Collaboration
• Shared responsibility for educating
all students
• Shared understanding and use of
common assessment data
• Supporting ownership for programming
and interventions
• Creating common understanding
• Data-driven problem solving

Friend & Cook, 2003

Action Steps
Administrators should:
• Provide information and encourage
proactive preparation from teachers
• Assess level of collaboration currently
in place
• Pre-plan
• Implement slowly . . . baby steps!

Murawski, 2005
Planning and Scheduling
Considerations
• Co-teaching requires thoughtful
planning time.
• Administrative support is essential.
• Here is where the alignment of special
and general education occurs, as well as
the alignment of assessment and
instruction.
• School-level scheduling should be done
after student needs have been
Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002
identified.
Provide Weekly
Scheduled
Co-Planning Time
• Co-teaching teams should have a
minimum of one
scheduling/planning period (45–60
minutes) per week.
• Experienced teams should spend
10 minutes to plan each lesson.

Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

District-Level Planning
Issues
District-level planning:
• Helps to reduce duplication of
effort
• Facilitates communication within
the system and in the larger
community
• Fosters better cooperation and
collaborationWalther-Thomas,
among schools Bryant, & Land, 1996
District-Level Planning
Task Force
• Administrators
• Teacher leaders
• Related services professionals
• Families
• Other appropriate representatives
from community agencies

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

District-Level Planning
Task Force (cont.)
• District-level planning ensures that
potential consequences are considered
before new programs and services are
implemented, for example:
– How will the implementation of co-teaching
on one seventh-grade team effect other
seventh-grade teams?
– How will it impact the elementary and high
school programs?

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Building-Level Planning
Issues
• Communicate administrative support
and leadership
• Select capable and willing participants
• Provide ongoing staff development
• Establish balanced classroom rosters
• Provide weekly scheduled co-planning
time
• Develop appropriate individualized
education plans (IEPs)
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
 Suggestions for
Administrators Regarding
Co-Teaching
Perspective Matters
Depending on the orientation of
supervisor, the same co-taught
lesson could be viewed in
diametrically opposing ways.

Wilson, 2005
The two teachers looked at each other in disbelief. One was a tenured secondary
English teacher who had taught for 6 years in this large middle-class, suburban high
school. The other was a first year special education teacher who recently received
her master’s degree. They had been co-teaching a ninth grade English class for 4
months, and although the beginning weeks were a bit overwhelming, they were
rather proud of their cooperative and respectful relationship. They had been co-
planning, co-grading, and co-teaching, and they were certain the class would go
well. The students responded to the co-teachers’ combined efforts, and both social
and academic progress were noted for all students in the class.
The teachers were looking at their observation reports. The special education and
English chairpersons had decided to observe the co-teaching class at the same
time. The special education teacher read her report: It was glowing. Her supervisor
recognized the adaptations that were made in the materials, saw that she worked
with individual students, observed her contribution to the teaching of the mini-
lesson, noted the parity she enjoyed with her co-teacher, and acknowledged the
acceptance and respect of her students.
The general education teacher held back tears as she read her write-up. How could
this be? She had never received an unsatisfactory observation and prided herself on
her competency in the classroom. Her supervisors had repeatedly recognized her
skills as a teacher. She read through the comments—her chairperson thought there
hadn’t been enough time spent developing the content of the lesson and that the
student group work detracted from more formal delivery of content. The chair also
felt that the general education teacher had relinquished too much of her role as
content specialist to the special education teacher and noted there was too much
interaction between the co-teachers.
Communicate
Administrative Support
and Leadership
• Principal support, understanding, and
involvement serve as pivotal factors in
lasting success (Barth, 1990; Pugach &
Johnson, 1990).
• Effective principals provide vision,
recognition, and encouragement during
the implementation process (Adams &
Cessna, 1991; Barth, 1990; Chalfant &
Pysh, 1989; Fullan, 1993).
Select Capable and
Willing Participants
• Teachers who are viewed as leaders by their
colleagues
• Willing to make the commitment of additional
time and effort
• Select capable volunteers for co-teaching
assignments
• Both members of the team must be capable
contributors.
• Participants should make a good faith
commitment
to work together for a minimum of 2 years.

