Jill Gumz

ED8010 Dr. Martin

April 10, 2023

Co-teaching Intervention Model Development:

A Data to Cohort Coaching Approach

“Evaluate the Model” and “Close the Gaps.” On the first day on the job as a new math
coach, my new boss, the Secondary Curriculum Director at RCS, charged me with two tasks.
Evaluate the Model. Close the Gaps. Specifically, the charge was to address Algebra 1. The
Algebra 1 course for our incoming 9th graders has so much wonder, beauty and potential, but it
also has quite a complicated history.

The overview of successfully developing an Algebra 1 co-teaching model through a

cohort coaching model begins with too much failure. Historically, Algebra 1 is the course across
the district with the most failures. At the critical age of 14, students are balancing one of the
most foundational math courses from which the rest of their math careers and experiences
could build from. Student math identities as well as pathways stem from the successes and
stumblings in this course. While in my 17 years of teaching high school math, I have both
witnessed and experienced different methods of “intervening” and “supporting” students through
this course. There have been many attempts to classify students as “haves and have nots”
when it comes to Algebra readiness, often leading to support that lowers the bar considerably
compared to “on-level” peers, such as pre-algebra, algebra “lite” classes, and extended algebra
courses. In these cases, very rarely are students ever re-enrolled to on-level courses,
suggesting a “widening of the gap” instead of “closing it”. With new state math expectations and
common core standards, the push for all students to complete Algebra 2 before graduation led
to a district change to have all general education students enrolled in Algebra 1 in their 9th
grade year. Having all students enrolled in this on-level course had its champions as well as
skeptics. With all students on-level, we were a step closer from “de-tracking” and providing all
students with the seat time in the on-level Algebra 1 course and pathway. On the other hand,
many students struggled to pass and attempts to provide intervention models were needed. In
RCS, we adopted a “Math Lab” model, where students identified as at risk through varying
processes of test scores, homework scores, and recommendations, would be placed in an
 Gumz 2

additional hour of math support. Many teachers supported this extra time and support with a
smaller class size, the time to develop stronger relationships, and try more practice with this
targeted intervention time. However, results were mixed. As a Math Lab teacher, I loved this
carved out day to work with my most at risk students. And while my students enjoyed our class,
shared very positive perceptions of me and our class, and passed Algebra 1, there was very
little growth in the realm of “math identity” and students very rarely “graduated out” of math lab
support. These students, whose least favorite subject was math, now spent 2 of 6 classes, or ⅓
of their school day working with this material…at the expense of taking an elective. Across the
district some math labs didn’t work at all and students not only failed Algebra 1, but also their
math lab class. Math lab seemed like a Tier 3 support that did provide help to many students,
but at what cost to the “whole child” and their math identity of being scheduled as a pull-out
“struggling math student”? Then in 2020-2021, not only were Algebra 1 and Geometry teachers
learning to teach online during the Covid-19 Pandemic, but a new model was being introduced.
Instead of the math lab model, two math teachers would teach one class together. 2 teachers in
one class of approximately ⅓ to ½ of students would be marked for intervention. While
teachers acknowledged the advantage of students taking an elective, there was very little buy in
that this new model would work. How would teachers carve out the time they were given to
work with students like they did in the math lab extra hour like before? What would two math
teachers do differently that one couldn’t do? So co-teaching teams across the district tried
different approaches and yielded extremely different results. In his first year, the new RCS
Curriculum Director initiated a data dig among the Learning Consultants and Administrators
across the three main high schools and found that most co-teaching classes still had students
marked for intervention failing. A revamp was in order. So, he hired me, a new math coach,
and sent me to do whatever we needed to “evaluate the model” and “close the gaps”.