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Provide Ongoing Staff
Development
• Teachers should have 3–5 days of preparation
before classroom implementation.
• Sessions should provide instruction related to:
– Effective co-planning
– Co-teaching models
– Student scheduling
– Instructional considerations
– Ongoing performance assessment
– Interpersonal communication
• Sessions should also allow time for partners to
discuss concerns, solve problems, and
formulate initial implementation plans.
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Provide Ongoing Staff
Development (cont.)
• Provide ongoing skill development and support
• Encourage participation in college courses,
summer workshops, and professional
conferences
• Encourage site visits to model programs
• Support monthly problem-solving meetings
with other co-teachers
• Encourage building administrators to
participate jointly with co-teaching teams in
staff development events

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Establish Balanced
Classroom Rosters
• School teams need to carefully
assess student needs and available
resources.
• In a class of 25 students, no more
than 6 students should have
identified disabilities in the mild to
moderate range.

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Develop Appropriate IEPs
• Attention needs to be given to
setting changes that an inclusive
classroom may invoke.
• Goals and support services need to
reflect the new learning
experiences that students will
receive in general education
classes.
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Observing and Evaluating
Co-Teaching Teams
Critical Components for
Evaluating a Co-Taught
Classroom
• What makes a good lesson?
• Are there components of a co-
taught lesson that require unique
perspectives in order to be
evaluated effectively?

Wilson, 2005
What Makes a Good
Lesson?
• Lessons that are student-centered
• Recognition of diverse learning
styles
of students
• Questions that tap high-order
thinking
• Engagement of students and
evidence that students are not on 2005
Wilson,
task
What Makes a Good
Lesson (cont.)
• Makes use of materials that are
useful and available
• Pays attention to motivation
• Incorporates awareness of
transitions
• Contains aims that are open-ended

Wilson, 2005
What Makes a Good
Lesson (cont.)
• Summarizes at the middle and end
of the lesson
• Provides activities that apply the
information
• Makes connections to students’
experiences
• Fosters positive student–teacher
relationships
Wilson, 2005
What Makes a Good
Lesson (cont.)
• Makes appropriate use of
technology
• Adheres to state standards
• Reinforces previously learned and
new material
• Promotes positive teacher–teacher
relationships
Wilson, 2005
Are There Components of a Co-Taught
Lesson That Require Unique
Perspectives
in Order to be Evaluated Effectively?
• Roles of the teachers
– The supervisor is to look at the roles
of
co-teachers, such as parallel
teaching; one teaching, one drifting;
station teaching; and alternative
team teaching.

Arguelles, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997

Are There Components of a Co-Taught
Lesson That Require Unique
Perspectives in Order to be Evaluated
Effectively? (cont.)
• Instructional strategies
– How are strategies incorporated into
a lesson? Evidence of co-planning
needs
to be easily seen through the
strategies and modification integrated
throughout
the lesson.

Wilson, 2005
Are There Components of a Co-Taught
Lesson That Require Unique
Perspectives in Order to be Evaluated
Effectively? (cont.)
• Assessment processes
– Is there a continuous and conscious
effort to assess student achievement?
Is there evidence of reflective
questioning?

Wilson, 2005
Questions to Consider
When Observing Co-
Teaching Teams
• Are co-teachers to be treated as one
and receive a single observation report?
• Could the special education supervisor
comment on the general educator’s
performance, even if the focus of the
observation was on the special
educator?
• Should the general and special
education supervisors observe the same
lesson?
Wilson, 2005
Questions to Consider When
Observing Co-Teaching Teams
(cont.)
• Should supervisors write one
observation? Are there different
performance criteria for the
general
and special educators?
• What criteria should be used to
judge teacher performance in a co-
taught class or program?
Wilson, 2005
Questions to Consider When
Observing Co-Teaching Teams
(cont.)
• What roles do teachers perform? Are
these roles meaningful?
• How often and for how long are
teachers interacting with each other?
• Who is initiating and ending these
interactions?
• What is the nature of these interactions
(e.g., cooperative, reciprocal,
supportive, complementary,
individualistic)?
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
Questions to Consider When
Observing Co-Teaching Teams
(cont.)
• Which students are the recipients of
these interactions?
• What are the outcomes of these
interactions for teachers and their
students?
• What factors appear to promote and
limit these interactions?
• How are these components
incorporated into an effective
observation tool?
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
Characteristics of an
Observation Tool
• Helps supervisors focus on essential
components of co-teaching
• Helps supervisors structure the writing
of their observation reports
• Sharing the guide with the co-teachers
in the pre-observation meeting fosters a
positive and trusting relationship
between supervisors and co-teachers
because expectations are clearly
defined. Wilson, 2005
Co-Teaching Rating Scale
(CTRS)
Co-Teaching Rating Scale
• Informal instrument for co-teachers and their
supervisors
• Examines the effectiveness of co-teaching
classrooms
• Helps focus on areas that need improvement
and on components that contribute to success
• Results can be used to develop co-teaching
model.
• Can be modified for use as part of supervisory
tool for examining effectiveness of co-teaching