In a systems inventory process, I met with each of the three high schools separately, and
their building math and learning support teams: building principal, learning consultant, special
education consultant, math department head, and counselor representative. From this
inventory I found that all schools had shifted from a math lab detracking model to the push-in
model in an on-level course. However, teachers in the co-teaching model have gaps in their
own learning, intervention capacity, training, and partnerships. Thus model implementation and
student learning impacts varied widely across each different co-teaching pair. The model
couldn’t yet be evaluated, because a “model” didn’t yet exist. I aimed to establish a systemic
way to build collective capacity as a district team and have sustained support to develop these
 Gumz 3

partnerships and classrooms. Our model seemed similar to what we see in “American public
education [that] is epitomized by privacy and isolation” (Fink & Markholt, 2011, p.10). This lack
of coherence and collaboration was obvious in the different ways the two teachers existed in the
model across the district and how the student experience, and impact, was so different. I
needed to create a way to coach, not just individual teams, but a collective group. We needed
to make changes in our pd model, because “If we accept the argument that public practice and
critical feedback are essential components and catalysts for the development of expertise, then
the the culture of schooling--at least how it manifests everyday in most American public schools
--stands in stark contrast to the conditions necessary to grow expertise” (Fink & Markholt, 2011,
p. 10).

To begin to support and build this co-teaching model, I used Bernhardt’s (1999) model
that frames an analysis tool using four major measures of data: Demographics, Process,
Perception, and Student Learning/Achievement. Using this framework, “the information gleaned
from the intersections of these four measures…helps to define questions we want to ask and
focuses us on what data are necessary to find answers” (Bernhardt, 1999, p. 1). In gathering
Demographic Data, I used our Panorama Data System to find our Algebra 1 Demographics for
each of our high schools.

Two of our high schools are made up of students pulling from the north end of the community
which is seemingly less diverse than High School 2, which is made up of students from the
south end of the Rochester Area. High School 1 has approximately 7% students marked for
 Gumz 4

free and reduced lunch, whereas High School 2 has about 24% and High School 3 has about
13%.

Using first semester data, I then looked at the Intersection of Demographic Data and the
Achievement Data from Panorama, which groups students as either Excelling, On-Track, At
Risk, or Critical. While students reporting as Mixed Race seemed to perform slightly lower
compared to the total, other demographic categories of student data seemed to follow similar
percentages to each achievement category when compared to the total. Using Bernhardt’s
(1999) intersections to guide question forming, I wondered what other significant student
categories existed among the failure list. There were two groups that had considerably more
students marked “Critical” compared to the overall total; students identified as ELL, were
anywhere from 6-25% of student failures in Algebra 1 in the district, and New students to the
district, made up 23-42% of the students on the Algebra 1 failure lists. Inspired by the case
study “Race Accountability and the Achievement Gap” ( Childress et al., 2007), I used this cross
section to highlight the need to have “high expectations for all all students” and “that it’s OK to
have specific strategies in place for underperforming minority students” (Childress et al., 2007,
p. 410). This differentiation focus for specific learners later became the focus for our 4th
session of PD and 4th pillar of developing the co-taught model baseline.

The process to begin developing a true co-teaching baseline model was inspired by a
Boston Public Schools Case Study ( Childress et al., 2007) in which Superintendent Thomas
Payzant lead an initiative in 2000 called Focus on Children utilizing the “Six Essentials of Whole
School Improvement: Effective Instruction, Student Work and Data, Professional Development,
Shared Leadership, Resources, and Families and Communities ( Childress et al., 2007 p. 134).
With the Cohort Coaching model, I assembled all of the teachers in a high school co-teaching
role and scheduled 4 pullout PD days, 1 per quarter. In addition, these PD sessions were
paired with before and after coaching push-in support on a bi-weekly basis, utilizing Fink’s
suggested methods of Cognitive coaching (Fink & Markholt, 2011, 194) as well as Content
coaching, where coaches “seek to understand who the teacher is as a learner, a thinker, a
teacher, and a person and use this understanding to guide choices about coaching strategies”
(Fink & Markholt, 2011,199). We would center on effective instruction that would be driven by
their initial perception data as well as a small team from this group that I would take to Oakland
Schools’ Secondary Math Intervention Series focused on cognitive science access strategies
and differentiation. I developed a data protocol to help make the Panorama Student Perception
Data intersect with Achievement Data and link it to possible Tier 1.5 strategies teachers could
 Gumz 5