Gately & Gately, 2001

Co-Teaching Rating Scale
• Three forms:
– One for special educator
– One for general educator
– One for supervisors
• Identifies a profile of strengths and weaknesses
• Focuses on components of co-teaching
relationship
• Determines the effectiveness of classroom
practices
• Facilitates the formulation of goals for improving
practice
Gately & Gately, 2001
• Refines strategies to improve and enhance
programs
Additional Tools, Guidelines,
and Strategies for Evaluating
Co-Teaching Teams
Interviews and Surveys
• Educators’ responses to surveys
can provide insight into strengths
and gaps in program.
• Can be:
– Likert-type format
– Qualitative, open-ended

Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002

Likert-Type Format
• I prefer to work in a cooperative
teaching team.
• I believe that students improve
educationally and socially when they
are taught by a cooperative teaching
team.
• I feel that our cooperative teaching
team shares responsibility for all
activities.
• I feel uncomfortable having another
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
adult in the classroom.
Likert-Type Format (cont.)
• I find it easy to communicate with
my cooperative teaching partner.
• I perform a subordinate role in our
cooperative teaching team.
• I feel that I have more work as a
result of working in a cooperative
teaching team.
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
Open-Ended Format
• How do you feel about working in a
cooperative teaching team?
• What factors contribute to the
success of your cooperative
teaching team?
• What problems has your
cooperative teaching team
encountered?
• What support, resources,
Salend, and
Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
training have been most helpful?
Least helpful?
Open-Ended Format
(cont.)
• How has your cooperative teaching
team affected your students?
• How do our students’ families and other
professionals feel about your
cooperative teaching team?
• Has working in a cooperative team
changed your roles? If so, in what ways?
• What school- and districtwide policies
have aided or hindered your
cooperative teaching team?
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
Best Practices Checklist
• Allows for self-evaluation on
various dimensions of collaborative
efforts
• Measures overall program quality
• Can be completed individually or
as
a co-teaching team
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
Best Practices Checklist:
Examples
• We blend each other’s abilities, values,
preferences, teaching styles,
educational philosophies, and cultural
perspectives.
• We discuss and agree on our program’s
objectives, curricula; assessment,
teaching, and classroom management
techniques; classroom schedules; and
grading criteria.
• We employ a range of cooperative
teaching instructional arrangements
that are basedSalend,
on theGordon,
lesson’s goals, 2002
& Lopez-Vona,
the type of the material to be taught,
and the needs of students.
Best Practices Checklist:
Examples (cont.)
• We vary our roles and share the
workload so that all team members
perform meaningful activities that are
recognized by others.
• We have sufficient time to
communicate, assess the effectiveness
of our program, and revise the program.
• We receive the planning time and
administrative support to work
successfully.
• We address all of our differences
immediately and directly.
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
These data can be analyzed to
identify program strengths,
educators’ concerns about their
cooperative teaching teams, and
possible solutions to these concerns
surrounding:

Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002

Use Evaluation Data to
Consider These Factors
• Attitudes about working in cooperative
teaching teams
• Satisfaction with their roles working in
cooperative teaching teams
• Success at working in cooperative
teaching teams
• Observations about the factors that
contribute to the success of their
cooperative teaching teams
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
Use Evaluation Data to
Consider These Factors
(cont.)
• Concerns about working in cooperative
teaching teams
• Beliefs about the effect of their
collaborative team on their students’
families and themselves
• Satisfaction with and needs in terms of
resources, planning time, support from
others, and training
• Satisfaction with school- and
districtwide cooperative teaching
policies and practices
Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002
Evaluating the Co-Teaching
Model
Evaluation
• Teachers and administrators should
evaluate co-teaching situations at least
once per year.
• The rule that assessment informs
instruction should also apply to co-
teaching: As
co-teachers continue to assess their
situation, they must ensure that they
are improving their instruction to best
meet students’
Murawski needs
& Dieker,in an inclusive
2004; Friend & Cook, 2003
classroom.
Geneseo Central School
District
• Rural
• Western New York state

Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004

School Characteristics
• Elementary school: Special and
general educators in a
heterogeneous classroom
• Middle school: Special educator at
each grade level and also a
teacher’s assistant for sixth grade

Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004

Elementary School
• One third of students have IEPs;
special educator provides
resources as a preventive measure
for those students who are not
classified.
• Student–teacher ratio is lowered.
• Students often have services
provided in classroom rather than
being pulled Wischnowski,
out. Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
Middle School
• Staff follows students with greater
academic needs through general
education classes
• Teacher’s assistant follows other
students.
• Teachers participate in advisory groups,
grade-level team meetings, and study
groups to facilitate communications
with peers.
Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
Evaluation of the
Co-Teaching Program
• Goals and objectives to be
evaluated
• Evaluation questions and methods
addressing the objectives
• Parent Survey Protocol
• Results

Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004

Evaluation Aided in:
• Assisting administrators in achieving
equilibrium with the reform
• Providing a vehicle for monitoring
program success
• Establishing structure for teachers to
explore alternative approaches to
teaching
• Allowing students new access to their
peers in the general education
Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004
curriculum
 Essential Ingredients for
Successful Collaboration:
From the Eyes of the
Practitioner to the Ears of
the Administrator
Involve the Administrator
From the Beginning
• Share long- and short-term
implementation strategies
• Share the research base that
supports co-teaching
• Share anticipated need for
resources

Rea, 2005
Involve the Administrator
From the Beginning
(cont.)
• Develop an “information sharing
community” or “community of practice”
• Determine the most effective methods
of communication between teams and
administrators
• Emphasize the importance of pre-
observation conferences
• Incorporate the co-teaching initiative
into the team’s annual professional
growth plan
Rea, 2005
Involve the Administrator
From the Beginning
(cont.)
• Set specific times for observation
• Encourage students to talk with
the administrator about the
benefits from learning in
collaborative classrooms
• Involve parents
• Encourage advice and feedback on
your performance from the
administrators, accept it Rea, 2005
graciously, and use it
Involve the Administrator
From the Beginning
(cont.)
• Inform administrators of any
problems or controversies related
to co-teaching efforts
– Teachers
– Support staff
– Parents
– Students

Rea, 2005
Suggestions for Success
• Accept responsibility if a mistake
results from your actions
• Videotape the class and share
particularly interesting segments
with the administrator
• Highlight student progress through
data
Rea, 2005
Suggestions for Success
(cont.)
• Volunteer the administrator (with
prior permission) to speak or serve
as a guest panelist in graduate
classes
• Co-author articles for publication
• Attend professional conferences
together
Rea, 2005
Suggestions for Success
(cont.)
• Immediately deal with any sense of
waning support
• Let the school be on the circuit of
site visits for teams learning about
co-teaching
• Spread the word about the
successes
Rea, 2005
“It could be argued with a good deal of
persuasiveness that when one looks
over
the history of man the most
distinguishing characteristic of his
development is the degree to which
man has underestimated
the potentialities of men” (Blatt &
Kaplan, 1974, p. 107).
References
• Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1991). Designing system to facilitate
collaboration: Collective wisdom from Colorado. Preventing
School Failure, 35(4), 37–42.
• Arguelles, M., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1997). The ABCDEs of
Co-Teaching. The Council For Exceptional Children: Teaching
Exceptional Children, 30(2). Available at http://www/idonline.com
• Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers,
parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
• Blatt, B., & Kaplan, F. (1974). Christmas in purgatory: A
photographic essay on mental retardation. Syracuse, NY: Human
Policy Press.
• Chafant, J., & Psyh, M. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five
descriptive studies. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49–
58.
• Friend, M., & Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills
for school professionals (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the depths of
educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
References
• Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J., Jr. (2001). Understanding co-teaching
components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40–47.
• Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1990). Fostering the continued
democratization of consultation through action research. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 13(3–4), 240–245.
• Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration
initiative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312–316.
• Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating
cooperative teaching teams. Intervention in School and Clinic,
37(4), 195–200.
• Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for
effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial
and Special Education, 17, 255–265.
• Wilson, G. L. (2005). This doesn’t look familiar! Intervention in
School and Clinic, 40(5), 271–275.
• Wischnowski, M. W., Salmon, S. J., & Eaton, K. (2004). Evaluating
co-teaching as a means for successful inclusion of students with
disabilities in a rural district. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
23(3), 3–14.
 Visit our Web site for more
information or to contact us:

http://www.K8accesscenter.or
g
The Access Center: Improving
Outcomes for All Students K–8

American Institutes for Research

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007