implement. This investment in professional development to improve instruction within our model
also led to the development of shared leadership. While I facilitated the 4 days, different
teachers from our Oakland Schools Intervention series would work with me to add content from
these sessions and co-facilitate. In addition, the teacher perception data and feedback was
continuously gathered, in addition to student achievement and perception data, and Panorama
cross- checks. The topics generated were then the focus at each session and allowed our team
to build and articulate what the “co-teaching model” is. We created 4 “pillars'' at our last session
for this school year: 1) Utilize co-teaching models for targeted differentiation, 2) Intentionally
implement Access Strategies daily for Engagement that leads to more opportunities to respond
and get feedback 3) Re-engagement and Extension is built during the class period systemically
4) Differentiation for specific learning groups. As our process continues to evolve, the
monitoring of our system, communication, and capacity building is a constant. Our Co-teaching
Cohort has year long connectedness with push-in classroom support. This work is impacted by
the work my Oakland Schools Intervention team engages in and brings back. Then the data
collection and Systems Goals are reviewed and communicated with the building teams and
stakeholders.

The Perception Data for both students and teachers is important as we build and
continue to support and grow this model. Initial student perception data from students in our
Panorama platform showed that in all schools, about 20% of the students in co-taught surveyed
 Gumz 6

without identifying any areas of strength in Emotional Regulation, Social Awareness, or Growth
Mindset. With this perception data in mind, as part of the Data protocol, Data to Tier 1.5 moves,
we used the cross section of this perception with academic data to target ways we can create
sense of belonging in the classroom, both personally and academically using specific strategies
such as different types of “launches” versus warm-ups and connect for 5 minutes 5 days in a
row to 10 days with a connect and academic onboard question. I am also currently working on
crafting perception surveys for students in our co-taught classes for the end of the year, with a
goal to later include all algebra 1 and even senior exit.

Teacher perception data is also telling about the “growth” of our co-teaching group. In
our first survey of what teachers wanted to work on, teachers mainly left teaching and grading
topics blank, but requested only time to plan. However, with each new session, the requests for
information and learning experiences covered almost all the topics, specifically differentiation
and even grading practices, which has historically been seen as a “taboo” topic. This
perception data highlights that the capacity building is happening as teachers are articulating a
willingness to engage in more learning and topics. In their final feedback survey of the year,
teachers unanimously requested that these pullout pds continue, and asked for continued
support through future coaching cycles and teacher labs, each individual naming ambitious
goals for their own classrooms and practices for this and next school year. Perhaps the teacher
perception data that provides the most evidence for learning is that all teachers marked
themselves as being confident in articulating what co-teaching entails, as well as provided
responses in the “what i used to think/ now i think co-teaching is” responses. Moving from
saying I used to think co-teaching is “two teachers in one class” or “Worse than the lab program”
to “a coordinated, strategic team effort to creatively target interventions and extensions for ALL of
our students” and “a dynamic process that is beneficial for all stakeholders (course, teacher,
student, future teachers, parents). It has both short-term and long-term benefits. Students that are
meant to be a part of it have the amazing opportunity to grow and improve. Students that end up in
the program by chance have the same opportunity.” Teachers see themselves growing, as well as
ALL of their students.

Quarter 1 Teacher Response Quarter 2 Teacher Response

 Gumz 7

Quarter 4

In regards to achievement data for Semester 1, we identified almost 33% of our students
in Algebra 1 were “critical” with an E grade in a marking period or exam score. However, by the
end of the semester, the passing rate was 96%, 90.6%, and 94% at each high school. For our
students marked for intervention in co-taught, the passing rates were 95%, 62%, and 83%. So
while there is improvement overall, we have more work to do!

Moving forward, we have now created a true cohort team that has worked to build a
model that we can define as the four pillars. But as I shared in our last session, these are “wet
cement” in that these are baseline supports from which we can continue to develop and
innovate on top of. We have identified through our different types of data a need to target new
students, ELL students, absent students, and Increase our capacity in Global Supports. There
still is a great need to identify clear articulated standards across the district in all Math,
especially Algebra 1 from which to measure and grow (Goodwin, 2011, p. 53). One challenge in
moving forward instructionally has been that different content is being covered at the different
high schools in some units and even within the high schools, which has resulted in some
teacher versus teacher bullying over content inclusion and teaching strategy. As I work with the
definition of an effective teacher being a “warm-demander” (Goodwin, 2011, p. 53) who sees
strong student relationships as a “complement to setting high expectations for learning”
(Goodwin, 2011, p. 23-24), continued efforts to build our growth mindset in our students starts
with developing our formative assessment systems and grading practices. We need to
continue building our teaching capacity in Tier 1 (or 1.5!) for all students and identified specific
learners, as well as continue integrating Re-engagement opportunities, and growing our
collective capacity in Assessment and Grading Practices. As we look to target Algebra 1 failures
 Gumz 8

specifically, these areas of growth can be seen as “every defect a treasure” (Goodwin, 2011, p.
145) to help us develop overlapping protocols to provide ways we can intervene. Continuing PD
with these in mind, through teacher labs and deepening our understanding and skills within the
4 pillars will be crucial as we onboard new co-teaching teams next year and also extend existing
partners. I believe next year’s cohort PD will be a great opportunity to model differentiated
learning as I work to “differentiate” PD with both new and returning teams! One additional PD
will be an August partnership development and on-boarding to the co-teaching model training.
In addition, we have worked this year to use a shared leadership process with building
department heads, learning consultants, admin, counselors, teachers, and me (the math coach)
to create and communicate a placement process for these interventions, with a more “child find”
type identification process.

To communicate our work in this cohort, I have organized with the Learning Consultants
and Building Math Department Head and HS Principal quarterly meetings to review data, cohort
learning projects, and next steps. As we have initiated our teacher labs among our cohort, I
would like to continue this work with teachers as well as to develop an administrator lab to
communicate the strategies and differentiation in the co-taught model. From this work in our
co-teacher model, I would like to use these classes as future labs for all Algebra 1 teachers, as I
work to develop a full Algebra 1 cohort next year.

Using Bernhardt’s (1999) 4 measures of data and intersecting framework has led to the
beginning of a movement in Algebra 1 intervention in RCS, through the model of co-teaching
and the development of a cohort coaching support system. The beauty of examining this work
lies in the questions, discoveries and reflections that continue to help us examine ourselves, our
classrooms, and our systems. We have found areas to build teacher capacity, and have formed
a true collaborative and now mobilized team centered on student data to impact. We have
closed some teacher gaps, by bringing teachers closer together in time, space, and professional
learning support in coaching and cohort. We have begun the hard work of finding gaps in our
system and student learning, challenging our preconceptions and discovering new “treasures” to
continue us on the path of “taking frequent and small steps on the path to improvement”
(Goodwin, 2011, p. 145). Evaluating Systems and Closing Gaps is continuous work. But the
payoff is not only exciting--it’s critical! Moving from failure to positively impacting student
learning and thinking in ways that develop both content growth and student math identity will
create generations of students eager to lean in and solve multitudes of problems well beyond
our classrooms.
 Gumz 9

References

Bernhardt, V. (1999) Data Analysis for Comprehensive School Improvement. Larchmont, NY:

Eye on Education.

Childress, S., Elmore, R.F., Grossman, A. and Johnson, S.M. (2007). Managing School

Districts for High Performance: Cases in Public Education Leadership. Cambridge:

Harvard Education Press.

Goodwin, B. (2011) Simply Better: Doing What Matters Most to Change the Odds for Student

Success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

(ISBN # 978-1-4166-1295-7)

Fink, Stephen, Markholt, Anneke (2011) Leading for Instructional Improvement; How Successful

Leaders Develop Teaching and Learning Expertise. (ISBN # 978-0-470-54275-0)